Radix on Christianity

Another profound post from Radix

The institutional Christianity that flourishes today is no longer the same religion as that practiced by Charlemagne and his successors, and it can no longer support the civilization they formed. Indeed, organized Christianity today is the enemy of the West and the race that created it.

When the Puritans claimed to be returning to the original Christianity, that was, unfortunately, exactly what they were doing – returning to Christianity as it was before Charlemagne.

I would recommend referring the Charles the Great as Charles the Great, rather than Charlemagne, and Charles the Hammer as Charles the Hammer, rather than Charles Martel, because these were the first major figures in history to have modern names, reminding us that they were the very start of yesterday’s European civilization.

205 Responses to “Radix on Christianity”

  1. jack says:

    Part of Charlemagne’s christianity was a firm stance against usury.

    • jim says:

      Which led to his successors bringing in the Jews to run the finance system in order to get around their own rules.

      When you find yourself sneaking around your own rules, it is a bad rule.

      Giving Jews the exclusive privilege of operating the finance system had the effect of breeding Jews for smarts and failing to breed Aryans for smarts.

      You need to give the state volk, those that are near, rather than those that are far, the privilege of doing all the jobs that require smarts, to encourage and recruit smarts in near folk.

  2. Robert says:

    I am a Christian. Don’t think that there aren’t Christians who want to bring back the Christianity of the Charleses’. I certainly wouldn’t say that we are a majority of Christians, but the majority doesn’t matter, what matters is the remnant.

    • Kgaard says:

      Yes but Robert … isn’t the point of the story that the specific doctrines of Christianity actually favor the pre-Charleses interpretation? In other words, it’s the Germanic minority who is out of step, no? This is consistent with the state of the churches in Europe (i.e. pretty much empty). Europeans themselves look at Christian doctrine and say, “Yeah I’m not down with that. I’m not a Marxist and this is Marxism.” What’s lacking is something else to fill its shoes …

      • Michael says:

        I wish i could be so optimistic to think thats why they left. i think they are really saying im not a racist sexist homophobe thats not smart and not cool,yeah theres some evidence the stricter religions are doing a bit better than say Unitarians but i think thats a clustering on the edge before jumping. now whats encouraging is christianity has been a cudgel of the left for milenia one might even say i zionist plot i think the mosad put jesus up to it. LOL destroying christianity may be the first mistake the left has made.

        • peppermint says:

          calling it a mistake implies that leftists think about what they do, instead of blindly tear at the fabric of society seeing what threads they can pull for fun and profit.

          And they did manage to get out ahead of atheism and develop atheism+ that solemnly believes in evolution and doesn’t believe in souls, but then acts like it believes in creationism and souls, because six million.

          But then they got made fun of for being euphoric fedorafags, and the fact that the six million is a hoax is slowly percolating out of /pol/.

          • jim says:

            Six million is not exactly a hoax, unless one is apt to get excited about the difference between maybe six million and maybe four or five million, and the difference between Jews murdered in relatively high tech factories for the mass production of murder, and Jews murdered in relatively low tech factories for the mass production of murder.

            It is however a gross distortion, though not a hoax, to go on about the several million Jews murdered by nazism, when about a hundred million or so people were murdered by communism, and the US government was mighty palsy with the murderers when they were doing most of the murdering.

          • B says:

            The Communists, vile as they were, didn’t set the destruction of their victims’ entire ethnicities as a goal. The majority of their victim they murdered not as a result of a conscious planning process but as a result of runaway bureaucratic positive feedback loops. In the several cases where the Soviets targeted ethnicities (Chechens, for instance,) they did not eradicate them. So, typical behavior of a large Oriental empire-nothing Sargon or Ashurbanipal would have found unusual. Even the Babylonians and Assyrians would have been disgusted by an empire which purposely exterminated the people it conquered.

          • Hidden Author says:

            By that standard, the Armenian Genocide made the Ottomans Nazi-like. Couple that with the horrible persecution suffered by the Greeks, the Herero and the Serbs and you can see how the Central Powers were bad guys in World War I as well as II.

          • B says:

            Ottoman behavior was inexcusable, but they were in the middle of a war for their national existence on three fronts and had an Armenian insurrection which had been fomented by American missionaries over 80 years tearing up their rear. The Armenian Dashnaks and other insurrectionists, both before WW1 and after, were as ruthless as the Turks. By contrast, the Jewish populations of Hungary, Poland, Greece etc. posed no threat to the Germans.

            The Greeks certainly had it coming-their behavior against Turks living in their territories after the British Navy gave them their independence was as bad as anything the Turks had ever done, and they fully intended to do the same in Western Turkey. I feel bad for the Serbs. On the other hand, I’ve seen the Skull Tower in Nis, where the Turks put down a Serbian insurrection. They killed 5000 people in the process, which is now considered a major crime. By post-Ottoman Yugoslav history standards, 5000 dead is like a fart at the dinner table.

            As for the Herero-don’t make me laugh. The Boers were what, war criminals, too? Britain had no room to look down on anyone for mistreating colonial subjects.

          • Hidden Author says:

            When Germany drove the Herero into the desert for refusing to submit to the Reich, they killed 90+% of them. In the Holocaust in many nations, the Reich killed 90+% of the nation’s Jews. Do you see a similarity in the behavior of the Reich here?

            • jim says:

              Bullshit

              Herero still around in the same areas they always have been. The “genocide” was anticolonialist propaganda

              The herero engaged in terrorist attacks on Germans from the cover of women and children. Germans responded by indiscriminately killing Herero until the terrorist attacks stopped – and they very quickly did stop.

              If you stop killing when the enemy stops fighting, not genocide, just war the way it is usually fought – and war the way progressives always fight when they are attacking those insufficiently progressive. For example, the British exterminating Boer women and children to deter their menfolk.

          • Simon says:

            http://www.ourcivilisation.com/violence.htm#Genocide

            B is talking shit as usual. I know you like to make it seems like you know everything, with your whole Jew-framed history of the world, B, but do your research.

          • Hidden Author says:

            If you want to argue that the ends justify the means in war, you make the Herero look better and the Germans look worse. Who was the invader after all?

          • B says:

            I’m not sure what that series of assertions you linked to has to do with my argument, Simon, but I’m sure your Elders would not approve of your language. Whom would you prefer I center my worldview around, the residents of Provo?

          • peppermint says:

            whatever, by that time the original Romans had already been long dead through lack of babies and replacement by immigrants, in much the same manner as the original Americans are in most of the United States today. What mishmash of degenerates called themselves Roman in 376 were right to will their capital to the virile Goths.

            Sadly, there is no Aryan group for us to surrender to. Either we survive, or our race is over.

          • nope says:

            The six million doesn’t make sense.

            Why would the Nazis keep the Jews in camps if they were just going to kill them? Camp prisoners have to be fed, clothed, etc.

            Why are those pictures of starving prisoners trotted out like they demonstrate the existence of death camps? They weren’t dead. Why were they starving? How starved would they have been if the people giving them food hadn’t been at war?

            How many Jews did the Nazis intentionally kill, and how many died because they were low-priority due to wartime shortages, and how many died of diseases like typhus in the camps?

            • jim says:

              Killing millions of people is a big project. People who do that sort of thing wind up creating facilities for the mass production of murder by specialized labor, factories of death.

        • Hidden Author says:

          If Lothar Von Trotha was in the right, why does his own family feel ashamed of his actions?

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7033042.stm

          • jim says:

            For the same reason as Justine Sacco apologized for speaking the truth in a moment of forgetfulness, and her family condemned and expelled her for momentarily speaking the truth.

            Pretty much the same reason as children ratted out their parents, and parents ratted out their children, for failure to praise Mao with sufficient fulsomeness.

            When children turn on and denounce their parents, or parents turn on and denounce their children, as Justine Sacco’s parents denounced her, that is not an indication that the denouncer is speaking the truth, it is an indication that people are being terrorized.

    • Nyan Sandwich says:

      The problem with you guys is that you call yourselves Christians, and that anti-white Jesus-was-POC-SJW types also call themselves Christians.

      You can’t grow the good religion while it has the same name as the heretics. Need a name for the “real” Christians that distinguishes you from the heretics.

      I was talking to Christian the other day, who told me how great it was that my hobby was being infiltrated by SJW “degendering” activists, and that he didn’t understand why some men didn’t want to dance with men, and that he didn’t identify as a traditionalist at all and didn’t understand it.

      Also the other day, I was I was talking to a Christian woman who told me about how great it was that their all-white church had found a non-white race-mixing pastor. She explained that times were changing, and their church needed to be on the forefront of that.

      Also the other day, I went to a friend’s birthday party and met a young Christian man who, as soon as we were introduced, began to tell me about how white people are inferior to black people in all the important metrics, like ability to make music. (lol, as if)

      I hung out with some Christians recently while investigating “Christianity” at the behest of people like you, and met a charming young man with full body tattoos and a long history or crazy drug use and degenerate behaviour. He showed me the scars where he had branded himself with Christian symbols when he “found God”.

      These people are typical of Christians, as far as I can tell. When someone identifies as a Christian to me, I think “communist anti-white degeneracy pusher”. When someone recommends Christianity to me, I remember that image macro that concludes “Semitic religion; not even once”: https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1402/73/1402739152802.jpg Then I go home and spend time with my volkish pagan girlfriend, and we talk about our heritage, how to raise kids without degeneracy, and plan how we can live rich and free.

      • Adolf the anti-White says:

        Paganism has the nasty stuff you described far, far worse than Christianity does. You might be a norse pagan, but you’re deliberately ignoring >95% of pagans, who are not volkish pagans.

        American Christianity is terrible, but it’s not Christianity. If you trace their theology, they most closely align with groups like Anabaptists, Gnostics, et cetera. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Pope Pius V disagreed on a lot of things, but they all burned Anabaptists at the stake.

        • peppermint says:

          paganism just means not Abrahamic religion, which includes the demon cults of South America.. Can we have a word for either Christian, pagan, or atheist, but a pro-White version of one of the three?

          • jim says:

            Good point. Don’t want to have one word for both Odin worship and Canaanite demon worship and South American demon worship – having one word for all non monotheistic religions is propagandistic.

          • Nyan Sandwich says:

            “volkish”

          • A.B Prosper says:

            European Folk religion is what I’d use. That’s what White folk need actually, something by them, for them of them.

            Its why Christianity has turned septic for many, its universalstic and Middle East focused . Really no religion specially for White people ought to give us a religious obligation to the Semitic peoples and their lands , they aren’t us and its not our land. Europe is supposed to be ours and arguably North American and the Anglo-Sphere

            Its also why Wicca and Druidry though mostly White fit poorly. Like Christianity they are universalistic faiths for all peoples.

            Really of existing religion that leaves us with Folkish Asatru/Odnism./Wodanism and Hellenic Reconstruction or in the Baltic regions and Russia , whatever they do there.

            That might work.

          • Merovan says:

            Would like to second this. I finally looked up “pagan” etymology one day. To sweepingly distill it, original sense of “pagans” pretty much seems was “those rubes.” In a late Roman Christian / non-Christian sense, that’s understandable enough. But it leaves much to be desired. It’s pejorative at any rate in its essence, something I always sensed vaguely. Greek and Nordic religions do deserve better.

      • Adolf the anti-White says:

        Also, I would point out that you’re falling into exactly the trap that Progressives are trying to lie about. Christianity = Progressivism.

      • R7_Rocket says:

        I have seen “Progressives” that have venerated Technology and worshipped Space Colonization. They claimed to believe in Environmentalism and Equality but really believed in Machinery and Mars Colonies…

      • Robert says:

        There is no denying that Christianity takes many forms, some of which I wholly disagree with. “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” Rev 3:16 But it is very difficult to deny that the greatest men of our people have been Christians, or at a minimum strongly influenced by Christian morality. So it seems to me that Christianity can be a vehicle to our demise or to our greatest triumphs. But keep in mind that there are many vehicles that we can use to hasten our demise, but Christianity is the only one that I know of that can be used to take us to our highest peak.

        • Nyan Sandwich says:

          Ok well let me know when you have a variant of “Christianity” that is remotely compatible with civilization that does not have the same name and social graph continuity with the degenerates.

          • Adolf the anti-White says:

            Orthodox Christianity.

            http://orthodoxinfo.com/

            Not sure what you mean by “social graph continuity”.

            • jim says:

              What social graph continuity means is that if you are a Roman Catholic male, and get married, your church will shoot you in the back. Your church is owned by progressives.

          • Nyan Sandwich says:

            By social graph continuity I mean that there is no clear divide separating in from out. There is just a whole spectrum of Christians, a very few right-wing folkish trads, and the rest leftists, and the trads don’t denounce the leftists, and the leftists do denounce the trads.

            Basically, call me when your Christianity has no friends to the left.

          • peppermint says:

            /r/catholicism still has the Schilling point of not committing sacrilege against the sacraments of marriage and holy orders by having gay marriages and womanpriests, and denounces the people who advocate for these, as well as denouncing the liturgical abuses of Vatican II.

            /r/catholicism does not deny sexual orientation theory or ever transgenderism, but does have the Schilling point of rejecting homosexual behavior and transgender mutilation.

            They also reject communism, quoting the biggest mass excommunication in history, in which Pius XII excommunicates for people who vote for parties that will form coalitions with communist parties, and preferring the social doctrine of Leo XIII ( http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13rerum.htm ), which may be less socialist than Hitler.

            Still, it’s hard for Christians to really go far even as want to denounce these poor oppressed people like sexual minorities, of course they wouldn’t think of being racist, and they lose these Schilling points as soon as the Pope betrays them. Which isn’t supposed to happen because the Holy Spirit won’t let him, and the College of Cardinals isn’t a holiness competition.

            And we can’t forget what happened to the SSPX bishop who denied the Six Million. You can say that the Papacy is controlled by heretics and be denounced on friendly terms with the Pope. If you deny the most treasured doctrine of Holocaustianity, the Pope deletes you from his cell phone.

          • Adolf the anti-White says:

            >By social graph continuity I mean that there is no clear divide separating in from out.
            How clear a line do you need? There is a fairly clear line between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox. There’s also a (less clear) line between Orthodox in the Old Calendar and New Calendarists.

            If you’re looking for a religion populated entirely by rightists, you won’t find it. At least outside of some weird, extremely small cult.

            If you’re looking for a religion where the religious elements (rituals, teaching, et cetera) are non-leftist, Orthodoxy is a solid bet. The liturgy and rituals have stayed the same for over a thousand years, and show no signs of changing to suit progress.

      • B says:

        >Then I go home and spend time with my volkish pagan girlfriend, and we talk about our heritage, how to raise kids without degeneracy, and plan how we can live rich and free.

        Because you don’t really believe in Odin and the rest of that horseshit, and see your “volkish pagan” “religion” as a vehicle to get the material benefits you desire, with no independent existence.

        Idolatry is always self-worship at its core (worship of the projection of one’s desires upon an idol,) but in your case, it is a sort of cargo cult idolatry-if we build a C-47 out of coconut palm trunks and fronds, the real magic birds will come back and drop soap and axeheads again! If we pretend we believe in Odin, it will help us raise a nice 8th century heterosexual family! With values and loyalty!

        In the extremely unlikely event that you manage to have children and convince them that you actually believe in your fairy tale lies (very difficult, since children can spot lies quite well over a long timeline,) and they grow up as earnestly believing pagans, I would be very surprised if this motivated them to any sort of accomplishment. But I would not be very surprised if it motivated them to, for instance, offer human sacrifice. After all, if Odin is real, he wants something from you. What more can you offer?

        Actual idolatry doesn’t happen this way, though, which you could learn from, for instance, Julian the Apostate. Once you disbelieve in idolatry, it is impossible to command yourself to earnestly worship some log carved in the image of some god. The return to idolatry happens like this: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/meet-slender-man-the-online-phantom-that-inspired-attempted-murder-20140604

        Humans who are totally alienated from morals, religion, society, family tend to revert to the most feral, atavistic idolatry. Not your makebelief Pagankin shit.

        • Nyan Sandwich says:

          We’re not really believing Pagans, no, but what I mean is that semitic religion seems incompatible with this stuff that actually matters, and people experimenting with other things seem much more virtuous.

          No need to get butthurt.

          • peppermint says:

            I think B has a point about idolatry and religious belief

            » I would be very surprised if this motivated them to any sort of accomplishment. But I would not be very surprised if it motivated them to, for instance, offer genetic sacrifice. After all, if God is real, and going to accept you into Heaven, he wants something from you. What more can you offer?

            » In the extremely unlikely event that you manage to have children and convince them that you actually believe in your fairy tale lies

            convincing them to say they believe in it is enough for starters. Children are very good at aping authorities. Even when they don’t really believe in souls, they still have it impressed upon them that if they say a word against human dignity they will be symbolically accused of the six million and exiled.

            This is probably the process referred to as Germanization. A bunch of genetically related groups without the experience of civilization were all taught to worship Jesus Christ en masse, starting by acting like it, and progressively getting better at believing. What changes were made to Christianity by them in their early days as Christians?

            If we can find out, we can tell our people that these ancient Christians believed these things, and thus disingenuously convince them to adopt more pro-White attitudes.

            Convincing people isn’t simply a question of telling them the truth. We also need to build a bridge from one set of beliefs to another. Thus David Duke’s tl;dr introductions to his books and his Christianity. Or Moldbug’s tl;dr articles and progressive attitudes (“take the boy out of the library, but can’t take the library out of the boy” — Moldbug on sounding like a progressive).

      • CuiPertinebit says:

        Go to a site like fisheaters.com There’s an whole section of the site, devoted primarily to an Identitarian, Traditional form of Catholicism, valuing the traditions of the ancestors, introducing Catholic customs into the home (many of which stretch far back into Pagan pre-history), being aware of the problem of Modernism, etc. One could truly say that a Catholic observing the traditional customs of the Liturgical year in his home, is keeping the Pagan customs far more authentically than 99.9% of “Neopagans.” Since the central truths of these pagan customs are entirely realized in the Christian Faith, I have no problem with that.

        I’m in process of setting up a religious Order, Catholic, that has this as a central element of its apostolate. I hope to be able to announce something more definite by the time Easter has come; it will depend on how everything goes with my bishop. An unambiguously reactionary Catholicism, openly wearing an acknowledgment of the crisis and a commitment to the Tradition in all of its robust masculinity, is sorely needed at this time.

        I will defend the Catholic Faith, as I believe it is the only hope of the West, and, of course, of all mankind. But I will not say a word against the quoted excerpt from Radix, that the institutions of Christianity these days are unambiguously occupied and wielded by the enemy for his own purposes. Those who are actually in the Catholic Church, and thus have more occasion to see the travesty of an “Ecumenism,” on the one side, that rolls out the red carpet to any and every heretic, while, on the other hand, an apostate hierarchy viciously stifles, persecutes and unjustly suppresses any traditional movement (SSPX, Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, etc.) espousing the Catholic Faith in all its integrity, see the truth of this in painful clarity. Luckily, both the unchanging Divine Law and the variable Canon Law of the Church, make provision for the faithful to resist, disobey and work around the institutions in a crisis, and especially when the faith and its moral and social teachings are assaulted (as is certainly the case at present). So, I would encourage men to seriously consider the Catholic Faith, but to realize that, in these times, it will certainly require an healthy degree of resistance and, at times, direct disobedience, of a manifestly apostate and even anti-Catholic hierarchy. It is worth pointing out that the Greek term “anti” does not simply mean “against,” but “in the place of.” “Antichrist” is not just the opposition to Christ, but the displacement of Christ, so as to stand in His stead. It has long been thought – St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, mentions the possibility, even – that Antichrist would stand in the Vatican to wield all of its authority in pursuit of his own humanistic aims. Antichrist is being most himself, when he wraps himself in all the trappings of Christ and His Church.

        I would encourage those interested to look into the Apparition at Fatima, and especially the “Third Secret” of that apparition. It is certain that a very convoluted and mis-managed cover-up of this Apparition generally, and especially this element of it, has been going on since 1959. What is virtually certain, is that this suppressed element directly involves a substantial defection of the clergy and hierarchy from their responsibilities into a general apostasy, stating that this would begin “at the top” (i.e., in the very papacy and Vatican curia). We know from a document written in Sister Lucia’s own hand (she was the last surviving visionary) that the real words of this secret begin thus: “In Portugal, the dogmas of the faith will always be preserved…” This is perhaps pregnant with ominous import for the continuation of the faith elsewhere. Virtually all those who have been privy to the Secret, have confirmed that it involves apostasy, problems of an apocalyptic nature in the papacy and curia, and the loss of faith throughout the world. Since the upper echelons of the clergy are so implicated in the message, it is unsurprising that they have been eager to suppress it and neutralize it; indeed, there is every reason to believe that the popes and cardinals of modern times are such men as acted on the advice of Gramschi – to infiltrate the institutions of society, especially the Church, and to wreck them from within. “The Fourth Secret of Fatima” by Antonio Socci, is a thorough examination of all the evidence surrounding the matter.

        • Peppermint says:

          Identarian Catholicism is not as bad a joke as the book of Job, or the dignification of romantic love, sexual orientation, and gender fluidity. Your task is not impossible, nor is it necessarily heretical if Scripture and ancient practice are interpreted correctly.

          Revilo Oliver suggests a different direction for Christianity in 1983 [ http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Businessmen_of_God.html ] which might help explain to people the murkiness of gender and alleviate the sufferings of born men who know that they are women, which is, after all, the purpose of ministry. Jesus hung out with tax collectors, whores, and lepers, because they who are sick need doctors.

          The American family is very sick. Perhaps the sacraments can help White men to get jobs and White women to marry them. Or maybe some bedraggled old testament verses can scourge the refugee resettlers from the church, and the Great Commission, make converts of the nations, interpreted properly as sending missionaries to other countries.

          May the Holy Spirit guide you and Our Lady shelter you.

        • jim says:

          I hope the remnant wins, but suspect it will require divine intervention – either that or a government that decides that remnant religion is vital to the state.

  3. Mosca says:

    I love Sam Francis, but his and Russell’s view on Christianity reeks of Nordicism (if that’s a word). The fact that a Phd dissertation is taken by some as the word of God seems to be simple confirmation bias. The Northern Europeans were savages, then they were Christianized and became one of the great civilizations, then they were de-Christianized (via the Reformation and Enlightenment) and became what they are today. Christianity’s is great precisely because the Jewish, Greek, and Roman roots (who of course aren’t “White People”, along with Slavs, to the Nordicist).

    The idea that the Early Church was proto-Protestant is hard to prove, seeing as pacifist, anti-masculine themes aren’t prevalent in the early Church fathers. Its possible that in the very early church (i.e. after Jesus, before the church fathers began writing things down) such themes existed–but then what were church father’s defending?

    I agree that the West won’t be saved by rallying around Pope Francis (and certainly not the Evangelical movement), but taking an actively anti-Christian posture strikes me as absurd. If the state is set straight, the church would soon follow. As long as the governments in all the places Catholicism is prevalent are progressive, Catholicism will contain progressive contamination.

    • jim says:

      Priest dominated societies, and priest dominated religions, go into holiness death spirals, pharisaism. Christianity was a reaction against the Rabbinical pharisaism, but Jesus did not really have a cure other than to tell his followers not to do that, which instruction tends to get perverted into ostentatious humility, exemplified by recent popes.

      King on top, as with Greek Orthodoxy, King Solomon’s Judaism, and Shinto, goes a long way to fixing the problem. Semi Hereditary priesthood, plus King on top (Shinto and King Solomon’s Judaism) fixes the problem. Anglicanism worked because King on top, but in the divorce of queen Caroline, we saw that Anglicanism had somehow become weaponized as a tool against the King in particular and the aristocracy in general, despite having a King at the top.

      • Mosca says:

        One could argue that the Anglican/Orthodox model leads to the “divinization of the immanent world” as Voegelin might put it. It’s hard to have a properly Machiavellian outlook when the leader of the state and the leader of your religion are the same person. I prefer the Catholic model because the spiritual realm and the temporal realm are well defined. Priests don’t lead armies or states (or when they are supposed to make it clear that they are exercising temporal power). When the priest and king are one person, there is the risk that the priest-king sees his goals as leader as creating heaven on Earth.

        • jim says:

          When the priest and king are one person, there is the risk that the priest-king sees his goals as leader as creating heaven on Earth.

          I don’t see historical examples of this. What cases do you have in mind?

          The usual failure mode that I see is that priesthood becomes excessively cynical, and gets overthrown by true believers (the English civil war), or the priesthood is displeased by the fact that their King does not really believe and proceeds to undermine the monarch who supposedly leads them (Victorianism)

      • B says:

        >Semi Hereditary priesthood, plus King on top (Shinto and King Solomon’s Judaism) fixes the problem.

        You could do with a re-read of the Book of Kings, specifically, the part discussing Solomon’s downfall and subsequent events.

        • jim says:

          Solomon’s “Downfall”?

          Jereboam fled to Egypt. Solomon died of old age in a great palace surrounded by a thousand wives and concubines, his country united and at peace, his enemies, such as Jereboam, dead or fled. The bible does not tell what happened to the prophet Ahijah, but with Jereboam fled, Ahijah also would have had to hide or flee also for prophesying against Solomon.

          After Ahijah, religious leaders cease to be a problem for quite some time.

          a

          • B says:

            Solomon was told that G-d was firing his dynasty from the leadership of Israel, and that only because of His mercy on David this wouldn’t occur in Solomon’s lifetime.

            Absolutely nothing happened to Ahiya. Just like nothing happened to Nathan. Even Ahav had the brains to not touch Eliyahu, the following kings of Israel had the brains not to touch Elisha, etc. Kings killing prophets was a very rare occurrence and mentioned explicitly.

            >After Ahijah, religious leaders cease to be a problem for quite some time.

            As I’ve said, you could do with a re-read. For instance, 1 Kings 13:1–6.

            • jim says:

              Solomon was told that G-d was firing his dynasty from the leadership of Israel,

              Strikingly, his son was unaware of this, or disinclined to take it seriously – probably because the prophet saying this was dead or fled.

              Absolutely nothing happened to Ahija.

              Ahija tells Jereboam to have a go at overthrowing Solomon. Jereboam tries, fails, flees, and we do not hear anything more from Ahija.

              As I’ve said, you could do with a re-read. For instance, 1 Kings 13:1–6.

              In 1 Kings 13 Jereboam pisses all over the prophets, and does fine.

          • B says:

            >Strikingly, his son was unaware of this, or disinclined to take it seriously – probably because the prophet saying this was dead or fled.

            Of course he was aware. He just got bad advice from his punk friends, which G-d made him take (much like David’s rebellious son.)

            >Ahiya tells Jereboam to have a go at overthrowing Solomon. Jereboam tries, fails, flees, and we do not hear anything more from Ahiya.

            He didn’t tell him to have a go at overthrowing Solomon. We see him appear in Chronicles as well, as having written a book about the reign of Solomon.

            >In 1 Kings 13 Jereboam pisses all over the prophets, and does fine.

            You really have difficulty reading.

            4And it came to pass, when king Jeroboam heard the saying of the man of God, which had cried against the altar in Bethel, that he put forth his hand from the altar, saying, Lay hold on him. And his hand, which he put forth against him, dried up, so that he could not pull it in again to him. 5The altar also was rent, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the LORD. 6And the king answered and said unto the man of God, Intreat now the face of the LORD thy God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored me again. And the man of God besought the LORD, and the king’s hand was restored him again, and became as it was before. 7And the king said unto the man of God, Come home with me, and refresh thyself, and I will give thee a reward. 8And the man of God said unto the king, If thou wilt give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place: 9For so was it charged me by the word of the LORD, saying, Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou camest. 10So he went another way, and returned not by the way that he came to Bethel.

            • jim says:

              Yet despite the supposed experience of God blighting his hand and restoring it, Jereboam still pisses all over the prophets.

              According to history written up by priests, the priests were powerful – but Kings failed to notice.

            • jim says:

              >Strikingly, his son was unaware of this, or disinclined to take it seriously – probably because the prophet saying this was dead or fled.

              Of course he was aware. He just got bad advice from his punk friends,

              In other words, he took his young aristocratic friends more seriously than those hairy long bearded crazy prophets.

              Seems that there was a lot of that going around in the period depicted in 1 Kings and 2 Kings.

              You are not really arguing that prophets were powerful and taken seriously. You are arguing that prophets should have been powerful and taken seriously.

          • B says:

            People do stupid things all the time despite being warned. Jeroboam’s line was wiped out for his behavior.

            >According to history written up by priests, the priests were powerful – but Kings failed to notice.

            Prophets aren’t priests. And the kings’ failing to listen to prophets had terrible results for them personally and their lines.

          • B says:

            The guys he took his friends more seriously then were not prophets but the elders of Israel and Solomon’s advisors. He was an idiot and immediately paid the price.

            Different Kings treated prophets differently. Those who disregarded their advice paid a heavy price, one way or the other.

            • jim says:

              Different Kings treated prophets differently. Those who disregarded their advice paid a heavy price, one way or the other.

              The price that they supposedly paid was frequently long delayed. Further, the punishment for minor and trivial impiety by a believing King was frequently that his descendents were replaced by an openly pagan or demon worshiping king, which seems an odd sort of punishment.

          • peppermint says:

            You think it’s odd because it’s holy men writing about other holy men and their actions, and you expect God to act supernaturally.

            The people that failed to punish Queen Caroline are now having their children raped by curryniggers. Violation of divine law, consequences. Mediated by the animus mundi.

            This conception of divinity, of course, is not the original Jewish conception. Yah was originally the leader of a group of five gods, and had the head of an onager.

          • B says:

            >The price that they supposedly paid was frequently long delayed.

            A strange argument for a neoreactionary. The whole point of your movement is that the price you pay for your sins is only made harsher by the delay. If your operating philosophy is apres moi le deluge, this doesn’t strike me as very Carlylean of you. Why don’t you make the argument that FDR, who ended his days unchallenged, or Clinton, were great leaders?

            >Further, the punishment for minor and trivial impiety by a believing King was frequently that his descendents were replaced by an openly pagan or demon worshiping king, which seems an odd sort of punishment.

            “And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord G-d of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice”-why does it tell us this? We already know G-d had appeared to Solomon twice. It tells us to remind us that everyone is judged according to his level. For instance, Moshe was punished for what seems to us to be a minor transgression in a harsh way. Solomon was on a very high level of holiness-G-d had appeared to him twice. Yet he tolerated idolatry by his wives (actually, the plain text says he participated in it, but the Sages tell us that it means he tolerated it.) So he was punished quite harshly (as was David for his one sin.)

            Second, the Torah tells us that everyone is punished according to his or her sin, not according to the sin of his father. Meaning that the idolatrous kings who replaced others as punishment were not idolatrous in a predetermined fashion. They made this choice for themselves and were in turn punished for it. In fact, the whole people sinned and were punished (and in some places it says that G-d wished to multiply their punishment and thus multiplied their sin.) Yet we also know that anyone can repent at any time, and G-d will forgive him. And we had several periods of national repentance. For instance, Menashe, who had defiled the Temple with an idol and did many other repugnant things, repented and had his repentance accepted.

            So what seems to be a minor transgression to you is actually a huge transgression when done by Solomon, who had merited meeting G-d twice. Conversely, one of the worst kings of Israel, Ahab, who had gotten his throne as a result of a series of dynastic replacements of kings who had gone against G-d and who was an idolater, whose wife murdered prophets and innocent men, etc., had prophets ask him to repent repeatedly (without any personal consequences to them, by the way,) and when he almost did, we see that it would have been accepted. And his failure to repent caused disastrous consequences for him and for all Israel:

            And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah? 14And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD G-d of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.

            15And the LORD said unto him, Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus: and when thou comest, anoint Hazael to be king over Syria: 16And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room. 17And it shall come to pass, that him that escapeth the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay: and him that escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay. 18Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

            And what do we see with Jehu? It’s very interesting. Jehu is the closest to your ideal of a guy who gets power by the sword, and the last guy we’d expect to see take prophets seriously. He’s one of the captains of Ahab, who was a vile and violent individual. He is hanging out with his colleagues, who are hardly yeshiva students. An anonymous prophet comes to them and says he has a message. He takes Jehu aside and anoints him. His buddies say, what did that loon want? Ah, nothing, says Jehu. His buddies insist, so he tells them. “Then they hasted, and took every man his garment, and put it under him on the top of the stairs, and blew with trumpets, saying, Jehu is king.”

            So we see that prophets were quite important, even among men of violence.

            • jim says:

              >The price that they supposedly paid was frequently long delayed.

              A strange argument for a neoreactionary. The whole point of your movement is that the price you pay for your sins is only made harsher by the delay. If

              You believe the prophets were the real deal. I believe that prophets can be useful provided they are kept in line. The events of Kings do not provide plausible evidence that the prophets were the real deal, in that Kings did not take them seriously, and subsequent events gave no strong evidence that the Kings should have taken them seriously.

              And if you really believed in your heart that they were the real deal, if you believed in the way you believe that Singapore airlines can get you to Singapore, you would not torture their texts, just as if Christians believed that Paul was the real deal, the way they believe in Singapore airlines, they would not hide from his teachings.

          • B says:

            >You believe the prophets were the real deal. I believe that prophets can be useful provided they are kept in line.

            “Useful” presupposes the ultimate good is utility. And I’m not a utilitarian.

            We see the distinction between a useful prophet and a true one in the exchange between Micaiah and Ahab in 1 Kings 22.

            >The events of Kings do not provide plausible evidence that the prophets were the real deal, in that Kings did not take them seriously,

            The Cathedral doesn’t take you seriously, but that doesn’t keep you from believing that you are right and it is wrong.

            >and subsequent events gave no strong evidence that the Kings should have taken them seriously.

            Subsequent events like those kings’ deaths, the destruction of their lineage and the exile of their people?

            >And if you really believed in your heart that they were the real deal, if you believed in the way you believe that Singapore airlines can get you to Singapore, you would not torture their texts

            This is a non sequitur. I believe they were the real deal, and I also believe the Sages were the real deal. I can read a physics textbook and believe that it is the real deal without deciding that this gives me the ability and right to decide how my local nuclear reactor should be operated.

      • Michael says:

        maybe religious dominated societies always end with a preist cl;ass then a death spiral. why save christianity maybe irs advantages were coincidental or just exhausted, its certainly leftist in the way islam is rightist.it and all religions are essentially anti reason not a good thing for the right and easily exploited.sure im a catholic kid with all the romantic attachment went through the latin mass thing but reality is its a desert religion we are a forest people its practically tailor made for outsiders to use against us, our strongest suit is reason. now if the idea is its the best rallying method think harder because its not

        • jim says:

          Most societies, probably all white societies, tend to be in substantial part ruled by priests. The priestly death spiral is a common problem, but it does not happen all the time, or even most of the time. It happens often enough that something needs to be done to permanently prevent it, and it is happening now.

          Islam proposes that priests and warriors should be one and the same, and should rule, and has had fair success in obtaining this – also substantial failure in obtaining this, with frequent priest/warrior conflicts.

          The healthy part of Islam is Jihadi Islam, which unfortunately proposes to murder or enslave everyone like you and me. They propose warrior priests on top. There are also the “professors of menstruation” who worry about obscure technicalities of Islamic law the way orthodox Jews worry about Jewish law, propose priests on top, and, like Orthodox Jews, are being slowly digested by the Cathedral.

          Traditional Aryan society proposes that priests, warriors, and people who actually produce something useful are separate and partly hereditary groups, should all have a substantial voice in the rule of society – but with warrior aristocrats on top. Obviously if you piss on the productive, your society is not going anywhere, but on the other hand, if you beat your swords into plows, you will plow for those who don’t.

    • Mark Citadel says:

      Sound reasoning, Mosca.

      Traditional Christian civilization was the height of man. What came before was a degenerated form of something long ago lost forever (Hyperborean remnants?). These people who want to start Odin cults are delusional. That Tradition was already in a degenerative state long before Christianity came on the scene.

      There is only one tradition available to you unless you wish to submit to the expansive force of Islam (and I can tell you this will not be very friendly to the Occident for a variety of reasons), you need to actually study the Christian kings of Europe, pre-enlightenment and find that God indeed made Europe great through His church, and when that church was divided and splintered, sidelined and de-fanged, that is when our civilization fell into the ditch.

      • jim says:

        when that church was divided and splintered, sidelined and de-fanged, that is when our civilization fell into the ditch.

        Britain conquered the world, and brought us the scientific, technological, and industrial revolutions, under a national church.

        It is pretty obvious that the solution is one people, one state, that state controlled by the best people of a particular ethnicity and religion (aristocracy, rule of the best), and one church, controlled by the state and aristocracy. Universal churches are bad. Universal states are worse.

  4. Thrasymachus says:

    What is the “real” Christianity has been a matter of debate from the beginning. The Acts of the Apostles and the epistles describe real Christianity.

    Manicheanism was the first big heresy and seems to bear some resemblance to the progressivism of today, in its overwhelming desire and obsession with purity. The Hussites and the Waldensians also claimed to be returning to the real, pure essence of Christianity.

    The Puritans are mainly unique in that they created a global commercial civilization to go with their true, real, pure return to the essence of Christianity.

    The only way I can think to say is that if the cure is worse than the disease, it’s probably not a cure. The Protestant Reformers had valid criticisms, but the negative outcomes from the Reformation seem to have been pretty big. There’s no counterfactual, we can’t say what would have happened had it not occurred, but things may have been better.

    • Adolf the anti-White says:

      >The Puritans are mainly unique in that they MURDEROUSLY HIJACKED a global commercial civilization to go with their true, real, pure return to the essence of Christianity.

      FYP

      Puritans did not build Anglo civilization. At most, they built a large portion of American civilization. But even that was mostly built by Catholics, Episcopalians Lutherans, et cetera.

  5. Adolf the anti-White says:

    >When the Puritans claimed to be returning to the original Christianity, that was, unfortunately, exactly what they were doing – returning to Christianity as it was before Charlemagne.

    I am Orthodox, a.k.a. the Christianity before Charlemagne. We are further from Puritanism than Pope Pius V.

    Everybody has the “original” form of Christianity. Gnostics claimed this in the first millennium, Protestants claim it in the second millennium. Historically, it is absurd that the early Christians believed anything like Puritanism.

    The Old Testament is quite comfortable with violence by lawful authorities. So is the New Testament. Neither are comfortable with violence by non-authorities.

    • Toddy Cat says:

      Yes, the history of the Orthodox Church goes a long way towards refuting the whole “Germanic Christianity” business. The Orthodox Church was in Byzantium was hardly Germanic, but it was certainly not pacifistic or communistic, and it was also only universalist in it’s religious outlook, i.e., that Christ was the savior of all men. The belief that pacifistic, universalist Christianity is in any way “original” is wrong. In fact, it’s a heresy.

      • Just sayin' says:

        The Orthodox Church doesn’t refute the Germanic Christianity business.

        There is nothing to suggest that other peoples wouldn’t also influence Christianity in their own ways. The Orthodox peoples took Christianity in their own directions. We can point to real and concrete differences between Eastern and Western Christianity and we can suggest that not just doctrine, but underlying cultural and heritable behavioral (biological) traits are responsible.

        The Orthodox Church is full of non-Westerners so it is hardly surprising that it has a non-Western character.

      • jim says:

        See Unqualified Reservations on Prudentius.

        Moldbug carefully avoids mentioning, but expects his readers to know, that Prudentius wrote this stuff in 406AD, and that the Roman Empire in the West fell in 410AD.

        Christians are repeating the same mistakes the early church made and worse they’re ignoring all the good decisions as well. Creating stable family life was a massive win for the Christian church and the empire. The modern church doesn’t even bother to research while early Christians has such solid families and modern Christian families are largely crap. An early christian could expect support from other Christians in finding work, finding a mate, finding shelter, and finding fellowship. Today’s churches do none of that. Instead the church is full progressive universalist mode helping every who’s far away and largely not Christian while ignoring their local brothers and sisters.

        • Peppermint says:

          That’s because near are Aryans and helping them is racist, while before near was Christians and far was Aryan racists.

        • Korth says:

          >Instead the church is full progressive universalist mode helping every who’s far away and largely not Christian while ignoring their local brothers and sisters.

          Nothing of the sort. The Catholic Church is simply focusing its attention on the parts of the world where people actually listen to what they have to say. Namely Africa and Asia, where they are gaining two or three new followers for every one they lose in the West, and arguably of a better quality since they tend to take church teaching more seriously.

          Not to imply that the CC has given up on the West, by the way. They’ve been trying to re-evangelize Europe for decades without success, but for those who remain Catholic there are plenty of organisations -such as the Legion of Christ, Opus Dei and to a lesser extent the Neocatechumenal Way- whose main purpose is to provide exactly the early Christian support networks that you claim do not exist.

          • Peppermint says:

            If you believe that niggers have souls, should not be enslaved or prohibited from bettering themselves by moving to a White area and having half-White abominations for children, if you think it worse to deny them their human dignity than defile the race that made Catholicism great, then it is time for the Church to formalize her divorce from the West rather than cucking my people.

            St, Joseph raised the son of God by a consecrated virgin alongside his own children by another woman. The Church would have us raise the children of niggers arguing that there is no difference between bluebirds and cuckoos, as the angels were commanded to look after the vainglorious and venal meatbags built of dirt. I will not serve.

          • Korth says:

            You seem to operate under the foolish assumption that God needs you, or any other mortal for that matter.

            It was Catholicism that made Europe great, not the other way around. The Church was the only thing that saved the Graeco-Roman intellectual tradition from vanishing forever after Graeco-Roman civilisation managed to destroy itself. It was the Church that ensured the West’s intellectual and scientific supremacy by encouraging its own scholastic tradition and establishing the first universities.

            In fact the Church was the great gathering force that merged the ten thousand tribes and clans of pagan Europe into a single unified Christendom. The white race would not only be a cesspool of sectarianism and ignorance if it wasn’t for the Church; it would most likely not even exist as a recognizable category at all.

            https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/whatever-happened-to-european-tribes/

            In more recent centuries the moral authority of the Church has been pretty much the only thing keeping the white race from facing self-imposed extinction, as evidenced by the fact that our birthrates have plummeted dramatically just as we turned away from their teaching on family life and sexual morality.

            Europe is neck deep in excrement of our own making, inches away from drowning, and yet we curse those who would throw us a lifeline. In a such a situation the only option left to the Church is to stand aside and let the events unfold as they will. You cannot save those who refuse to be saved. Say what you want about the mean smelly negroes in Uganda, they seem to be doing a better job at living a Christian life than most Western people today. IQ differences nonwithstanding.

            • jim says:

              It was Catholicism that made Europe great, not the other way around.

              The scientific, technological, and industrial revolutions, occurred under a national church, not a universal church.

          • Peppermint says:

            : Say what you want about the mean smelly negroes in Uganda

            Thank you, I will. They are smelly niggers and will return to the natural waysof their people as soon as the international aid money dries up. Their brethren in Kenya destroy transformers to steal oil to fry chicken. Observe that, following the fall of Rome, “quod non fecerunt barbari, fecerunt barbarini”: if we must praise Christians for standing above the fray and preserving artifacts and culture, and the aqueducts did a fine job of preserving themselves, we must also curse them for their vandalism and subversion. Today we are rediscovering some of the documents Christians overwrote, as for the things they burned, well, there’s nothing to be said.

            But this is pointless. One of the canons of the council of Trent binds you to acknowledge a literal Adam and Eve. That is unsupportable from an evolutionary standpoint. More seriously, you are also bound to believe in unique souls and a fundamental difference of kind between human consciousness and animal consciousness. These beliefs bar you from taking the real world seriously, and when you die with a currynigger nurse by your bedside and a Eucharist host from a nigger on your tongue, you will count yourself blessed, having obtained an eternal reward for giving away all that you are and all that your forefathers ever were. And above your grave, the stars will watch blankly as the lights mirroring them on Earth wink out.

            We needed a Darwin earlier, but souls and their salvation was too important. By the time Darwinism got started, it was, observably, if not too late, then altogether too close.

          • Prince of the Blood says:

            “It was Catholicism that made Europe great, not the other way around”
            “The white race would not only be a cesspool of sectarianism and ignorance if it wasn’t for the Church; it would most likely not even exist as a recognizable category at all.”
            Caesar and Alexander made Europe greater than a thousand whiny priests crying about having wet dreams

          • peppermint says:

            »» It was Catholicism that made Europe great, not the other way around.

            » The scientific, technological, and industrial revolutions, occurred under a national church, not a universal church.

            Interesting turn of phrase. Perhapst national religion is less harmful than universal religion like how national socialism is less harmful than universal socialism

          • Korth says:

            >The scientific, technological, and industrial revolutions, occurred under a national church, not a universal church.

            The industrial revolution was enabled by the joint stock company and double entry accounting. Church jurisdictions and changes in work ethic had little to nothing to do with it.

            Protestant countries were at an advantage because they happened to have smaller and more mobile family units, but the prevalence of this family model in Northern Europe was arguably a leftover from late medieval catholicism, not a Protestant innovation: http://i.imgur.com/QEijvOD.png

    • jim says:

      Prudentius

      The reason Orthodoxy worked is that you had a King at the top instead of priests at the top – Warriors rather than priests.

      For a religion to really work, you need a King at the top and a semi hereditary priesthood, for example Shinto or the Judaism of King Solomon. The King at the top provides a steady infusion of nationalist and warrior values, the hereditary or semi hereditary priesthood prevents holiness spirals.

      • Adolf the anti-White says:

        As you said before, when a civilization loses it’s animating religion, the civilization tends to die. Roman paganism died, and because of that, Rome died. Christians, and a bunch of other cults, were just filling the power vacuum.

        Do you think that the pagans would have let the Christian emperors remove the altar of victory, if the pagans actually believed in their religion?

        A purely hereditary priesthood kills the vitality in a religion. The High Priest’s grandson will use his “priestly powers” to gain wealth, status, et cetera. Which everybody notices, and so people don’t take the religion seriously.

        The Anglo holiness spiral may have been caused by Puritan power-seeking. But it didn’t help that most establishment Anglicans didn’t really believe in their religion. The Puritans were more ruthless, in part, because the average Puritan believed in his religion more sincerely than the average Anglican.

        BTW, King Solomon’s priests may have been semi-hereditary. But the Prophets weren’t.

        For a religion to work, you have to balance stability with genuine belief. Hereditary titles are stable, but tend to lead to non-genuine belief. Granting power to the most passionate individuals tends to lead to genuine belief, but less stability.

        • Nyan Sandwich says:

          This is an important point. I wonder what can be done about it

        • jim says:

          As B points out, the King took some lip from the prophets, but under the Kings, prophets tended to be out of power. Kings allowed the prophets to be nuisances enough to keep the religion from going totally cynical.

          • Adolf the anti-White says:

            And the Prophets wrote most of the Old Testament.

            Prophets had a role in a religion – after they died. Living Prophets lived in sackcloth and ashes. Dead Prophets ruled the religion. Which means that religious passion, censored by a stable priesthood ruled the religion.

            I like the Orthodox compromise. Send the monks off to the Monastery, to pursue uber-holiness. If they go wrong, you end up with a terrible monastery. If they do things right, you generate the Philokalia.

            Maybe Bishops should be semi-hereditary. But if I remember my church history, Episcopal sees were sometimes kept within a family line, and the Bishop was often a puppet of the (hereditary) Monarch, It was more hereditary than it appears on the surface.

            • jim says:

              And the Prophets wrote most of the Old Testament.

              Prophets had a role in a religion – after they died. Living Prophets lived in sackcloth and ashes

              Yes, an excellent system. Superior holiness will get you nice stuff – after you die.

              With such a system we might even get to see some of the holiness that B believes he sees.

          • B says:

            The king who didn’t take instruction from the prophets tended to end very, very badly.

            None of it makes any sense unless the prophets were in fact real prophets.

          • B says:

            His descendants lost the kingdom for his sins:

            9 And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,

            10 And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the Lord commanded.

            11 Wherefore the Lord said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant.

            12 Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father’s sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son.

            13 Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen.

            • jim says:

              But strangely, Solomon paid no attention, probably because his Kingdom was prosperous and at peace, his people paid their taxes as near to to cheerfully as one could expect, and he lived in a big palace with a thousand concubines, and no external threats.

          • B says:

            Interestingly, the Cathedral finds nothing NRx or the Paleoright says remotely interesting, and continues to enjoy its position at the top of a global hegemony. And much the same can be said for its predecessors. Your point?

            • jim says:

              My point is that after Samuel Israel ceased to be either theocratic or otherwise run by holy or supposedly holy men, and did not resume theocracy until after Herod.

          • peppermint says:

            » Interestingly, the Cathedral finds nothing NRx or the Paleoright says remotely interesting, and continues to enjoy its position at the top of a global hegemony. And much the same can be said for its predecessors. Your point?

            To the Paleoright, the Cathedral was interested enough in Pat Buchanan to kick him off TV and ban him. David Duke received similar treatment.

            N(ew) Rx is about developing red pills. The Cathedral would find it interesting if the Cathedral still had anyone intelligent who believed in it.

            As to the New Right / Alt Right, the Cathedral is sufficiently interested in Andrew Anglin that he is unable to receive money to support The Daily Stormer through PayPal or any donation website.

          • B says:

            >My point is that after Samuel Israel ceased to be either theocratic or otherwise run by holy or supposedly holy men, and did not resume theocracy until after Herod.

            We’ve gone over this repeatedly. The judiciary branch was, when there was a functional government, religious. Samuel didn’t run Israel as a theocracy, and neither was it run as a theocracy after Herod. But it did have a religious judiciary system.

            >As to the New Right / Alt Right, the Cathedral is sufficiently interested in Andrew Anglin that he is unable to receive money to support The Daily Stormer through PayPal or any donation website.

            Cry me a river, man.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          This is ridiculous, when people of the Vatican-Roman Church are working to rid the world of Anglo (read WHITE) people in this very comment section.

          What kind of “holiness spiral” did it take for the despicable Roman bishops to push “assimilation” or intermarriage in South and Central America? The worst kind, the kind that destroys fellow Europeans because the Christian God supposedly wants you to do it.

          Not everything is on the table. As a wise man once said “Physician, heal thyself”

          • Adolf the anti-White says:

            Do you actually think that the Archbishop of Canterbury is actually less supportive of racial integration than the Roman Pontiff?

            And the racial mixing of Latin America is not due to Catholicism. It’s due to the relative population of Europeans and Natives.

            Take a look at South Africa. Not Catholic at all. But Boers are like 10% black, and the “colored” population is almost as large as the “White” population. (also, blacks are far less pleasant to mix with than American natives)

          • Just sayin' says:

            The racial mixing of Latin America is due to the lack of a strict endogamy taboo in Catholicism and Christianity as a whole.

            Things would have been very different if the Spanish had followed one of those tiny weird heretical sects of Islam that practice strict endogamy.

            Obviously that sort of thing is more appropriate for a minority living under occupation than for a race of conquerors, but at the moment we *are* a minority, up to our neck in mud, so it is relevant.

            Whites will need something quite different from any existing form of Christianity if they want to continue to exist as whites. But the historical record gives us examples of how a minority can preserve their genetic heritage, even in the midst of a large and hostile ethnic group. And given that what we’re really talking about is behavioral traits, not color, this is important.

          • peppermint says:

            is there a way for a people with a Schelling point of Christianity to avoid racemixing, except perhaps with monkeys? Sprinkle an Indian with holy water and she’s a Christian.

            Which reminds me. Back to Oliver:

            In the sixth century Be the Vedic polytheism, which was strictly
            analogous to that of Homer, disintegrated under the skeptical and
            rationalistic criticism of the hetuuddins, who were the Indian coun-
            terparts of the Greek Sophists. The collapse of the old faith left the
            contemporary mind drawn between two diametrically opposed
            forces: materialism and mysticism. At the time it appeared that the
            first was by far the stronger force.
            The Lokayata philosophy, which was in all essentials identical
            with the strict materialism of our own day, was openly championed
            or tacitly espoused by practical men, and few could have then
            foreseen the great Brahmanic synthesis that was to dominate and
            transform the Hindu mind in future centuries. It was in this age that
            the son of a petty Aryan princeling produced the Indian analogue of
            Graeco-Roman Stoicism on the basis of an epistemology comparable
            to that of Immanuel Kant.
            Gautama turned the rationalistic criticism upon materialism. If
            matter is reality, it is unknowable, for we perceive only phenom-
            ena, and cause is inseparable from effect. The phenomenal world
            is a perpetual flux in which things and events seem discrete and
            identifiable only through an illusion produced in the mind of the
            spectator. But man is himself an illusion: he is not an independent
            and stable entity, but merely a flux of constantly changing sensa-
            tions. But all sensations from birth to death are pain concealed only
            by an irrational craving for future sensations in the fantastic hope
            that they will differ generically from those of the present. The world,
            therefore, is a labyrinthine Hell in whose blind mazes of anguish
            humanity is trapped by its own blind will-to-live.
            Since man is merely a sequence of sensations, there is, of course,
            no soul or identity that could be reincarnated, but Gautama assumed,
            although he did not clearly explain, that the will-to-Iive is a force
            which, as in Schopenhauer’s philosophy, may undergo a certain pal-
            ingenesis and thus engender new life.Thus suicide, which is an effort
            to attain a pleasure (surcease from pain), is paradoxically a manifesta-
            tion of the will-to-live and therefore self-defeating. The only escape
            from mankind’s unending torment is the wisdom of the sage who,
            recognizing himself as merely an illusion produced by pain, rejects
            the hallucinations of property, ambition, love and faith, thus blowing
            out in his own mind the lamp of desire and attaining the perfect calm
            (llin 1 tina) of absolute indifference. In practical terms, he will become
            an itinerant mendicant, owning nothing, caring for nothing, neither
            seeking nor avoiding death, and, above all, maintaining chastity lest
            he beget another victim of illusion and pain.
            Gautama’s disciples, eager to spread the glad tidings of annihila-
            tion, emphasized in their exoteric preaching the moral implications
            of the doctrine: even men who could not yet forsake goods and
            kindred could recognize that where there is no self there should be
            no selfishness, but only compassion for all victims of illusion – a
            uniform kindness toward all living creatures without distinction of
            caste, race, or species. (Only a man blinded by prejudice would claim
            for himself rights that he would deny to a bedbug ora pismire.) Thus
            the grim philosophy of Gautama became the theoretical foundation
            for a practical ethics (dharma) which in the third century BCwon the
            allegiance of the Emperor Asoka, who made it a state doctrine and
            lavishly subsidized it. But the ethical philosophy was already being
            converted into a religion by a revival of the will-to-believe.
            Gautama, who had denied personality even to living men, was
            venerated as the Enlightened (Buddha), the Lord (Bhagavat), the
            Savior (Bodhisatva). He was supplied with a virgin mother, a divine
            father, a devil (Mara) who had tempted him, innumerable miracles,
            detailed biographies of hundreds of his earlier incarnations, and an
            account of the motives which led him to descend from heaven to
            save the world.
            The religion thus created proliferated into a hundred sects, each
            with its own theology and demonology, yet retaining in its sacred
            books some traces, at least, of the bleak negations of its misunder-
            stood founder. But with the religious revival in India, none of these
            sects could compete with the perfected theodicy of Brahmanism.
            Thus Buddhism, driven from the land of its birth, survives only in
            the lands to which it was carried by its zealous and indefatigable
            missionaries: Ceylon, Burma, Siam, Cambodia, Tibet, China,
            Japan. In the latter country alone there are some sixty sects, many
            of them indigenous.

            At some point, after the Bodhisattva graced them with his presence, the Indians began to miscegenate.

          • k says:

            peppermint, you are fantastic but please learn what Schelling point means

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          I should add that I expect nothing less from an anti-white.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Puritans are eviiiiillll”

      Except that the Puritan hypothesis was only ever a tool for Roman Catholics and Jewish to attack the Anglo-Saxon world they were busily undermining.

      A.J.P.

  6. These posts, along with several of the comment threads on Jim’s articles (which I always enjoy perusing) got me thinking. This is the end product: http://www.theresurger.com/politics/holiness-vs-strength/

  7. peppermint says:

    there were a number of original Christianities before the Catholics got the Emperor on their side and started suppressing heretics and destroying heretical gospels. Since then, the neat historical narrative is that Peter went to Rome and his successors immediately began acting as popes with Pope Clement ruling on disputes in other churches while John the Apostle was still alive. The first ecumenical councils had papal legates and the only reason the Robber’s Council was not an ecumenical council was the papal legate’s “contradicitur”.

    To support anything but the lawful successor of St. Peter, you must go back to the original Christianities and claim that the earliest popes and Christian emperors are heretical. This is, of course, what the Protestants eventually figured out, and the reason for the ‘early church’ movement, which let Protestant sects make all kinds of claims as soon as they could find some heretical early Christian sect supporting them, such as communal property, multiple marriages, and the rest of communist doctrine, and even caused the Catholics to make certain liturgical changes.

    For an independent view of the early years of Christianity, see the last seronegative classics professor Revilo Oliver’s booklet *Reflections on the Christ Myth* http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Reflections.html

    • Adolf the anti-White says:

      >the only reason the Robber’s Council was not an ecumenical council was the papal legate’s “contradicitur”.
      And the fact that it was rejected by the masses of the Orthodox church.

      In the interpretation of Orthodox Christianity, Christ said that the “gates of hell” would not prevail against his “church”. He did not say that the gates of Hell would not prevail against “a council of a majority of Christian bishops”. And if the priests/laymen of the church reject the decision of those bishops…

      Ecumenical councils are to be relied upon. But not solely because they were done by men in the office of Bishops. Councils are reliable only if they are approved by the entire church.

      >To support anything but the lawful successor of St. Peter, you must go back to the original Christianities and claim that the earliest popes and Christian emperors are heretical.
      I’m wondering, do you see the Orthodox doing this?

      • peppermint says:

        The only way to avoid the Papacy is to look to before the establishment of Christianity as the religion of Rome. Alternatively, we can rely on bad scholarship, which the Internet makes a bit less reliable. But, bad scholarship is a particular pastime of Christians since the beginning.

        If Christianity wasn’t designed by the Jews to destroy if not private property, except for the Jews, then loyalty to kin and family and any recognition of race, except for the Jews, then it is a fortunate accident for the Jews.

        • jim says:

          You make the Marxist error of treating the Jews as a single being.

          If you find someone pushing degeneracy, chances are he is a Jew. But, as B has no doubt noticed, if you find someone arguing that the exodus never happened, that there was no King David, no King Solomon’s temple, he is a Jew also.

          The biggest enemy of Jews is other Jews.

          • peppermint says:

            The biggest sin of racism is to assume that two individuals will act the same way simply because they have the same genes, when we all know that human souls are unique.

            The Norse believed that only the greatest of men went to heaven – true enough – but all souls are different and all will be part of the afterlife, because forms as mathematical objects simply exist.

            In this sense, neoreaction’s individuals / incentives focus, that decontexualizes the meatbags from not only their race and gender but even their culture, represents the next step of Christianization.

  8. Alan J. Perrick says:

    If anyone carefully reads this short blog post carefully, they will notice that “Jim” is not espousing the Puritan hypothesis that the anti-white, anti-Anglo partisans use. He is noting that Puritan Christianity is not a competitor on the global stage. Which is true enough, especially when compared with 1662 B.C.P. Anglican Christianity.

    • Adolf the anti-White says:

      In case you think Jim doesn’t believe the Puritan hypothesis:

      http://blog.jim.com/culture/puritanism-and-purity/
      http://blog.jim.com/politics/the-history-of-the-left/

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Don’t show me these old posts. I’ve read something different more recently…anti-white…

        • Peppermint says:

          The holiness spiral is implied by their name and the US has a holiday referring to one of their communist experiments. Have you heard of the Shakers? Tis a gift to be simple, tis a gift to be free, tis a gift to live in perfect harmony.

          One wonders what was their biggest mistake. Was it creating a formal parliament? Was it allowing Jews to buy their way into the nobility and promote their pets like Winston Churchill? Was it being maudlin sentimentalists as lazy and hateful as any nigger ever was? They did write their own epitaph: look on my works, ye mighty, and despair, and around their grave, a miserable desert, dried of Aryan blood.

          The last thing the Anglo-Saxons did before going quietly into that good night, and Anglo-Saxons isn’t even their proper name genetically or linguistically, was to give their names to their newly emancipated pets. Thus, today, it’s more common to find a nigger behind a moniker like Robert Downey or Brad Pitt. Look in the newspaper, see an English name, look for a picture, see the hateful, confused sneer of an insolent, indolent monkey.

  9. anti-hermetic says:

    Nietzschean nonsense. Christianity was a slave religion until the Germans made it into a master religion? Now it has become a slave religion again? Wrong.

    Early Christianity was a Hellenist religion. adopted with great enthusiasm by the Greeks because it answered the most burning questions of their Philosophers. Having lost faith in their own capricious pagan gods, they asked “Is there an all-powerful god above all creation? Would not sacrifice upon this god’s altar be more efficacious thatn the offerings made to pagan idols? How can man find and perceive this mysterious god?

    Jesus’ revelation fit this Greek yearning like a glove. Not so with the Hebrews who failed to recognize the time of their visitation.

    Later, this Greek religion became Roman. In 433, St. Patrick maid Christianity a Celtic religion in the future “Land of Saints and Scholars.” St. Cyril made it into a Slavic religion. Charlemagne and St. Bodiface brought Christianity to the Germans.

    Christianity is not revolutionary because it is a form of supernatural grace. This grace builds upon rather than supplants or destroys nature. Germans possessed some good qualities prior to their joining Christian civilization. Supernatural grace preserves good qualities and puts them to use in the fight against evil. However, German paganism was not worth preserving and Germans eventually left it behind as thoroughly as the Greeks had abandoned their paganism.

    There are five groups of wise men admired by traditional European Christianity: the Prophets (who mostly condemned their own stiff-necked people), the Philosophers (pre-Christian Greeks), the Apostles, the Fathers (Christian Greeks), and the Doctors (Latins). No druids, wizards, or warlocks had to be adopted to satisfy the Germans.

    Traditional Catholicism is built upon the firm foundation of objectively clear and precise doctrine. Any deviation from this doctrine by one jot or tittle is abominable heresy punishable by burning at the stake, preferably, or by exclusion if that is not possible.

    Which missionaries to the Germans do Nietzscheans accuse of this heresy? Which of the enumerated doctrines of the Church did these missionaries subvert?

    If Christianity becomes revolutionary, it looses supernatural grace. It becomes heretical and is no longer a force for good. Both Greek and German Christianity retained this grace. Vatican II does not.

    • jim says:

      Traditional Catholicism is built upon the firm foundation of objectively clear and precise doctrine.

      How traditional is traditional? Pretty early in the operation the command that a Bishop should be married, with children, and with a well functioning patriarchal family was rationalized away by text torture as bad or worse than anything that talmudic Jews are infamous for.

      • anti-hermetic says:

        Married bishops? Grist for the mill of Catholic apologetics 101. I have debated such matters against Protestants all my life but now grow weary because many conservative Protestants are actually more Catholic than the typical modernized Vatican II “Catholics.” Mainline Protestantism branched from Catholicism long ago and continued progressively veering away as time went on. However, old-timey prods have turned the progressivist clock back to a stage that was still more Catholic than the 60s revolution of Vatican II. I would prefer not to antagonize these well-meaning prods in order to form a coalition with them against liberalism.

        Nevertheless, your raise a Protestant talking point so a proper response may regrettably require stepping on a few Protestant toes. Protestantism is radically egalitarian because it make every man an interpreter of scripture and definer of Christian doctrine. Everyman becomes a Doctor or rather THE Doctor of the Church. Legitimate objective authority is usurped by subjective opinion. The hierarchy of truth is displaced by another.

        Might not only makes right under subjectivism, but presumes to define truth and contrive its own orthodoxy. Every individual Protestant or liberal theoretically has the right to his own truth, but society cannot operate without consensus on basic principles. No state has ever existed without an established religion, as Moldbug pointed out. The state or cathedral enforces orthodoxy as capriciously defined by the current power elite. Orthodoxy mutates and progresses as the power balance shifts. Old-timey Protestants retain some concepts of fixed truth and heresy from their Catholic fore-bearers. These unprincipled exceptions keep them at least more Catholic than their mainline cousins.

        Any subjective interpretation of St. Paul’s reference to married bishops (1 Tim. 3) is overcome by the consensus of the Fathers and Doctors. This consensus is as legitimate and objective a standard of biblical interpretation as subjective self-interpretation is illegitimate. Bishops in both the East and the West began from the earliest time to follow St. Paul’s example and recommendation (1 Cor. 7) not to marry. St. Athanasius, unmarried bishop of Alexandria, removed every portion of the New Testament that he considered to be unorthodox after he had vanquished the Arian Heresy in the mid-Forth Century. 1 Timothy 3 remains, so we know it passed muster with Athanasius. The Catholic Church composed its bible as an internal project conducted for its own purposes and convenience.

        Often it is said that attempting to prove Catholicism by referencing the bible is tautology. Likewise, attempting to refute Catholicism by the same means is futile. Is all meaning really unmoored from its origin by howling whirlwinds of subjectivism? Only the shamefully discredited modern philosophies hold this to be true. No classic time-tested philosophy holds this.

        A bishop is required to avoid scandalizing the faithful. If conditions allow for him to marry, he must only do so with one woman and then responsibly govern his household. Paul nowhere says that bishops are guaranteed a right to marry. No man is forced to become a bishop, but receives his offices by the laying of hands from a bishop in the line of the Apostles. Apostles received legitimate governing authority over the Church from Christ. Bishops received legitimate governing authority from Apostles.

        Celibacy soon became the custom among Greek bishops and then became a requirement by their legitimate governing authority. This is the only traditional and legitimate interpretation of 1 Tim. 3. Among the Latins, celibacy was eventually legitimately extended to priests as well.

      • Adolf the anti-White says:

        > Pretty early in the operation the command that a Bishop should be married
        Jim, no offense, but your biblical exegesis is poor.

        The term as translated by the KJV is “husband of one wife”. It literally means “one woman man”.

        You’ll also note that Paul and half of the Apostles were unmarried.

        It was that the man must either be a virgin, or only have had sex with his wife.

        • jim says:

          It was that the man must either be a virgin, or only have had sex with his wife.

          You are torturing the text. The Bishop should not only have one, and only one wife, but also have children, who behave well and treat him with respect, a well functioning patriarchal family.

          Hard to have well behaved children and a patriarchal family if you are celibate.

          Paul did not wish that all men were as he was, celibate.

          He wished that all men were capable of celibacy – but clearly lacked confidence that many men were capable of celibacy. A nominally celibate clergy guarantees scandal and hypocrisy.

          • Adolf the anti-White says:

            A Bishop is not “all men”. He’s supposed to be an above-average man.

            > A nominally celibate clergy
            Like 90% of Orthodox priests are married. Only Latin-rite Roman Catholics have universal celibacy for the clergy.

            The specific question is whether saying that the Bishop should be a “one woman man” excludes never-married Bishops.

            Contextually, Paul is listing a series of sins. These are sins that would harm the office of Bishop, if the Bishop did them. Is Celibacy a sin? Hardly, it’s actually preferred to Marriage.

            Titus 1:6 (ESV) if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. 10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party.

            Elsewhere, Paul says that celibacy is preferable for the masses, but often not realistic. Seems like he would either take a similar positions for Bishops, or possibly demand more of the Bishops.

            Your interpretation might make sense if Paul was responding to a system where celibacy was mandatory. But Paul was not dealing with that. Mandatory Celibacy for Bishops (or Priests) didn’t emerge until after Paul’s death.

            • jim says:

              Rather, the specific question is whether the requirement that a Bishop be head of a well functioning patriarchal family that sets good example excludes never married Bishops.

          • j says:

            It is unconceivable that an adult Jew was voluntarily celibate in Jesus times. All the Pagan authors mention the Jew’s obsession with children, that they bring up all their children and dont practice exposition like the Greeks. They neither practiced that Greek vice of pederasty. Jesus and the Apostles must have been all married to be accepted by the Jews, and they insist that they are not only fully practicing Jews but the AUTHENTIC Jews. The exception may be Paul who did not work among the Jews but Hellenized populations.

            The Jewish character of the Church was lost very fast, and already the next century we have Christian doctors cutting off their testicles to reach total “purity”. A more abhorrent act cannot be imagined by a Jew, then and now.

            If the Church wants to regain its original spirit, then celibacy should repelled as a perversion, and like in Judaism, priests must be married.

          • peppermint says:

            » Jews had no bachelors

            乁( ◔ ౪◔)ㄏ

    • Peppermint says:

      So, rather than become revolutionary and lose supernatural grace, better to bestow supernatural grace on niggers, sandniggers, and curryniggers, taking their good qualities like fertility and making from them the new Europe?

      How about you take your Semitic religion and return to your Jew masters to feel their comforting boot, dog and shepherd of mongrels.

  10. Randy says:

    Just call yourself National Socialists and be done with it.

    • peppermint says:

      national socialists are socialists and civic nationalists. we are simply racists.

    • Please keep talking openly about your Nazi beliefs. It’s self-discrediting.

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        Justin Tunney? Are you serious? Do you have any idea how hurtful and offensive that is? Trans- people have heroically fought for their dignity and humanity despite standing at the intersection of about a hundred different systems of oppression, weathering the worst violence and dehumanization you can imagine, and bigots like you come along and treat their struggle like a joke without a second thought.

        I don’t even…

    • jim says:

      National socialists are leftists. Socialism has been tried many times in many ways, always with the same results.

      The reasons for this are well known: See my post Working Class Consciousness.

      • Much of what you write on this site could be lifted straight out of Mein Kampf.

        You are a Nazi. Own it.

        • jim says:

          You are a moron, own it.

          • Hidden Author says:

            If leftist is a synonym for egalitarian, the Nazis were hardly leftists. If the Nazis championed the little guy, it was to side with him against the littler guy who was supposedly an inferior subhuman degenerate. Some would argue that the Socialist phraseology of the Nazis was just a ruse to recruit enough soldiers from the plebs to establish a society based on strict hierarchy. Indeed the Nazis as a movement were a split-off from the monarchist Freikorps movement. Once it became clear that the Kaiser was not strong enough to uphold the elites, hierarchy and tradition of Germany, the people valuing those aspects of Germany increasingly favored a (para-)military dictator as an alternative. So it seems to me that if anyone in this online NRx talking shop got serious enough to take his ideology into meatspace, something like Nazism would result. Why else do you think you have so many Nazi commenters, Jim?

            • jim says:

              Equalism is in large part envy and covetousness. Once the Nazis came to power, the Nazi critique of the Jews was that they were too successful and too creative. Pretty much the progressive criticism of whites.

              Some would argue that the Socialist phraseology of the Nazis was just a ruse to recruit enough soldiers from the plebs to establish a society based on strict hierarchy.

              Whatever the original National Socialists were, there are plenty of national socialists around today. Still socialist. Still equalist.

          • peppermint says:

            Nazis wanted to be anti-feminist. But they couldn’t quite bring themselves to restore the power of the patriarchy over women, so they couldn’t quite bring the birth rate back up.

            Nazis wanted to be socialist. They said that their major socialist initiatives, like a parliament of unions to vote on economic bills, couldn’t be implemented until the war ended. So we never quite got to see the Nazi economy collapse under the weight of its socialism.

            Nazis wanted to be racist. They also tried to pretend that all Germans are equal, and all Germans are Swedes.

            Nazis wanted to have a thousand-year Fnarg. But Hitler was mortal, constantly dodging assassination attempts, and especially threatened by anyone who disagreed with the ideology or the policies, which, being at variance, it was impossible for an intelligent man to support both. He was also threatened by people who appeared competent, like so many Roman emperors and their generals. Hitler never designated a successor, which most monarchies and even democracies are capable of.

            The Nazis were probably the best Weimar could do. But they weren’t good enough in a long list of ways. We need to do better than Nazis.

            • jim says:

              Yes.

              Though we got to see Nazi conquests collapse under the weight of socialism. Greeks were national socialists. Could have been persuaded to go along, except the Nazis starved them. If you can let people feed themselves and protect them from capricious violence, they will generally tolerate your government. If they can get a wife and a meal and personal safety, they will actively support your government. They will fight for you even if you are culturally and racially alien, as the Gurkhas fought for the British.

              Nazism could not feed the people it conquered, nor allow them to feed themselves.

          • Not only are you a Nazi, but you’re effectively a plagiarist of Nazi sources.

            This post’s “point” that Christianity weakens society, and should be replaced by Charlemagne’s version of imperial Christianity . . .it’s all been said before:

            “Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilization by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society.” –Hitler, Oct. 19, 1941.

            “[I]t is improper to call a hero like Charlemagne by the name ‘killer of Saxons.’ History must be interpreted in terms of the necessities of the time . . . .Without compulsion, we would never have united all the various German families with these thickheaded, parochially minded fellows—either in Charlemagne’s time or today . . . . If the German people is the child of an ancient philosophy and Christianity, it is so less by reason of a free choice than by reason of a compulsion exercised upon it by these triumphant forces.” –Hitler, Sept. 7. 1942.

            Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations (1953).

          • peppermint says:

            (1) Jim agrees with something Hitler said
            (2) Therefore Jim is a nazi
            (3) ???
            (4) mass executions
            (5) babes and the finest liquor

          • There’s nothing new here. It’s just warmed-over fascism by closeted Nazis.

          • peppermint says:

            oh, but there is something new here.

            The first theory of socialism is envy, inasmuch as the Middle Ages recognized a socialist phenomenon instead of just heretics behaving degenerately, they would have recognized it as envy. This description depends on knowing about envy, which our sinful world has not quite forgotten as much as it has forgotten modesty.

            The second theory of socialism, known to Hitler and Donald Day, and perhaps made striking to them by the Jew-led coup in Russia, is that socialism is the result of Jewish subversion. Jewish subversion doesn’t really explain why the stupid goyim go along with it, though, unless the Jews have magical powers, as is said to mock this theory.

            The new theory, the theory that Jim likes, is that socialism is the result of an incentive structure that creates a holiness competition. This depends on appreciating how incentives can affect individual behavior.

            The other new thing is that we’re on the Internet, so you can’t stop us from talking about things that scare you. The Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns couldn’t stop people from talking about race and nationality either.

            Also, regarding the Nazis, they denounced international socialism as Jewish while believing that national socialism was the only right way to distribute the resources of the nation. In fact, the right way to do things is capitalism and feudalism.

          • Just sayin' says:

            When Hitler said that Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism in 1941 he was only riffing on what Oswald Spengler had already said in 1933: “Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.”

            If you stop moving rightward when you start agreeing with Hitler, then you end up with mainstream conservatism and libertarianism. Vile.

            Better to move rightward until you start agreeing with Hitler, then move even more right than that.

          • Hidden Author says:

            But the tradition and the monarchism that you NRx guys seek to revive always had room for envy. The difference was that envy was directed towards outgroups rather than the ruling elite. You don’t think that the Gentile tradesmen of the rising medieval cities envied the Jew for his niche when promoting anti-Semitism? You don’t think that the conquistadors coveted the gold of the Aztecs and the Incas when they plundered it? You don’t think that the English and the French coveted the empire of the Spaniards when they unleashed privateers to undermine its integrity?

          • Hidden Author says:

            The Jewish merchant demands “a pound of flesh” which ever since has been a metaphor for how exploitative people have operated. And of course your argument is that the exploitation the Left denounces, the pound of flesh, if you will, does not really exist but is supposed to have existed as a pretense for an envy-fueled revolution.

        • Nyan Sandwich says:

          STFU. We don’t care if you think we’re Nazis. We’re not Nazis, we are worse than Nazis.

          • jim says:

            Quite so. Much worse than Nazis and proud of it.

          • peppermint says:

            having listened to my carefully curated collection of pro-White music until I know the location of every note, I finally broke down and downloaded David Duke’s audiobook Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question, and just finished the first chapter as I walked carefully between the local Jew neighborhood and the Black ghetto on my way to Wendy’s, the only nationwide chain proudly displaying a White woman in all their advertising, there to buy lots of meat and dairy products, which is the only proper food for a White man. I found Duke longwinded, tendentious, and infused with a salubrious silence-of-the-lambs Christianity, and conclude that this book is not interesting for its content, but for its reach, the Russian government having ruled it not anti-Semitic.

            I think I will listen to the rest of it simply for want for something to fill my ears, but I really prefer the forthright conciseness of a Revilo Oliver, which seems to presage /pol/, to the dessicated disingenuity and tldritude of every book about race in modern times.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUQsqBqxoR4

            anyway, the Schilling point of saying the most outrageous thing possible is for the chans, but, sticking to anything for political considerations is retarded when you’re this irrelevant. So I think a place where people have a bit of a reputation to uphold, but not too much, is a good place to discuss and discern what is true.

          • B says:

            You’re like Ignatius J. Reilly reimagined as a 4chan nazi.

        • R7_Rocket says:

          Justin Tunney(with dummy website w/ viruses) said, “Much of what you write on this site could be lifted straight out of Mein Kampf.

          You are a Nazi. Own it.”

          Perhaps you should ask that to most of East Asia. Lets take a look at the large national socialist states there… China, Vietnam, and North Korea. I’m not a fan of socialism – national or otherwise – but at least these national socialist states are loyal to their people. Like others have said, it appears that a national religion is better than a universalist religion and it also appears that national socialism is less crappy than universal socialism.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      In YOUR OPINION that’s “National Socialist”.

      You’re just saying that because we are white.

      “National socialist”, “hate” or “raayyyciiisss” are all words you anti-whites yell at white people who have something to say about race.

      That’s why anti-“racist” is a codeword for anti-white.

      • Hidden Author says:

        People like you say that they simply care about white people and that the term “racist” is just used to demean them for that concern. And yet it is interesting that all the ways you guys come up with to support white people involve repressing brown and black people. That repression is what people are pointing out when they cry “racist” and that repression is what gives “racist” a connotation so negative that you guys now seek to deconstruct that word.

        • Prince of the Blood says:

          Nature represses niggers and spics by making them dumber on average, and more likely to live in filth than build civilization. Slaves cry out “wayciss” in envy and hatred of out race. We discovered the world, we industrialized, we conquered it, we slipped beyond the bounds of the atmosphere to the very moon on which the subhuman filth of the southern regions have only gazed upon from their mud hovels. I am no nazi but, they had it right: we Aryans are the master race

          • Mowgli says:

            Hidden Author would rather fight against his own country than another. Typical r-selected behavior. K-selected types would be well-advised to shoot his kind on sight.

          • Hidden Author says:

            It’s complicated. On the one hand, the white man, in his rise to glory often treated browns and blacks as livestock and servants. Since I would not like to be treated that way, I can see how that would generate resentment. On the other hand, using that history generations after the fact to explain why you’re a failure even though you’ve done nothing to be a success does reveal a considerable degree of envy and inferiority.

          • peppermint says:

            so anyway. You want to side with Dilbert, and say we want to side with the PHB when he cuts the pay of Dilbert and Wally and demands a blowjob from Alice.

            And if in your workplace or my workplace the PHB did do something to deserve his position, the question remains, what if the PHB hasn’t done anything to deserve it?

            When you realize that there is no systematic answer, and there is only the nomos, then you stop being a socialist or anarchist or libertarian or whatever.

          • Hidden Author says:

            What if the PHB doesn’t demand a blowjob from Alice? What if he demands one from *you*? What’s that? You can question authority, after all? That’s what I thought!

          • k says:

            My union rep would negotiate down to a handsy

          • Hidden Author says:

            Fortunately, k, I am not a bootlicking faggot like you!

        • jim says:

          And that “repression” is why every person in a black country wants to move to a white country, and wanted to move to white countries even back when doing so was apt to result in enslavement.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Tell me more about blacks moving to white countries where they were enslaved…

          • Hidden Author says:

            Hey Jim, would you do what k suggests and give a sexually aggressive boss a hand-job? You know because bosses, slavery and authoritarianism are so cool that even RELIGION should be tailored to them.

          • peppermint says:

            Lets talk about Haiti. Let’s talk about the fact that Blacks had better life expectancy in the US than the Irish did in Ireland. Lets talk about the bans on immigration from Haiti to the US. Lets talk about Haiti today. Let’s talk about these wannabe slaves: http://i.imgur.com/bgUTlic.jpg

            does any of it matter? No, of course not.

            » “Liberals” babble about “One World,” which is to be a “universal democracy” and is “inevitable” and they thus describe it in the very terms in which the notion was formulated, two thousand years ago, bv Philo Judaeus, when he cleverly gave a Stoic coloring to the old Jewish dream of a globe in which all the lower races would obey the masters whom Yahweh, by covenant, appointed to rule over them. And the “Liberal” cults, having rejected the Christian doctrine of “original sin” which, although based on a silly myth about Adam and Eve, corresponded fairly well to the facts of human nature, have even reverted to the most pernicious aspect of Christianity, which common sense had held in check in Europe until the Eighteenth Century; and they openly exhibit the morbid Christian fascination with whatever is lowly, proletarian, inferior, irrational, debased, deformed, and degenerate. This maudlin preoccupation with biological refuse, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as “underprivileged”(!), would make sense, if it had been decreed by a god who perversely chose to become incarnate among the most pestiferous of human races and to select his disciples from among the illiterate dregs of even that peuplade, but since the “Liberals” claim to have rejected belief in such a divinity, their superstition is exposed as having no basis other than their own resentment of their betters and their professional interest in exploiting the gullibility of their compatriots.

            » The development of civilized societies is governed by the natural law of residues, that is to say, beliefs and customs long survive the superstitions or conditions on which they were based. Everyone knows, of course, that social conventions, such as the custom, which prevailed so long as women were generally respected, which required men to raise their hats in greeting women and to walk on the street-side, persist long after the circumstances in which those acts had utility have been forgotten. The same persistence of secondary beliefs after the source of them has been discarded is an historical phenomenon of the greatest importance. The cults which replaced Christianity at the end of the Eighteenth Century and are commonly called “Liberalism” preserved the social superstitions of the superseded religion (eg, “all mankind”, “human rights”, “One World,” and similar nonsense) after discarding belief in the Christian god, whose reported wishes were the source of those concepts.

            — Revilo Oliver

            HA, you’re really an atheistic Christian. That’s why you’re so stridently anti-civilization.

          • peppermint says:

            By the way, download your copy of America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative at http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/Instauration/AmericasDecline.pdf

            It’s a gold mine of historical commentary most people have never heard, especially concerning the pivotal years 1945 – 1965, and their antecedent, and it’s a rare OCR’d PDF. Lincoln’s assassination arranged by his Secretary of War. Woodrow Wilson controlled by the Jews as a philanderer. “The very thought of attracting another thousand head of customers suffices to make the ideals drool down the jaw of an ambitious diploma-peddler, and the land now resounds with singsong cries about “modern needs” and “wider opportunities”.”, not in 1995, but in 1955.

  11. Ozymandias says:

    More accurately, you’re nerd-loser racists who have fallen prey to the old fascist impulse.

    • Alrenous says:

      Obvious sockpuppet is obvious.

      Is this Mutt and Jeff or good cop bad cop? Does ‘Hidden’ Author use Ozymandias as evidence you’re unpopular and low status, or is it time to offer a gentler path to hell?

      Other question: are these dummy sites loaded with viruses? Obviously I’m not going to go find out…

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      How do you define “racist”?

      A.J.P.

      • R7_Rocket says:

        Now that you asked Ozymandias to define “racist” and “racism”, he’s going to run away with his tail between his legs. The SJW’s always run or refuse to answer when you ask them to define one of their anti-concepts.

  12. Corvinus says:

    “The institutional Christianity that flourishes today is no longer the same religion as that practiced by Charlemagne and his successors, and it can no longer support the civilization they formed. Indeed, organized Christianity today is the enemy of the West and the race that created it.”

    Hogwash. Russell offers a sociological definition of a concept HE personally desires to be understood in a cultural manner, a phenomenon that may not necessarily be put into this context, then proceeds to completely avoid any insight into whether Rome was the originator or transmitter of Christian culture. Moreover, Russell’s argument for the “Germanization” of Christianity is solely based on secondary sources; one would expect his thesis have a sound basis in empiricism. That is, while those sources are well regarded, the passages he cites lend themselves better to sociological generalizing rather than historical analysis. He is merely creating a model by which to understand how Christianity MIGHT have developed from a socio-cultural perspective. Medieval historians undoubtedly would have reservations about the degree to which his model shows how those conversion unfolded over decades; Russell’s view of Germans as a homogeneous and stable group is at also clearly at odds with their behaviors and proclivities as individual tribes.

    • peppermint says:

      Germans are, however, trivially a homogeneous and stable *race*. The Germanization of Christianity is the unremarkable phenomenon wherein a collection of fables and practices are reinterpeted by the German mind, which understands the world differently from other races.

      If you don’t believe in race, Germanization can only mean heresy inasmuch as it is not vacuous. If you are a racist, you can’t be a Christian.

      • B says:

        The Germans are not a race, any more than the Slavs or the Turks. The Germans are a collection of people speaking German due to various historic events. Many of them have more or less common descent.

        There is no Germanization of Christianity. Christianity, meaning, the colloidal suspension of high Greek paganism and Jewish heresy, was variously adapted by the Romans, the Byzantines, the great European states and then the Protestants, with various elements falling out of the suspension on the way.

        • peppermint says:

          yeah, I was egregiously calling all non-mediterranian Whites Germans in order to maximally sound like Hitler. I’m really not sure what a Slav is, I guess I’ve never looked for them in a PCA graph :/

        • Hidden Author says:

          “Colloidal”?

          I had to look up that word. Apparently you’re saying Christianity is the result of decay and degeneration. So you agree with all the bullies and tyrants who have carried out the most unprovoked (or at least the most unjustified religiously-based) persecutions in the history of the world!

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            Jesus, HA. With all the time you spend commenting here, how can you possibly be surprised and outraged that B thinks Christianity is the result of “decay and degeneration?”

          • B says:

            >I had to look up that word.

            I wouldn’t brag about that.

            I’m saying that Christianity is the mixture of two great tastes that don’t taste great together, and that the better (inconvenient) parts of both of them have been progressively washing out as time goes on. What is left now is quite devoid of all but the most adaptive schlock.

  13. […] walk away.” Never trust a non-biologian. Meanwhile, in the Augean Stables of absurd lies. The Christian Question. Teleotheology, and cyclical demography. The worse, the better. Chatting with Chesterton. […]

  14. Just sayin' says:

    It’s pretty simple. Paganism is kind of a red herring.

    It’s just stupid to join a religion that is 95% progressive (at least in my country) in an attempt to resist progressivism.

    Peer pressure, etc. Christian delinquents would be telling me to love gay people, worship Israeli socialists for some reason and get married inter-racially. Over time, seeing my peer group participating in that sort of degeneracy might wear me down.

    I need to form mutually supporting peer groups with people who actually hold vaguely right wing views. As it turns out these people are liable to be non-religious, at least in the younger generations. But they are likely to hold a few key Schelling points as sacred (or at least utterly essential), which, I guess you could refer to as Paganism if you want.

  15. peppermint says:

    hey Jim, have you seen http://www.revilo-oliver.com/news/1985/08/by-their-fruits-ye-shall-know-them/ ?

    It talks about the Puritan Hypothesis, noting that none of the Civil War agitators were Jews, the Germanization of Christianity, and includes the following passage –

    » Gospels do effect changes. When they are promulgated, they carry conviction only to adults whose proclivities and desires they flatter, but when they are administered to children in their formative years, when growing minds are still unformed and their innate powers will be developed only by a kind of mental adolescence in later years, the gospels, inculcated by fear of the terrible supernatural monster whose will they are supposed to represent, commonly so distort the child’s understanding that he becomes an adult whose mentality is limited by the hokum that molded it. Thus gospels persistently administered to children for generation after generation can and do produce drastic changes in nations and races that may eventually simulate a biological evolution.

    » The righteousness syndrome is, of course, characteristic of Christians. It has been their inspiration from the first, and they often describe it in terms of a muddled sentiment they call “love.” (5) This usually takes the form of a morbid doting on everything that is inferior, debased, diseased, and degenerate, which is simply the obverse of a proletarian rancor against all physical, mental, or moral superiority. It is a festering lust for equality, which, as is obvious, can be attained only be reducing the whole world to a uniform level of degradation. But Christians are elated by their own righteousness, because they love everybody so much that they want to rip the guts out of everybody who doesn’t love everybody as much as they do.

    • jim says:

      Christianity is not necessarily progressivism, but it has always been vulnerable to that heresy.

      • B says:

        Of course Christianity is progressivism. Its core idea is that the rules are not as important as their intent, which is subjective to being interpreted by the mystically enlightened rabblerousers. How does one become acknowledged as a member of this elite which has the right to abrogate and change laws? By performing miracles and demagoguery in front of crowds of the common people. What could be more progressive?

        • jim says:

          Well, yes, but one can equally argue that if Christianity is inherently progressive, the text torture so characteristic of Orthodox Jews, and of certain Muslim tendencies ridiculed as “professors of menstruation” is inherently Marxist.

          Now in certain small parts of America the heat is on Orthodox Jews to gay marry men in orthodox synagogues – the heat being applied to the most vulnerable part of the orthodox community. If they crack, the next most vulnerable part will feel the heat. I will bet you a bottle of moderately good whiskey (not the top stuff, but pretty decent) that a gay marriage will happen in an orthodox synagogue before the end of 2016.

          • B says:

            What you call “text torture” I call “analysis.” If you assume a text is divine, then it’s obviously got built-in applications beyond its plain text, especially if the plain text is something like “if you steal a cow, you have to pay back five cows, but if you steal a sheep, you have to pay back four sheep.” I mean, that’s not very inspiring stuff. If we operate from the framework of, hey, that’s what you get from Bronze Age sheepherders, then there is no need to go any further. But if we operate from the framework of “this is the text G-d gave us which stands for all time in all places, and is the foundation of an operating manual to life,” then obviously there’s got to be a feature set in there which goes beyond the obvious, but which can be discerned through deep and lifelong study.

            Obviously, internally both approaches are consistent. But we can use outcomes as a check (which the Torah tells us to do-“by this shall you live.”) The vast majority of Jews throughout history have taken the second approach, and have survived all kinds of crazy things. In the last 100 years, we’ve seen millions take the first approach, and they’re going extinct as quickly as possible.

            I’ll take you up on that bet if we can come to a mutually acceptable definition of what an Orthodox synagogue is. I like Ardbeg.

            • jim says:

              mean, that’s not very inspiring stuff. If we operate from the framework of, hey, that’s what you get from Bronze Age sheepherders, then there is no need to go any further. But if we operate from the framework of “this is the text G-d gave us which stands for all time in all places

              You condescend to the text as the product of ignorant bronze age sheepherders at the same time as proclaiming it the unchangeable word of God. Being the product of ignorant Bronze age Sheep herders, you authorize yourself to approach it like a mystic reading the future in tea leaves.

              There is nothing wrong with their rules on theft and violence, nor should we expect there to be anything wrong with their rules on theft and violence. Their rules on sex are defective in that they did not understand inbreeding and the Westermarck effect, but are otherwise fine, much superior to our current – or your current – rules. There is nothing wrong with their rules on patriarchy. Their rules on poop and vermin are fine, their rules on hygeine were pretty good for their time but have been rendered obsolete by better knowledge.

              The vast majority of Jews throughout history have taken the second approach, and have survived all kinds of crazy things.

              Jews had better rules on poop than everyone else. That advantage no longer applies. The Orthodox have better rules on family and sex than most, but are quietly sidling away from those embarrassingly obsolete rules.

            • jim says:

              I’ll take you up on that bet if we can come to a mutually acceptable definition of what an Orthodox synagogue is. I like Ardbeg.

              Poster girl criterion: The press proclaim a gay marriage in an allegedly orthodox synagogue – which is connected by the social graph to all other orthodox synagogues. If the people in all the other orthodox syagogues do not cut the social graph to draw a bright line between the orthodox and the no longer orthodox, then it is still orthodox. If no lawsuits happening over synagogue assets when the bright line on the social graph cuts through the middle of existing synagogues, then the press is telling the truth.

              Or to say the same thing in different words: if the press says it is orthodox, then it is orthodox unless the great majority of the truly orthodox are willing to walk the extra mile to sharply define it as non orthodox, to draw a bright line between “us” and “them”.

              Analogous to what happened with openly gay episcopalian Bishops. Lawsuits, new churches, old churches emptied. If, however, one gay marriage in one orthodox synagogue, and no dramatic disconnection of the social graph ensues, then in a decade or so, gay marriage will be part of the ancient oral law that Moses received on the mountain top from God, and it will be mighty difficult to find that anyone ever doubted this.

          • peppermint says:

            survived all kinds of crazy things… like over 100 expulsions from various countries in Europe, sometimes being expelled multiple times, and 40,000,000 killed in the siege of Jerusalem by he Romans, and 6,000,000 killed by the Germans, but, being an international race, the Jews as a whole were never threatened by any of it

          • B says:

            >Poster girl criterion: The press proclaim a gay marriage in an allegedly orthodox synagogue – which is connected by the social graph to all other orthodox synagogues.

            What is the social graph? I am connected to you and Kevin Bacon on the social graph. My suggestion is that we define an orthodox synagogue as one which currently (2015) explicitly identifies as orthodox, where women don’t get called up to the Torah or say kaddish, etc.

            >If the people in all the other orthodox syagogues do not cut the social graph to draw a bright line between the orthodox and the no longer orthodox, then it is still orthodox.

            All the people in all the other orthodox synagogues? Many synagogues have members with varying personal levels of observance, for whatever reasons. And how will you determine that they have “cut the social graph”? We don’t particularly like bringing dirty laundry out in public. I could personally call and make inquiries, and it is possible that they would tell me, but you wouldn’t take me at my word.

            >If no lawsuits happening over synagogue assets when the bright line on the social graph cuts through the middle of existing synagogues, then the press is telling the truth.

            The issue is that we’re not Catholics or the Church of England. Anyone can declare his basement a synagogue and get a Torah scroll, and have ten adult male Jews gather there to pray occasionally, and it’s a synagogue, and if he says it’s an “orthodox” synagogue, it’s not like the word “orthodox” is copyrighted. If he happens to be a homosexual, and the other nine support him, and he “marries” his boyfriend in his basement, is this a victory condition, assuming that ?

            I would say that the synagogue has to currently identify as Orthodox, to be accepted as Orthodox, and the criterion for the “bright line” is the Orthodox Union or Rabbinical Council of America (which is itself on the left side of Orthodox Judaism) issuing a condemnation. And then you’re on for your bet.

            • jim says:

              I would say that the synagogue has to currently identify as Orthodox, to be accepted as Orthodox, and the criterion for the “bright line” is the Orthodox Union or Rabbinical Council of America (which is itself on the left side of Orthodox Judaism) issuing a condemnation. And then you’re on for your bet.

              Trouble is that Cathedral never demands that anyone explicitly convert to progressivism. The Cathedral position is that Orthodox Judaism, rightly understood, has always supported Gay Marriage, it is just that a very long time ago there used to be some ignorant haters who did not understand their own religion. They don’t want to declare victory if drama is going to ensue, the way it ensued with Episcopalians.

              So, if the Cathedral announces a gay marriage in an orthodox synagogue, and the orthodox fail to draw a bright line excluding that synagogue, then the Cathedral wins even if the story is completely made up.

              Conversion announcements will only happen in the final states of mopping up, if then.

              So, victory condition for the Cathedral is that they loudly announce gay marriage in orthodox synagogue, and the Rabbinical Council of America fail to deny it, fail to deny that synagogue is orthodox, that they quietly let the Cathedral declare victory. Cathedral objective is not that Orthodox Jews come to accept gay marriage, but that they come to accept that they have always accepted gay marriage.

          • B says:

            >Being the product of ignorant Bronze age Sheep herders, you authorize yourself to approach it like a mystic reading the future in tea leaves.

            I do not consider myself qualified to interpret it at will.

            >There is nothing wrong with their rules on theft and violence, nor should we expect there to be anything wrong with their rules on theft and violence.

            So please explain to me how the laws on theft apply to, say, information theft, stealing someone’s time, or misappropriating somebody’s land. Also, how should a court act when two men come and one says, this one has taken my field and the other says, you sold it to me and the bill of sale was lost. Who gets the field, and why? How do we know who’s right? And if the one holding on to the field is in the wrong, should he compensate the rightful owner for the time he spent holding on to the field? How much?

            If two men are fighting, says the Torah, and the wife of one comes and crushes the other’s balls, we cut her hand off. What happens if she kicks him in the testicles? Or if she pushes him away from her husband and he falls and injures his testicles? What if he was about to kill her husband?

            And please demonstrate how each one of your answers is directly obvious from the plain text of the Torah.

            There is nothing wrong with the rules-they are absolute. But they are not, in their plain text, sufficient to obviously and incontestably cover the vast majority of situations that require a court’s intervention in a working society. They don’t work as comprehensive plain text.

            >Their rules on sex are defective in that they did not understand inbreeding and the Westermarck effect, but are otherwise fine, much superior to our current – or your current – rules. There is nothing wrong with their rules on patriarchy. Their rules on poop and vermin are fine, their rules on hygeine were pretty good for their time but have been rendered obsolete by better knowledge.

            Well, thank you on behalf of the Jewish people, I appreciate your explanation, in accordance of the wisdom of the day, of how we have survived thus far and which of our rules are good, bad and irrelevant. I am certain that the bright minds of the Gentile world 500, 1000 and 2000 years ago had similarly well-reasoned and condescending explanations, in light of the wisdom of their day. I am also certain that in 500 years, if G-d forbid we haven’t entered the Messianic era, the bright minds of the Gentile world will have a likewise well-reasoned and condescending explanation in accordance with the wisdom of their day of why my descendants are around as Jews.

            >Jews had better rules on poop than everyone else. That advantage no longer applies. The Orthodox have better rules on family and sex than most, but are quietly sidling away from those embarrassingly obsolete rules.

            Better rules on feces than the Persians? I doubt it. And not better than the Muslims. And yet we survived in those places and did fine.

            • jim says:

              So please explain to me how the laws on theft apply to, say, information theft, stealing someone’s time, or misappropriating somebody’s land

              No such thing as information theft. There is such a thing as spying, but it is not theft. You cannot steal someone’s time. As for stealing somone’s land, that is just simple stealing.

              And how do we know whose land it was? Well, you can invent all sorts of clever systems for tracking it, but they all boil down to “He had it for as long as anyone remembers”, “He bought it from someone who had it for as long as anyone remembers”, or he bought it from someone powerful enough to steal it, get away with stealing it, and forbid all further thefts.

              Better rules on feces than the Persians? I doubt it. And not better than the Muslims. And yet we survived in those places and did fine.

              I am pretty sure the Jews did have better rules, or rather a religion that was more focused on actually enforcing and obeying those rules. And Jews did not survive in those places and do fine, though I think this more due to Muslim persecution than Muslim hygiene. The Jews that once existed in those lands have entirely vanished as a people. Their religion is gone, their traditions are gone, and the remnant of their seed is now absorbed into those Jews that sheltered under Christian rule.

              The myth that Muslims were wonderful is a reflection of the fact that Jews hate Christians, partly for being nearer, partly for heresy. If Mizrahi Jews still existed, they would probably hate Muslims more and Christians less.

            • jim says:

              >Being the product of ignorant Bronze age Sheep herders, you authorize yourself to approach it like a mystic reading the future in tea leaves.

              I do not consider myself qualified to interpret it at will

              But present day Jews consider themselves qualified to interpret it, not at will, but with cheerful disregard for what it meant to those ignorant benighted bronze age sheep herders.

              This renders holiness spirals entirely possible, and in fact we observe holiness spirals in operation, as for example the double dishwasher. The damage done by such holiness spirals is limited because Judaism is not in power. Particularly irritating congregations tend to lose members, limiting their holiness. Were, however, Judaism to return to its proper place as the state religion of Israel, the holiness spirals would go seriously out of control.

            • jim says:

              If two men are fighting, says the Torah, and the wife of one comes and crushes the other’s balls, we cut her hand off. What happens if she kicks him in the testicles? Or if she pushes him away from her husband and he falls and injures his testicles? What if he was about to kill her husband?

              But you are not filling in the gaps, you are using the original laws as hooks to hang completely different laws upon, and claiming dubious ancientness for these new and frequently changing laws.

          • B says:

            >but, being an international race, the Jews as a whole were never threatened by any of it

            Well, as long as there’s a village of whites farming sheep in Idaho or New Zealand, you’ve nothing to complain about.

          • peppermint says:

            » one of the most common heresies in all ages has been the doctrine of “progressive revelation” by which an Amalric of Bena or a John of Leyden or an Oxnam of Washington claims authority to pick out of Scripture whatever passages please him and to cancel or rewrite the rest.

            » today doctrine has in many quarters become so nebulous that members of the Communist conspiracy are spouting from their pulpits Communist propaganda only slightly flavored with a pseudo-religious vocabulary.

            » That, of course, is the equivalent of saying that it docs not matter what you believe, provided you believe it hard enough – and is probably the most drastic and contemptuous repudiation of religion known to the modern world. Just as the antithesis of love is not indifference but hate, so the opposite of a true religion is not doubt, but a false religion.

            –Revilo Oliver, America’s Decline (page numbers in my blog post lol)

  16. […] many red pills and only so many times an individual can shock himself by saying the word ‘nigger‘.  The Antiversity has completed its purpose.  We can all go home […]

  17. vxxc2014 says:

    @B,

    Nazi genocide=Evil.

    Communist Genocide [which meant until 1937 Jews directing and managing most of the genocide] isn’t intrinsically evil because it was just all a misunderstanding of feedback loops.

    Is this a new form of stand-up comedy? The successor to Jon Stewart?

    Let’t Try: Nazi’s bad for the Jews=Evil
    Jews bad for everyone else=Irrelevant and so morally neutral.

    It’s a sin to slaughter cattle in a way that makes them suffer but not the sin of murder and this includes the 2 legged cattle.

    Here is your historically recursive error that will haunt you until it is excised or finally something so devastating happens that it’s just dropped, and I suspect the latter. Maybe you’ll hold onto your piece of the Levant but probably not given historical norms.

    Do I think 75 years ago redux? Only on the part of your ethnicity because we’re watching it happen now.

    Have whatever good luck you merit, reflect you’re certain to get kinder treatment from others than is ever returned.

    • B says:

      >Communist Genocide [which meant until 1937 Jews directing and managing most of the genocide] isn’t intrinsically evil because it was just all a misunderstanding of feedback loops.

      Oh, is that what I said?

      No, it’s not.

      What I said is very similar to what Spandrell said about Mao’s cult, but in a sentence or two instead of a giant post.

      Since I’m Jewish, obviously, my real point was that goyim are cattle, us killing them by the millions was just an innocent misunderstanding, etc.

      I’d like to invite you to go fuck yourself. But first, consider thatone of the first things the Communists did, when they consolidated power in the 1920s, when the percentage of Jews in the Communist echelons of power was at a high, was to go after the Jews. For instance, with the Yevsektziya. And the percentage of declassed elements among the Jews was higher than among the Russians and the other ethnicities.

      • jim says:

        Commies are to Judaism what progressives are to Christianity. Progressives don’t like Christians, and commies don’t like Jews. In particular the Trots are to this day overwhelmingly Jewish, and hate Jews more than anyone, much as the very white professoriat at Duke University hates whites.

        • B says:

          Progressives don’t like Jews and communists don’t like Christians, either. What’s your point? At every subsequent stage, everything that went before must be repudiated. Cromwell was the exception (for reasons I don’t quite understand.)

          • jim says:

            Communists particularly and especially don’t like Jews. In particular the Trotskyites (who are to this day almost entirely Jewish) really seriously don’t like Jews.

            Progressives are much more tolerant of Jews than they are of Christians. Thus, for example, Jews get away with defending their communities against marauding blacks, whites of Christian origin do not.

            Progressives are way more tolerant of Jews than they are of Christians, commies way more tolerant of Christians than they are of Jews.

          • B says:

            Religious Jews are a small group with whom the average prog never comes into contact, who have no media presence and pose no threat to prog hegemony. Christians (in the Sarah Palin sense) are the opposite. You’ll notice that the progs have nothing much to say on the Amish, Mennonites, Adventists…

            The typical Trotskyite had a religiously observant grandfather at least and was in a position similar to that of a Nazi with Jews in the family tree-he had to hate Jews twice as hard to get half as far (hi, Peppermint!) But most communists were not and are not Trotskyites.

            Then there is the Israel issue. Israel is a sort of constant red cape for Progs. It’s almost as though Utah declared independence…

            • jim says:

              You’ll notice that the progs have nothing much to say on the Amish, Mennonites, Adventists…

              Amish have regular power struggles over education and such. I don’t see that happening to Orthodox Jews. The reason you get Amish in some states and not other states is that state laws on education and so forth effectively ban the Amish religion in most states, so Amish tend to hide out in flyover country. It is effectively illegal for Amish to raise children as Amish on most of the coast.

              Orthodox Jews are allowed in New York and suchlike, so progs come in regular contact with them. Amish, being effectively banned, are, to progs, mythical creatures.

              Adventists get pretty serious levels of persecution. Mennonites have revised their religion to meet prog demands – as Orthodox Jews are doing less swiftly. Maybe Adventists have revised their religion also, I am not up to date on these matters.

              Then there is the Israel issue. Israel is a sort of constant red cape for Progs. It’s almost as though Utah declared independence…

              Utah and Rhodesia did declare independence. Observe that Israel did not get the treatment that they got.

              It will.

  18. k says:

    At Mass, the priest denounced in the homily: slavery, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, in that order. Noticeably he didn’t mention divorce. This is one of the stricter churches too, held out on female altar servers longer than most, though not Fish Eaters-level.

    Common opinion of Pope Francis here is that he is misinterpreted by the media taking statements out of context, or he is suspiciously liberal but can’t/won’t mess up formal doctrine.

Leave a Reply