Undead Christianity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

325 Responses to “Undead Christianity”

  1. peppermint says:

    Christcuckoldry won WWII for the Jews and thankfully it is dead. Monogamy was a feature of ancient Greece, Rome, and the other European antiquities. Polygamy is for dune coons and christcucks who worship dune coons or read dune coon holy books.

  2. Koanic says:

    Christianity has a good record of coming back from the dead.

    Pastor Steven Anderson and I agree with you on the theology here.

    We seek a new synthesis. GNON-compliant Christianity sounds good.

    • Alf says:

      Something like God the father the son the holy spirit the Gnon, God is 4 and God is one?

      You would need to
      A- build community
      B- transfer gnon-compliant christianity information

      I imagine that if the info is solid enough, Gnon Christianity could spread like old christianity, so A will follow B. The problem is condensing/holifying the information. The book of Jim perhaps?

      There is of course also the Urbit line of thought, namely that the bible has assembled too much noise and that in order to make a Gnon compliant religion, have to start from scratch.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Once you truly “get” the Christianity of the Bible (original Christianity) all the GNON stuff is seen as childish training wheels.

        • Alf says:

          What you say sounds similar to marxists saying modern communism has failed because True Communism has never been tried.

          If original Christianity is all we need, why did it so massively devolve into cuckstianity?

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Cycle of life. The Bible knows about the Glubb cycle and discusses it. It provides a way of “surfing the waves” so your progeny survive and maintain their tribal identity, DESPITE the inevitable cycles of virtue and cuckery. There is a reason the New Testament says that every generation has to work out THEIR OWN salvation with fear and trembling.

            • Alf says:

              Ill believe it when I see it. So far Im not seeing it (I in fact see the opposite) so I dont believe it.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                Did you ever read the Bible straight through from cover to cover? Do so. Then we can talk. Glubb cycle isn’t a comment you pull out in a soundbite.

              • James says:

                You’re one human, you will live a human life cycle, so you won’t see it.

                But for recent history, consider flappers in the 20s, and then the return of Christian patriarchy in the 50s. The Soviet Union went full godless communist, yet now it’s majority Eastern Orthodoxy. Wait another 20 years and you might see what you’re looking for in Russia. Orthodox women still cover their hair in church, even the several million of them in America.

                These are just examples in very recent history. The Catholic Church is full of cycles of good and bad popes.

                God’s people always win eventually because they voluntarily subject themselves to God’s justice and his mercy. Totalitarians always lose because a human can’t enforce arbitrary rules on other, unwilling humans sustainably – especially when those rules are ornerous and self destructive.

                Napoleon gave up a lot of revolutionary rhetoric when he not only permitted the Catholic Church to openly operate, but sought their blessing.

                And instantly he got an orderly society in return. Because he abdicated the war of spiritual authority over men to God.

                It’s one of the most common patterns of history in Christian cultures.

                • jim says:

                  But for recent history, consider flappers in the 20s, and then the return of Christian patriarchy in the 50s

                  But these things did not return just because people felt like it, rather it was government policy – that to fight a war they needed to encourage masculinity. Starting in the early nineteenth century they started raising the status of female jobs, and pushing women into men’s jobs. Then, at the start of the war, suddenly popular entertainment started representing patriarchy as normal, and at the end of the war, there were mass firings of females, as suddenly entire places of employment and categories of employment went all male – after a hundred years of high pressure female empowerment.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >that to [win] [the war to end all wars] they needed to encourage masculinity

                  Correct.

                • James says:

                  Agreed, Jim – it didn’t just happen. We have to fight, literally, to maintain our civilization as every generation does. The wolves are always howling at the gates; there is no room for lifetimes of rest.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            You will note that the branches of Orthodoxy who never recovered, are the ones who successfully stayed cucked on the downcycle, attacking the restorationist cycle with labels like Pelagian, Arian, and Judaizer. Those who want to be zombified will get their wish.

          • jim says:

            What you say sounds similar to marxists saying modern communism has failed because True Communism has never been tried.

            True Christianity was tried from about 700AD to 1820AD worked great.

            Hence my desire to set the clock back to England 1790AD.

          • jay says:

            You can compare Christianity as practised according to scripture if it has been tried. But communism truly tried is always a moving goalpost.

      • Koanic says:

        Jehovah is GNON.

        • peppermint says:

          ((Jehovah)) is a volcano demon worshiped by kikes and people unduly ifluenced by kikes

          • James says:

            The Jews not only killed Jesus, but demanded the Romans persecute Christians.

            • Cavalier says:

              At that time the people you call “Christians” were more like heretical loony-tunes Jews.

            • Eli says:

              Ridiculous: the Galilee, where R Yeshua was teaching was one of the most anti-Hellenic, Jewish strongholds. All of Jesus’s disciples were hardcore Jews, some even Zealots. The most powerful, spiritual center of Christianity was located in Jerusalem, until its destruction in 70 AD, and members of the not-yet new religion, an offshoot of Judaism, were Ebionates and Nazarenes, all of whom were (mostly poor Jews) practicing Mosaic Law. It was, going against Peter’s intent, Paul’s idea, who never even saw R Yeshua nor knew his direct disciples, to divorce Christianity from Judaism, to aide in proselytizing among the Romans and Greeks.
              Until canonization in the 4th, the New Testament scriptures kept being modified all the way till 3rd century, to purge all anti-Roman references and insert anti-Jewish statements. It was was Pontius Pilate who crucified R Yeshua, unilaterally making this decree. Death penalty in Judeah was only possible via decision of the Sanhedrin, and such decision never took place.

              Many Jews thinking that Jesus was the Messiah, expected miracles to happen, for him to be released from Roman chains and become the new Jewish King. It never happened. But of course, the whole business of rising from the dead happened/was invented to make it all Messianic-like, which further accreted and mutated into God-Son and virgin birth mess, along with the “trinity” and Satan nonsense, which is nothing but Gnosticism and paganism.

              There is a lot of parallelism between early Jewish Christians and those among today’s Jews who believe that the late Chabad Rebbe is the “to-be-revealed” Messiah.

              Anyway, the very essence of Christianity (starting from R Yeshua himself) is misunderstanding compassion as a sort of masochistic giving to non-fellow strangers and even enemies. While effective in proselytizing missionary work among poor non-believers, this is not mainline Judaism (even though a saying by R Akiva could be interpreted in same vein) nor, certainly, Islam, which does missionary work with sword. Islam upholds the primacy of belief in God as virtue, and propagates it with sword and fire. Judaism upholds primacy of adherence to the Torah-derived Halakhah (Law) as virtue, and propagates by growing from within. Christianity upholds compassion as virtue and propagates by buying up Shudras. My bet is on the law.

              I’m also hoping that fully preserved Gospel of Ebionites will be found someday, to clarify all doubts and disspel Nicenean nonsense.

              • Eli says:

                Sorry, I meant to say that no author of the books of NT, including Luca and John, who were followers of Paul’s position, themselves knew R Yeshua or his disciples. Paul certainly knew.

              • jim says:

                Until canonization in the 4th, the New Testament scriptures kept being modified all the way till 3rd century, to purge all anti-Roman references and insert anti-Jewish statements.

                I don’t think so. If they were modified a generation after the death of Christ, Christ’s prophecies would be a whole lot better. The new testament is full of the inconsistencies that one would expect if two independent eyewitnesses wrote down their stories a few years after the event, without getting together to iron out the details, and lacks the inconsistencies one would expect if two differing sprouts of the religion wrote down their stories a century afterwards.

                If there was significant editing after the fall of Jerusalem, the prophecies of Christ, instead of being so vague as to be unfalsifiable, would say something like “in a generation the pharisees are going to piss of the Romans so badly that the Romans flatten the temple and exile the Jews” – which is what lots of people at the time of Jesus suspected might well happen, and doubtless Jesus himself suspected might happen, but he declined to stick his neck out by speaking quite so plainly.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Eli does have a point here, though. See:

                  http://samsonblinded.org/files/Jesus_and_Christ.pdf

                  Long story short: some accounts of Jesus are based on (inspired by) the Teacher of Righteousness (moreh ha-tzedek) figure, however, that doesn’t preclude Jesus from having been a real historical figure in his own right.

                  The thing is, it’s not that Christianity is without its flaws. It’s that, for all its flaws, it’s still better than Judaism. But the Jews have too much pride, nay arrogance, to admit as much. Which is why the Jewish ethnicity, such as it is, refuses to come to terms with what should be, and should always have been, its national creed.

                  The truth value of Christianity is higher than that of Judaism, but for reasons of ethnic chauvinism and obstinacy, the Jews prefer their inferior dead-letter dogma (late bronze age customs + second-temple period pharisaic propaganda + medieval rabbinic legalism) over the aesthetically superior (beauty is truth), spiritually wholesome, intellectually engaging, living faith of Christianity. They will keep rejecting truth, and keep being punished by Gnon for it.

                  Maybe when modern Israel collapses they’ll rethink the whole issue.

                • jim says:

                  Obadiah Shoah misses the point completely. An account of real man by multiple independent witnesses is not going to attribute a very coherent and consistent set of doctrines to that man. The discrepancies of which he complains are not evidence the gospels were written late, they are evidence the gospels were written early, written by men who were mortal, imperfect, and incompletely informed. The inconsistencies and discrepancies are evidence that the gospels are exactly what they seem to be. If written late, or edited late, all those wrinkles would have been ironed out.

                  In order to get a coherent and consistent set of doctrines, we are going to need articles written by one or more apostles some time after his death, after the religion has had a shakedown cruise and the apostles have had time to debate with each other what Jesus meant: Which of course we have.

                • Eli says:

                  Just like with P. Crone’s work and your argument with Cochran about capability to build skyscrapers, you are out of your depth here. Jews were not exiled en masse (even after the Bar Kokhba revolt) but had been slowly and surely dissipating out of the land, all the way till around 5th century. (And even then, there were some rare Jews who never left the land and never even ended up converting). If you need to get more information, check out Gedaliah Alon’s “The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age.”

                  As to the accounts of Jesus/ R Yeshua life being modified all the way till third century, check Bart D. Ehrman’s “Forged.” In it, he quotes church fathers of the time complaining of the “crime” of modifying scripture.

                  As I’ve said, we no longer have the Gospel of Ebionates, and it’s quite possible that all copies that existed past 4th century were destroyed on purpose thereafter.

                • jim says:

                  If it was a crime, we may conclude that the mainstream did not modify scripture. The claim that scripture was extensively modified after the first generation is a self serving story by those who don’t like ancient Christianity and the Christianity of the Gospels.

                  Jewish history tends to be fraudulent and self serving. Josephus tells us that the Romans killed everyone except those that would be valuable as slaves. They killed the children, the sick, the old, and the unattractive women, enslaved and deported the rest. Which certainly qualifies as exile en masse.

                  This policy varied city by city and area by area, but if not every city got the treatment, Jerusalem and quite a lot of other cities got the treatment.

                • jim says:

                  Just like with P. Crone’s work and your argument with Cochran about capability to build skyscrapers, you are out of your depth here.

                  If you cannot tell that Crone makes no sense, and that Freedom Tower demonstrates our ability to build skyscrapers has diminished, you are too stupid or to stubborn to be worth debating.

                  We urgently wanted and needed to build taller, bigger, and better. We boisterously announced we going to do so. We were unable to do so, and we showed our guilt and shame about our inability by lying about it, and continuing to lie about it. We built one smaller, shorter, simpler, and uglier tower in place of two big tall towers, and just barefaced lied about it.

                  Patricia Crone rejects the standard account of Islamic history, claiming their is no evidence for it except for self serving official history, but Muhammed had immediate impact upon the Byzantine empire, providing independent evidence of key events in the conventional Islamic history.

                  In short, Patricia Crone, like Obadaih Shoah, is rewriting the generally accepted past for political and religious reasons, when we have ample independent evidence from multiple mutually hostile sources that the standard history is, in basic outline, correct.

                  That Mohammed is recorded lying, that Mohammed records God as lying, in that Mohammed announces God as saying one thing that is to Mohammed’s personal advantage, then shortly thereafter announces a contrary thing that is also to Mohammed’s advantage, tells us that the Koran and the Haiths are what they seem to be – thus for example, Islamic policy on women is explicitly recorded as a reaction to Mohammed’s inability to keep his dick in his pants. Pretty sure that is not rewrite done centuries after the death of Mohammed. Islamic policy on women is that if you don’t keep your wife and daughters under control, they will promptly seduce the highest status male around like they did Mohammed.

                  If the Koran and the Hadiths were written or rewritten centuries later, all this embarrassing stuff would have been cleaned up. Similarly for the Christian Gospels.

                  It is true we are short of independent evidence for the first century or so of Christianity and the first century or so of Islam, but we are not so short as to allow people to make up any shit that they like and claim that everything that they don’t like is merely official history.

                  Islam was not a Judaizing movement, any more than Mormonism is a Christianizing movement.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Jews were not exiled en masse (even after the Bar Kokhba revolt) but had been slowly and surely dissipating out of the land, all the way till around 5th century. (And even then, there were some rare Jews who never left the land and never even ended up converting). If you need to get more information, check out Gedaliah Alon’s “The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age.”

                  Why didn’t you go back to Israel in 700?
                  Why didn’t you go back to Israel in 800?
                  Why didn’t you go back to Israel in 900?
                  Why didn’t you go back to Israel in 1000?
                  Why didn’t you go back to Israel in 1100?
                  Why didn’t you go back to Israel in 1200?
                  Why didn’t you go back to Israel in 1300?
                  Why didn’t you go back to Israel in 1500?
                  Why didn’t you go back to Israel in 1600?
                  Why didn’t you go back to Israel in 1700?
                  Why didn’t you go back to Israel in 1800?

                  If you don’t understand what I’m saying here, let me spell it out to you: why did you wait until the rise of European ethno-nationalism in late 19th century to go “oh, we secular assimilated Jews should adopt this idea of nationalism for ourselves, hmmm, let’s call it Zionism, and build our own country?”

                  Why didn’t you come up with this idea on your own? Why did you have to “endure the exile” and “suffer persecutions” instead of immigrating to Palestine in 900 or 1100 or 1600?

                  Did the evil goyim stop you?

                  Did anyone stop you all those centuries, for an entire millennium?

                  Did you even ***TRY*** to go back to Palestine all those years?

                  If not, why not?

                  Let’s see your response, Eli. “Justify this”, as they say.

                • Eli says:

                  @jim:

                  The failure to build taller tower(s) demonstrates not so much lack of capability, but lack of will. Huge difference. And yes, you kept annoying Cochran with this nonsense till he banned you.

                  Regarding God lying: you don’t need to go to Koran. Just check out Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve. Your argument reminds me of ISIS’s against Jews:
                  https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/the-islamic-state-e2809cdacc84biq-magazine-1522.pdf
                  Scroll to page 50 and 51.

                  Such stories in the scripture serve to illustrate certain points. The same thing happens in Talmudic Aggadot: illustration, with help of a narrative, most of which are not to be taken literally, as historic fact. God’s perfection / omniscience / infallibility etc. are later canonizations. For the ancients (certainly, for almost all of them before medieval times, and for most of humanity even today), God/gods was/were quite anthropomorphic figure(s).

                  Muhammad was, almost certainly, a historic figure. True, P. Crone did try to put his existence in doubt, in her earliest work, Hagarism, but she changed her view in later days of her life. Hence, you are misrepresenting her. Her main point about Islam’s origins (Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam) and mechanism of spread (Slaves on Horses) are both valid works. Also, her consistent main effort was to try to come up with as much research as possible, via extra-Islamic sources, to try to delineate truth from fiction, especially the “fact” that Mecca was a central and sacred place from Muhammed’s time. Let’s keep this in perspective: 600-700 AD were already times of extensive writing. Existence of Muhammad, including details of his life, and the current cannons of Islam (e.g. about Mecca’s sanctity) should have been much more widely available, and they don’t confirm many of the Arabs’ stories.

                  In fact, discoveries by German archaeologists in today’s Yemen (Him’yar) — ie the Sana’a manuscript — don’t contradict what I’m saying: that yes, Islam sprang out of what was originally a Judaizing movement among the Him’yarites (themselves descendants of Sabeans), or alternatively, as syncretism between Christian-Jewish religions and Arab traditions of Southern Arabia, borrowed and used by the “Banu Hashim” in their campaign, and later canonized/standardized by Uthman, the third khalif.

                  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/soth.html
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himyarite_Kingdom
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabaeans
                  http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/archaeology/.premium-1.709010 (try accessing by googling, as it’s behind paywall)

                  Hadiths are Arab versions of Talmudic halakhot and aggadot, later (time of Mishna and after) creations to justify/legislate/illustrate, all supposed to be transmitted orally. Inventions and borrowings there are nothing new.

                  @Anonymous: yes, it was both impossible on large scale and there was lack of collective will, despite the religious symbolism of Zion and the fact that there were always some Jews (I can give you names of renown rabbis) who would move to Palestine (Tzfat etc). In addition, pre-1800s, Jews lived in relatively tightknit communities and were not facing existential crisis via Haskalah. There were already Jews moving into Palestine in late 1800, despite Ottomans explicitly prohibiting, and having to settle barely livable lands around Tel-Aviv. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)

                  What’s your larger point?

                • jim says:

                  The failure to build taller tower(s) demonstrates not so much lack of capability, but lack of will. Huge difference. And yes, you kept annoying Cochran with this nonsense till he banned you.

                  We wanted to build a tower as tall as the original, we said we were going to do so, and upon failing to do so, proceeded to lie about it. That we lied about it, and continue to lie about it, demonstrates lack of capability, not lack of will.

                  If it was just “Oh, we don’t feel like tall towers these days, tall towers are so nineties”, would not feel the need to lie.

                  Muhammad was, almost certainly, a historic figure. True, P. Crone did try to put his existence in doubt, in her earliest work, Hagarism, but she changed her view in later days of her life. Hence, you are misrepresenting her

                  Crone is full of crap – everything she wrote is silly. She retreated under fire on one of her biggest absurdities, but that does not make everything else she wrote any the less silly. It is probably true that Mohammed was at one period in alliance with Jews, but that went sour within his lifetime. Crone is trying to put the date of Islamic hostility to Jews and Judaism later than Mohammed, but she is just being silly. And so are you.

                • Eli says:

                  Here, also, is a great essay by Crone, from 1987, where Muhammad’s existence is not denied at all:

                  http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst372/readings/crone.html

                • Eli says:

                  There is no use in arguing with you.

                • jim says:

                  Well, there is no use arguing with me if you lie your head off, because I will call you on it. Cochrane and company alternated between saying lack of will and saying that the replacement tower as just fine. Could not keep their story straight. And neither could Patricia Crone keep her story straight. She would say one thing, get called on it, and say a different thing.

                  Stories in the Talmud are quite obviously made up. They tend to feature people working miracles and doing impossible things. Stories in the hadiths are obviously not made up. They tend to feature Mohammed acting like a fallible and imperfect mortal. In essence, your argument is that Jews lie their heads off about their religion, therefore we we should not believe Muslim accounts of the Muslim religion.

                  The Islamic position on women is that you have to keep wives and daughters under control, or else they will seduce the top alpha male, like they did Mohammed. Pretty sure that that one is closely based on what really happened.

                • Eli says:

                  Actually, all religions need a certain amount of myth and legend. You can call it a lie, but from a perspective of an ignorant shepherd from, say, 3200 years, a volcanic eruption meant that God is talking. He isn’t lying about it.

                  Stories about ancestors and personages tend to have flair and magic/miracles added to them, and this you can see everywhere, in pretty much every region of the world.

                  Your point is this: you declare anyone who calls you out on your crap a liar. Kind of your version of liberals’ reductio ad hitlerum.

                  Btw, I didn’t dispute your point regarding women seducing. Such stories exist in the Torah as well, even though it reflects badly on respected figures.

                  And no, Talmud is mostly argumentation between rabbis, in the spirit of Roman law, basing their logic on Mishnah (which itself is a collection of laws closely paralleling other systems that existed at the time in the Levant), as the set axioms. Aggadah is there mainly for illustrative purpose, as a way to give people a mnemonic for understanding what’s going on, since people remember and understand narratives much better. If you try to misrepresent it as a lie, you’re the one lying.

                • jim says:

                  Sure, the bronze age peasant is not lying about it. He saw, or reasonably believed he saw, miracles. But in more recent rabbinical productions, the rabbis are lying about it. The Talmud gets more, not fewer, miracles as the writers get closer to the present. Whereas no one seems to have witnessed Mohammed doing any miracles.

                  Aggadah is there mainly for illustrative purpose, as a way to give people a mnemonic for understanding what’s going on, since people remember and understand narratives much better. If you try to misrepresent it as a lie, you’re the one lying.

                  If they are making up stories for illustrative purposes, is it not likely that they are making up ancient legal traditions for illustrative purposes? As, in fact, with great regularity, they do. The ban on babies in strollers is late twentieth century.

                  Your point is this: you declare anyone who calls you out on your crap a liar. Kind of your version of liberals’ reductio ad hitlerum.

                  There are not many Hitlers around. There are one hell of a lot of liars around.

                  Someone who says that the replacement building for the two towers is more impressive than the old, or as impressive as the old, is lying. When the New York authorities misnumber the floors on the new tower to make it more impressive, those who numbered the floors are lying. These lies reveal consciousness of guilt. They reveal that it is just not true that we did not want to build an impressive replacement the tower. They reveal that we were unable to build an impressive replacement tower.

                  I call out lies because people lie a lot, and catching people in a lie, reveals what the lie is intended to conceal.

                  Calling someone Hitler does not reveal any information. It is an excuse for not listening to what the Hitler says. Does not matter what he actually says, the liberal will explain what he is supposedly really saying. Calling someone a liar does reveal something, it is a call to listen carefully to what the liar is saying – the thing being lied about is seldom very important or interesting, but that it is being lied about is often very important and interesting. For example Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline. Hardly anyone knows or cares what it was that was declining, but that its decline needed to be hidden and was hidden tells us an enormous amount about the Anthropogenic Global Warming business.

                  Now in fact it is a long and interesting story as to what was hidden, and why it needed to be hidden, and if you ask any lukewarmer about it, he will start describing warmist claims, data, and arguments in great detail – detail that warmists these days would like to glibly skip over. This is the opposite of reductio ad hitlerum. It is expansion, not reduction, it is listening, not ignoring.

                • Eli says:

                  One reason I come to your blog is that even though you’re getting plenty of facts wrong, sometimes spectacularly, you do get a quite a few of them right, and more importantly, you’ve got the right spirit.

                  Your little essay about reasons for calling out people for “lying” was entertaining. You’re certainly in the minority (possibly, of one) who hold such position. Maybe you are different, but it is self-evidently used when discrediting someone’s opinion. The way to expose someone’s lie is to ask pointed questions, set up traps, or simply produce counter-evidence or show that the other guy’s evidence is bullshit.

                  Anyway, I agree that Freedom Tower is not more impressive as the original Twin Towers. Despite the fact that there are some cool safety features (which also contributed to increased costs) anyone who’s claiming otherwise is either utterly gullible or is lying. However, the simple explanation here is the costs of this building and financial backing. From what I read, there were not that many backers, since the insurance costs were higher than for other office space in Wall St., and that put the plans in jeopardy. If it were a federal or (possibly) state program, I think money would not be the issue. This simple, dumb fact is a much better explanation, not lack of know-how

                • jim says:

                  Your little essay about reasons for calling out people for “lying” was entertaining. You’re certainly in the minority (possibly, of one) who hold such position. Maybe you are different, but it is self-evidently used when discrediting someone’s opinion. The way to expose someone’s lie is to ask pointed questions, set up traps, or simply produce counter-evidence or show that the other guy’s evidence is bullshit.

                  In the case of the towers, that is trivial. The replacement tower is humbler and shorter than the original, and people are lying about it. Exposing the lie is trivial, the interesting thing is what can we conclude from the fact that they are lying.

                  In the case of Crone’s revisionist history of Islam, it is too complex for me to bother explaining it to a Jew, for a Jew will stubbornly deny all evidence barefaced. If he was not in the habit of stubbornly denying facts and evidence, he would have noticed that modern day Judaism’s claims to be faithful to ancient Judaism, or even the Judaism of a few centuries past, are ludicrous. If I cannot even get you to notice the glaringly obvious (that the replacement tower is shit and that people are lying about it) I am certainly not going to get you to notice that Crone’s revisionist Islam is shit.

                  In the case of Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline, it is a little more complex to explain the lie, but once explained, highly illuminating.

                  For the tower, it is sufficient to just say “You are lying”. For Mike’s nature trick, more explanation is required. For Crone’s revisionist history of Islam, I would not bother unless I thought I was discussing it with someone who takes facts, truth, and evidence seriously.

                • jim says:

                  The fact that it is called Freedom tower is an admission that the tower was built for political reasons – costs and financial backing are irrelevant. And, since the decision to build it was political, there was plenty of will. What was, and is, lacking is capability. If money could have built a more impressive tower, the money would have been there.

                • Eli says:

                  Regarding Judaism, but Talmud aside, you’re partially right. It’s important that you delineate the stages, however. Roughly speaking, exile really begins around 5th century. This also corresponds with the final redaction of Talmud (both Jerusalem/Palestinian and Babylonian). So, whatever miracles are in the Talmud, they serve instructional purpose, nothing else. In Palestine, thereafter, most Jewry is either converted into Christianity or Islam or is no longer there, but broken up into disparate communities, residing in other lands. At this stage, not only is Judaism no longer the official religion of a sovereign Judeah, it is not even a religion of its own land. Nonetheless, for the most part rabbis preserve the old patriarchal spirit. Here’s an excerpt from 900’s, by R Samuel ibn Naghrillah:

                  “Hit your wife without hesitation if she attempts to dominate you like a man and raises her head [too high]. Don’t, my son, don’t you be your wife’s wife, while your wife will be her husband’s husband!”

                  Around late 1100’s, Maimonides publishes his two great works: Mishneh Torah and the Guide for the Perplexed. Mishneh Torah is, essentially, a restatement of Talmudic law in plain language. In it, among other things, he specifically instructs:

                  “A wife who refuses to perform any kind of work that she is obligated to do, may be compelled to perform it, even by scourging her with a rod”

                  Bear in mind, Maimonides was otherwise a freethinking rabbi, who allowed lack of sexual desire on the part of wife (divorce request raised by woman!) as grounds for compelling a man to divorce the wife and both explored and questioned the very essence of God and anthropomorphism in the Torah, in Guide for the Perplexed, using Greek-derived philosophy.

                  So, certainly during medieval period, ie during the Geonic and Rishonim periods, both Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism were quite patriarchal, just like the rest of the world.

                  But why, when, and how did the slide from patriarchy into feminism and miraculous narratives happen? First of all, it’s important to understand that Judaism, unlike Christianity, but like Islam is not just a religion (pomp and ritual) but also legal framework that touches upon every aspect of community’s life. That having been noted, my current theory is that the reason for such a slide is severalfold:
                  1) growth of Jewry in Eastern Europe, after their expulsion from the Western parts after 1500s and better conditions in E. Europe, which in turn led to dense populations and rapid spread of ideas, often outside and despite of rabbinic control;
                  2) because of the dina d’malkhuta dina doctrine (i.e. “the law of the kingdom is the law”) that the rabbis who had to adjudicate cases in communities, were quite limited in control over said communities, which led to general dissatisfaction and seeking, with the Jewish “law” becoming either more abstract and divorced from reality or with practical aspects that were ever more focused on minutiae (e.g. Shulchan Aruch);
                  3) more and more communities’ members became educated in Judaic law, due to the spread of yeshivot and pulpits, sponsored by general prosperity;
                  4) last but not least, the emergence of Hassidism, founded on Lurianic Kabbalah, itself based on a fake piece of writing called “Zohar” and possibly inspired by Sufism.

                  It is Hassidic movements that grew out of this divorced-from-autonomy condition, which increasingly gained foothold among Eastern European Jewry, with the result, today, that even the Mitnagdim (Litvaks), i.e. those who vehemently opposed the Hasidism early on are now (virtually all) at least to some extent Lurianic/Arizal Kabbalists and accepting of Zohar, with its ever-present miracles and much “spiritual” and other nonsense.

                  In fact, Jewish mysticism could have spread even faster, if not for the disaster that was promulgated by Sabbatai Tzvi and company.

                  I think that it’s part of human condition to believe in magic and miracles, an old yearning for anthropomorphization of nature and God, as explained in the Guide for the Perplexed. But my outlook is also shaped by Moshe Koppel’s “Meta Halakha,” from which I derive hope that someday, when Judaism becomes the way of life of fully autonomous communities, it will become more confident and shed some of its crazy baggage.

                • jim says:

                  Bear in mind, Maimonides was otherwise a freethinking rabbi, who allowed lack of sexual desire on the part of wife (divorce request raised by woman!) as grounds for compelling a man to divorce the wife

                  Divorce on demand makes it difficult for men and women to cooperate to raise children, and divorce on female demand is clearly incompatible with marital stability or patriarchy, and worse than divorce on male demand, because female decisions about sex and reproduction are even more dangerously irrational than male decisions.

                  His policy of divorce on demand was incompatible with his policy that it was OK to beat one’s wife for misconduct. I presume he wanted to justify existing law and custom, while at the same time being holier than existing law and custom. On the other hand, Orthodox Jews do manage decent fertility. I asked B how they managed it, but found his answers evasive and hard to believe. How do you think they manage it?

                • Eli says:

                  I agree, it’s a conflicted position. Presumably, if you beat your wife, she gets turned on more often, thus sparing you the divorce 😉

                  Besides, if it is the wife who compels the divorce, the husband can always refuse. If the community persists in pressuring him, he may grant it, she goes back into her father’s house, but without the ketubah (dowry). Upon which, her own father proceeds to beat her mercilessly ?

                • Eli says:

                  To answer your question about “how they manage it:” I don’t know 100%, but my observation of charedim is this:

                  1) the girls go to all-girls Jewish school, where they receive Jewish education. Here they receive their programming of what’s statusful, including about modesty, having a pious, learned (Jewishly) Jewish husband and a large family of Jewish kids.

                  2) the girls go dating via shiddukh, a marriage arranged via Jewish intermediary — essentially, marriage-dedicated people from the community. Marring someone of yichus (pedigree) is always preferable by all parties, including the parents, who have high leverage here.

                  3) since women are trained to hold (Jewishly) learned men in high regard, they let them learn Torah while they take care of the many things around house.

                  3)a) this situation is beginning to change, since many Charedi men are now forced to go to work. How they will manage, is an open question.

              • peppermint says:

                Oh hey, in ((Asimov))’s robot and foundation stories R before a name meant robot. As a Puritan, ((Asimov)) thought that the robots who were purely logical souls driven by compassion were morally superior to humans, but he was racist and had the humans rule over them

              • peppermint says:

                Judeah? I thougt Judah was a tribe and Judea was presumably a Roman description of the place where the Judah live?

  3. IDentifiable Friend says:

    Byzantine Orthodoxy was cucked thoroughly, at todays levels by the time of Chrysostum (600AD). Then Islam rose and Orthodoxy never really recovered.

    Russian Orthodoxy was cucked, then the communists took over. Orthodoxy hasn’t really survived; despite Putin’s efforts, Putin’s biography was written by a dyke, faggotry isn’t outlawed, abortion isn’t outlawed, feminism is still rampant in Russia.

    Armenian Orthodoxy survived a long time, but now that it is cucked, the Armenian community is dissolving.

    Catholicism… no need to say much really.

    It is possible a virile offshoot of Christianity will appear, but the main branches are dead and have been for a long time. Mormonism was virile 150 years ago, but was cucked since then. It couldn’t survive the heat that the larger Christian world brought down on it.

    The seed of virile Christianity is in the New Testament, especially if you throw away a few bits that every scholar agrees was added later, like the Pericope of the Woman Caught in Adultery.

    The Puritans were virile in their time, but they didn’t make a clean enough break from England and Anglicanism, and they got cucked within 200 years, becoming todays Unitarian Universalists.

    Careful examination of the New Testament shows that anyone who follows the New Testament will walk a path that modern denominations attack as “Judaizing”. Sort of like a reciprocating engine, Christianity gets cucked, the Judaizers show up, Christianity attacks them and gets stronger for a while. Rinse and repeat. The Judaizing warned about in the New Testament is considerably different from what the Church later labelled as Judaizing. So people think they do a good thing by condemning Judaizers, not realizing those are not the Judaizers Paul was talking about; the ones they condemn, using their modern definitions, are the ones Paul was most pleased with. (By modern, I mean later than 200AD)

    • TheBigH says:

      >abortion isn’t outlawed, feminism is still rampant in Russia.

      Abortion is being attacked step by step in Russia. It will be illegal within 10 years. Domestic violence is once again legal in Russia. Feminists melt for a man willing to beat her.

      • IDentifiable Friend says:

        Let us see if Russia can recover. Christianity ruled by atheists will always overlook essential elements that the faithful take as a matter of course. If you try to do Christianity robotically, the end result will fail in the ways that robots do.

      • TexasCapitalist says:

        We’ll see. In many regions of Russia more than half of all pregnancies end in abortion, today, right now.

        • TheBigH says:

          >We’ll see. In many regions of Russia more than half of all pregnancies end in abortion, today, right now.

          That’s actually a good sign that Russian women are still turned on by their men. You can trace the decline in female to male attraction in the US by women no longer having enough hot sex to need an abortion.

    • peppermint says:

      Christcuckoldry is inherently judaizing and puritanism was always cucked. Don’t forget, male genital mutilation was introduced in America by judaizing puritans and today’s new form of male genital mutilation is also by judaizing “post-“puritans.

      Christcuckoldry needs to grab men by the balls to get them to ignore their family, nation, and race in favor of christcuckoldry. And it rips the balls or at least the foreskins off male children.

      • Anonymous says:

        Puritans get off on sexual desperation. Whenever I troll, I pretend to be an anti-sex Puritan, but in actual fact, it’s a reality-based troll, that is, an accurate-impersonation-based troll, because such people really do exist. My trolling is Socratic because it confronts people with their own ulterior motives and requires them to check their previ… err, premises.

        I bet it was an Anglo-Saxon pervert, rather than a Jewish pervert, who came up with chastity cages, chastity belts, and no-release edging sessions. Jewish perverts mostly concentrate on bodily secretions such as feces and urine, and a bunch of other stuff Freud wrote about. In contrast, Anglo-Saxon perverts are really big into feeling the painful sensation of blue balls. Of course, not every Anglo-Saxon is a sexual Puritan pervert, there are plenty who aren’t – Jim for instance. Or Aldous Huxley, who wrote: “Chastity—the most unnatural of all the sexual perversions”. But there is a pattern.

        If you ever spend time browsing the MPC forums, you will come across chastity-obsessed posts made by the admin Brian Uecker, aka “Pleasureman”, who is of German descent. Given that Germans do not tend to be sexual Puritans, you have to wonder why he goes to such lengths to denounce the mildest deviations from vanilla American sex norms. And the truth of the matter is that he over-compensates, because sexual Puritanism doesn’t come naturally to people like him. It’s the same reason I troll the way I do.

        Brian Uecker would go out of his way to convince you that anyone who is attracted to 14 year olds (which is the “age of consent” in his ethnic homeland of Germany, which I’m sure Brian and company deem as “too low”) is the same as one who is attracted to 4 year olds — boobs don’t matter, menstruation/fertility doesn’t matter, feminine figure doesn’t matter, the fact that this teen has been having “zestful” orgasms for the past 4 years by masturbation and possibly by sex doesn’t matter – Brian wants you to know that you are a monstrous pedophile for even briefly entertaining the notion that a young woman at 14 is not 100% totally absolutely identical in terms of sexuality with a 4 year old girl in kindergarten who plays with dolls. By the way, 4 year old girls in kindergartens do sometimes masturbate to orgasms or quasi-orgasms as well, but I don’t suggest fucking them – it is what it is, though.

        Since Brian/Pman is not unlikely to read this post given he and his fellows lurk here, I’d suggest that, Brian, you should stop and consider what made your fellow German-American writer, HL Mencken, so prescient – hint, it wasn’t pearl clutching. You see Pman, your fixation with “muh proper socialization” leaves you unable to protest against the mutilation of foreskins, because in your view, morality is just how well you fit with whatever mob-fashion is prevalent among “normies” (the people you’re trying to appeal to with your purity-signalling) at any given time. If “proper socialization” means cock-slicing or raising the “age of consent” to 21 as the Feminists in England proposed, well, no sacrifice is too big to fit with the cool kids, right, Pman?

        After all, as a childless misfit in his 50s who self-references as “e-daddy”, you’re surely destined to become the “next big thing” in the shining world of internet conservatism by publishing your undoubtedly grand-breaking booklet, which meticulously explains “how we got here and how we should move forward”, to be purchased and read exclusively by your audience of faux-conservative edgy suckups. At long last, the cherry on top of your suspiciously sleazy cake. Best of luck!

  4. TheBigH says:

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

    I get absolutely no where urging Christians to restore the patriarchy no mater how well sourced, well argued, or how many bible verses I quote, ect. They’ve simply decided to pretend the biblical patriarchy doesn’t and never did exist.

    To quote the obvious: the religion is dead and they are already worshiping the Christian slut Goddess.

    • IDentifiable Friend says:

      Mustard seed. Every time Christianity DOES get uncucked, you get the Reconquista. However, many branches of Christianity never experience that “second growth”. Internal struggle makes Christianity stronger. Would Spain have succeeded if not for the Albigenses? Would the Irish Catholics have shaped up if they weren’t competing against Protestants in America?

    • Hammer Fan says:

      I’ve commented in earlier posts, I’ll say it again. You all must check out a United Reformed Church in your area, if there is one https://www.urcna.org/1651/family/urcna_report?public=1. OPC, RCUS, and Canadian Reformed are also good ones.

      Patriarchy has been implemented. We have 130+ families in our particular church and haven’t had a divorce since the early 90’s. Some folks have gotten divorced before they found their way into our church, so we have a few single mothers (or fathers), etc, but in general our families are extremely strong.

      You don’t have to live in a convent or a monastary in order to get away from all the cucks and feminists. There are orthodox Christians out there, just very hard to find.

      • peppermint says:

        How many refugees have you adopted, do you run a soup kitchen or share space with theater fags, do you have donation and ecumenism drives for Israel or Africa, do you teach little boys to worship pussy and little girls they’re just like boys but with grrl power, do you see White identity as heresy, do you have any mud priests?

        • Hammer Fan says:

          I can honestly respond no to most of that. Unfortunately, most people aren’t WOKE on race, and that remains true everywhere. Therefore, there just isn’t a lot of discussion about race. However, I live in Southern California and 95% of my particular church is white when only 25% or less of the community surrounding it is white, so that should tell you something.

          If you want to live in a peaceful home, implement patriarchy. Attending a good church will help with that. When that’s finished, implement a peaceful community by implementing nationalism.

      • Hammer Fan says:

        I would also bet good money that our entire denomination’s female virginity rate (females that remain virgins until they are married) is >93%

        • TheBigH says:

          >I would also bet good money that our entire denomination’s female virginity rate (females that remain virgins until they are married) is >93%

          If you don’t have virginity tests during the marriage ceremony then you really don’t know, do you?

          • Hammer Fan says:

            True, but as you know word usually gets around pretty quickly who’s putting out and who’s not.

            • Jack Highlands says:

              Naw, you need personal confession for that. (Cue chestnut with the punchline “Five Hail Mary’s and three good leads”.)

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              Blind… girls fuck out of the group when they want to have sex without the church knowing. Lots of pew-sitters, including Sunday school teachers, have sex on Saturday night, then go teach Sunday school the next day.

              • Hammer Fan says:

                “Blind…”

                Not so, I’ve been in churches where what you say is definitely the case. But when you have the home, church, and school all in complete sync, you get dramatically better results. That’s not to say it never happens, but it is extremely rare in our church.

              • peppermin says:

                weren’t you just arguing that it’s good that aristocrats had the right of first night and peasants got sloppy seconds? I think you’re just trying to excuse your own sexual immorality like a Marxist

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  I thought you were insane pepper, but now I know you are a liar. I was saying the exact opposite of what you claim.

                • peppermint says:

                  Ok, you’re and old-school puritan marxist instead of a new-school puritan marxist. Do you know what the actual sexual immorality ot the aristocracy looked like? See the King Arthur stories.

                • peppermint says:

                  By the way, an early instance of the word fuck in written English was someone anonymously wrote that the priests were fucking the wives of some town. It was of course less acceptable to insult priests than aristocrats.

                  Today’s marxists literally believe that there are more rapes of nigger sows by White men than rapes of White women by niggers, but no one is allowed to notice because of White supermacy, exactly as marxists believe the same thing about the old aristocracy.

        • James says:

          UCRNA’s? That high?

      • Jack Highlands says:

        I don’t see anything on that website about gay ministers or gay marriage, though I may have missed it.

        This is a key test in the present day, and one the United Reformed Church in England fails. It would be best to state the position of the NA church on the website, and in the strongest possible language regarding the inalterability of said position.

        • Hammer Fan says:

          There is a clause in the church order that marriage is between one man and one woman. Homosexuality is certainly on the list of sins that require immediate disciplinary action from the elders and will result in excommunication from the church if an individual remains an unrepentant homosexual.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Is this church affiliated (or formerly affiliated) with Doug Wilson?

            • Hammer Fan says:

              Not really, though I’m sure we share some common beliefs.

              • Hammer Fan says:

                Interesting that you brought up Wilson, where did you hear about him? In our Sunday School class this morning Wilson’s name was brought up by the teacher. He has some good ideas on the home and family but his views on “Federal Vision” our denomination has condemned. We are unaffiliated with him and his church.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Doug Wilson, Credenda Agenda, I found him because there are a lot of Rushdoonyite fellow travelers in his crowd, and I’m a fan of Rushdoony.

        • Cavalier says:

          Strategy numbers 1, 2, and 3 for surviving the modern world are all the same: keep a low profile; don’t unnecessarily draw the attention of the Eye of Sauron.

  5. IDentifiable Friend says:

    Look at how a tree is pruned and then grows more vigorously. Instead of trying to “save” or “revive” Christianity, just do a drastic pruning and watch the shoots spring up.

    • Koanic says:

      Fire and steel. Deus vult.

    • James says:

      Absolutely. That’s why Catholicism is at major risk of failing in this cycle. The Pope is working to retain followers instead of separate the sheep from the goats.

      Thankfully we have Eastern Orthodoxy and some strong Protestant branches to turn to.

  6. > But don’t you feel just a little bit uneasy when you face a fertile age
    > woman with a pixie cut? Something is wrong, something is off,
    > something is odd, unpleasant, and disturbing, but you are not
    > allowed to notice it.

    “The aspirations of woman after education and independent work, met with sympathetic welcome in society. There, these are perhaps the most popular questions. The Government, on the other hand, regarded them unfavourably. Alexander II did not like these fancies ; and as to short hair, at times he personally entered into the struggle. I remember a story that goes back to my university days. At that time, short hair, short dresses, cuffs purposely not as clean as they might be, were already becoming things of the past ; they were already the sign of a certain amount of want of thought. I had, however, the opportunity of seeing certain photographs of young ladies of my acquaintance in male dresses, and wearing a funny little hat like a Polish cap. One day, one of these girls with short hair, met the Emperor in the street. It was at St. Petersburg. She bowed and went on her way. Next day, she received a summons from the police. Stupefied and terrified, she went to the police station and found there the superintendent, who, to do him justice, also seemed embarrassed. She asked why she had been summoned. The superintendent’s embarrassment grew worse. “You met his Majesty yesterday. … His Majesty is displeased. . . . His Majesty has deigned to order — you’ll have to sign an agreement not to cut your hair for the future.” The Emperor had noticed the girl wearing her hair short, and had at once directed the police to find her and tell her to alter her personal appearance. The superintendent was quite ashamed at playing such a part, and at having to confess that the Emperor concerned himself with such nonsense.”

    — Lev Tikhomirov, Russia: political and social, vol. 2

    (On the other hand, I wouldn’t really say Russia then was “cucked” over this.)

    • jim says:

      I would say Alexander II was well and truly cucked. He emancipated the serfs, and lots of leftist stuff like that, and, surprise surprise, promptly finds society under attack from anarchists, socialists, perverts, and girls with pixie cuts. Lots of leftists try to kill him. He plans to meet the problem by making further concessions to the people trying to kill him and, surprise surprise, is of course assassinated.

      If Alexander was the fount of all honors as he should have been, the policeman would have been completely confident that the pixie cut was a threat to order and morals, as, of course, it was.

      • Rreactionaryfuture says:

        Alexander was implementing classical liberalism.

        • jim says:

          No he was not. Classical liberalism would have been to free the serfs without the land, leaving the land in the hands of its existing owners, and to also free the owners from their obligation to care for the serfs, leaving the serfs free to starve, or not, depending on their individual competence and willingness and ability to get a job.

          • viking says:

            you know jim as much as I love to imagine myself as lord of the manor watching Downton Abby truth is you and i would have been in one of those thatched huts if we were lucky and the lord is now a a progressive because the lord knows progressivism will preserve his elite status and i am a reactionary because i do not think he deserves his elite status simply because his ancestor was a bad ass and hes willing to be cucked.I think i deserve to be lord of the manor because I am more willing to use violence and smarter than him and see problems of today more clearly. The simple fact of the matter is aristocracy was as stupid an idea as progressivism but they both had their time when it seemed or was the best choice in that environment. They are both no longer a good idea. It was time for the Macdonalds and Ryans to be emancipated or to overthrow the anglo saxons since we are both also descended even farther back to warlords of our own peoples.But it would be stupid of us to make the same mistakes of the anglo saxons.Time waits for no man a king is worms food. evolution is our model not trying to freeze time

          • reactionaryfuture says:

            I don’t know how to untangle that.

            We can begin with existing owners. Define ownership.

            Then move onto obligation of care. Define which relationships in society hold, and which don’t in your scheme. (coherently.)

            Then move onto the concept of “individual competence” who exactly qualifies here? women? children? babies? (again being theoretically coherent and robust)

            • jim says:

              “Define ownership”?

              Dogs know who owns land.

              The Czar should not have taken land from nobles who generally knew how to farm, and given it to the serfs, many of who proved themselves incompetent to farm.

              Under serfdom, the lord had the duty to look after the serf, and serf had the duty to serve the lord. Classical liberalism would have simply abolished both duties. Instead, we got the one duty abolished, but not the other.

              • reactionaryfuture says:

                Dog ownership in this instance would be simply possession. Possession being defined by the ability to defend and hold. Does this correspond to property (legally recognized rights)? Your position assumes it does. Note the passive usage in legally recognized, as in recognized by a political order. This recognition of property being such, and not simply possession, is brought in when you refer to the Czars taking land from the nobles to give to serfs – unless you mean the nobles possessed the property and the Czar took it from them, in which case, what grounds did he have to take property “possessed” by others, and what does this say of his sovereignty? and what kind of economic order can you have on this grounds? So you have two rough models of ownership in one comment here.

                One is pure liberal in which property =possession in which case the sovereign is a kind of roving bandit that expropriates other’s possessions. This falls apart on interaction with the real world.

                The other is more in accordance with how it functions in the real world, in which property != possession. In this one, property is a function of legally recognized rights granted by a sovereign.

                And when you say classical liberalism would have abolished both duties, what do you mean? how does classical liberalism function as a subject in this sentence?

                • jim says:

                  The classical liberal policy is to abolish the bonds between men and treat everyone as atomized individuals. If this policy had been applied to the relationship between serf and lord, the serfs would have been freed without land, would have been free to go where they will, do what they want, and the lord would have been free to let them starve.

              • Alrenous says:

                Whereas Moldbuggian Formalism and meta-Rothbardianism would have formalized the contract, but made it negotiable and alienable.
                The reformers would then be welcome to offer a better contract and profit thereby. (And failed, as do modern co-ops.)

              • James says:

                And what if the farms were sold to the serfs, but the Lords were compensated justly for it?

                A very successful land redistribution happened in Taiwan. The results were very interesting and positive. This is the only case I’m aware of where something like this was done.

                The peasants were allowed to purchase up to a certain amount of land (if they desired) in exchange for paying a mortgage equal to the previous rent to the government for a couple of decades. So, if the rent was 20% of production previously, they paid the government 20% of future production in exchange for title.

                The government would then purchase the land from the landlords in exchange for bonds equal to the previous rent — in fixed quantity, rather than as an actual percentage of production. For instance, if the farm produced 10 tons of rice per year, and the previous rent was 20%, then the bond would be fixed to 2 tons of rice every year.

                The peasants, then, had an incentive to improve the land and improve their production, since they could be ensured that it would become theirs and be passed to their children, and that eventually their improvements would yield additional profit for them and only them. The landlord, upon seeing higher production, couldn’t simply jack up the rent to match the production increase, as was common practice.

                The landlords were given an assured income for a considerable length of time. A market for these rice and sweet potato bonds was also created. It gave an immense capital base to work with. Many of these farmer-landlords, rather than continuing to farm, took to the cities and invested in industrialization rather than agricultural production. They built tall, semi-modern apartments, factories, and so on. And all of those things were predicated on creating the right incentives for the right people.

                It was a whopping success. The cities rapidly industrialized as the previous countryside ruling elites took their knowledge, culture, and ambition to the cities, and the production levels of the farms skyrocketed — nearly quadrupling within a decade or so. The government ended up profiting massively off of the land reform, as well, since nearly everywhere experienced triple digit productivity improvements, and they were being paid in a percentage of production, but they were paying out a fixed quantity based on the historical production levels.

                It was a masterful stroke of aligning incentives correctly. It involved some forced sales and so on, but tried to be even handed to all parties. A sort of “stern gift” to the peasants, requiring them to work for their land, and a “merciful theft” from the nobles, taking their land but giving them time and capital to reinvent themselves.

                The biggest issue is that in adopting democratic forms, they gave Cthulhu room to swim left. The laws protecting these small farms are borderline titles of yeomanry were eventually abolished; people began to purchase farms to pave over to build vacation homes, protections against the seizure of land by banks were lifted, support for farmers in the form of education and marketing were removed.

                • jim says:

                  And what if the farms were sold to the serfs, but the Lords were compensated justly for it?

                  The individual serf seldom had the means or the inclination to pay a just price.

                  A very successful land redistribution happened in Taiwan.

                  Yes, but it distributed land to individual families who had a past history of successfully farming without supervision.

                  The Russian land reform distributed the land to the serfs collectively rather than individually, because they doubted the ability of the individual serf to farm unsupervised.

                  So they took the land from those who knew how to farm it, gave it to those not all of whom knew how to farm it, and gave them bad incentives.

            • viking says:

              fuck existing owners existing owners took by force mobs took back by force so what. you want some libertarian NAP please stfu you cant be bragging about first night rights then start whining about NAP

              The salient point I would think is most efficient use of resources, inbred former thug barron rent seeking not efficient anymore, socialist mobs ok as rightful owners by right of might firing Barron ok but not permanent solution, enlightenment works pretty good for a while, but less and less.

              meritocracy is a start it kind of comes with some type of democracy which is not the problem the problem is elites gaming the system. That is not to say elites should not rule we just established meritocracy, it is to say mertocrats should not sell their potential at a discount for a sure thing

              • peppermint says:

                The problem is the disconnect between the men with guns and property and the people you perceive as the historical aristocracy, and the Marxist bullshit about aristocrats engaging in terrible sexual behavior which sadly came true after they lost their place in society.

                A republic of men with guns and property is arguably what we started out with in America. A king would work but only if he is the true king who has earned the loyalty of the men with guns and property – and that’s the king we have now. Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!

                • viking says:

                  yes but
                  would that be a “true king” if the men with guns were voluntarily following him? Personally I dont see anyway around this men can get guns and if not satisfied with their lader will use them. so I am fine admitting the true owners of the realm are the men and they understand a leader is needed calling this monarchy cameralism or democracy is semantics, unless you actually think like some NRX that the men with guns are serfs and the leader a real king. Theres never been a real king only one that wasnt fired by men with guns.

                • peppermint says:

                  Monarchy is Greek democracy is Greek for rule by random citizens or maybe rule by votes propagandized and rigged by Jews cameralism probably means rule by photographers that could work pewdiepie is cool, but the English word for government with a king is kingdom

    • Jack Highlands says:

      Never heard of Tikhomirov (‘Quiet Peace’) before, but I see he was a revolutionary anti-monarchist until age 34, then became a monarchist (‘good-hearted young socialists/clear-headed old conservatives’ proverb).

      One likes to think he may have understood the tsar’s wisdom, at least on long hair for women, before he died at age 71.

  7. Rreactionaryfuture says:

    “These terrible wars were resolved by the peace of Westphalia. ” you work from liberal principles, liberal history and in a liberal framework. The result is liberalism with more unprincipled exceptions than others, but still liberalism. You can’t bake a cake using fecal matter.

    The wars were caused by politics, which is to say unsecured power. The whole story of it being.religion based is what the liberal theorist from Hobbes onward have claimed to justify their project of liberalism.. Its totally refuted by historical record. It also hilariously requires the invention of religion in the Protestant form.

    • jim says:

      Pretty sure the sack of Rome was a disagreement about Papal policy.

      • reactionaryfuture says:

        I’m not seeing how that claim holds up to scrutiny. Historians tend to be pretty clear on it being a result of power conflict, with the pope’s/papal state’s alliance France contra the holy roman empire being the cause. I am open to historical revision though.

        • jim says:

          Ask Luther

          The war propaganda was all religious stuff.

          • Cavalier says:

            Nazi propaganda was secularized Lutheranism plus a hefty injection of esoteric blood and soil paganistic stuff. Did it cause England, the Empire, America, and the Commie Empire to start and continue WWII?

            “The enemy is the German Reich and not Nazism, and those who still haven’t understood this, haven’t understood anything.”

            It seems to me that religion is generally used as the fig leaf behind which real power hides. In my humble opinion, if we’re looking at the halls of power and seeing true believers, the halls may be a bit more barten than we first supposed.

            • jim says:

              It seems to me that religion is generally used as the fig leaf behind which real power hides

              Alexander the liberator illustrates the exact reverse of this theory. Real power was that people hostile to him and his regime were able to set the rules of what constituted status and virtue, causing him to dance to their tune, causing him to pursue status and engage in status competition under rules hostile to him and his regime, and then they killed him. Real power was the religion or quasi religion, that could set the rules of status and define virtue. Real power was the ability to define what constituted virtue and set the rules of status competition.

              • reactionaryfuture says:

                Well again, it seems the history has it that the HRE army in Italy sacked Rome for money and due to tactical reasons. Capture Rome or be stuck between Rome and an enemy army. It also seems to be that the Pope’s support of France against the HRE in Italy was a cause. It doesn’t strike me they were fighting over the wording in Mass. That the troops were largely mercs should be another tip off. Not exactly driven by religious fervor. But I could be wrong, I haven’t read primary sources on this and have to rely on historians on the era. That they hilariously disagree directly with the liberal historical version makes me trust them more. Its like a quite little pool of history uninfluenced by our current power system because most people don’t understand its significance.

                And I can’t see how Alexander’s reforms cannot be seen as an application of all the bullshit that “classical liberalism” is supposedly based on, and to which its total meltdown can blamed upon. It is exactly in those countries which completely disregard “classical liberalism” and instead simply industrialized on an organised basis that didn’t collapse into cannibalism. The UK for example, Japan, or Italy. Classical liberalism and communism both share the same economic precepts (communism is merely liberal theory in a historical frame) and both are basically anarchism and cannibalism if taken seriously, and not used cynically.

                • Hidden Author says:

                  The USA evolved from a rustic, sparsely-populated society hugging the Eastern Seaboard to a subcontinental nation more powerful and prosperous than most autocratic empires in history. Republicanism has been more of a constant feature of American society than the landed gentry, the Church or white nationalism.

                • jim says:

                  And today the US is getting poorer, shabbier, dirtier, less capable, and weaker. Its empire exceeds its strength. The buildings in its cities are frequently overdue for a fresh coat of paint and some repairs.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  UK disregarded Classical liberalism? Where did Locke, Smith and Cobden come from then, Germany? Classical liberalism and communism are the same? LOL are you serious or a Cathedral provocateur?

                  Italy is not exactly an example of successful industrialization. Japanese would have been more successful without being forced into Prussian / New Deal style socialism which makes 30% of the population into otakus.

                  Classical liberalism is exemplified by early America which had family farms, not collective farms which is what Alexander imposed. if you can’t tell the difference between collective farms and individual agriculture…

                • Hidden Author says:

                  Meh, all human institutions like all humans are mortal. A 200-300 year run is typical of effective monarchical dynasties–and, my my, look at what the American Republic has accomplished over the course of 200-300 years!

    • Alf says:

      RF, you are trying to cross the Rubicon on a sinking boat.

    • Rollory says:

      “The wars were caused by politics”

      Which ones, specifically? The 30 years’ war? That got kicked off when various populations declined to switch their religions to that of their new princes. The war got used for political purposes, certainly, but the underlying cause wasn’t. The French civil wars? Those had their roots in religious disputes under Louis XIV and earlier, there was no ethnic component, and on the political side power was being consolidated in the monarchy the whole time. The Catholics had political reasons to prosecute the conflict but the Protestants had none to start it in the first place.

      Religion is entirely capable of causing war. Just because liberals try to make religion uniquely responsible doesn’t mean there is no blame at all.

      • reactionaryfuture says:

        “That got kicked off when various populations declined to switch their religions to that of their new princes.” no it didn’t. The records indicate local populations largely didn’t care, the fighting was conducted by mercs, and the different denominations worked together multiple times. The liberal narrative is not if even close to even being wrong. Its talking about a mythical event that has no correspondence to the wars in question.

    • Michael Rothblatt says:

      Insecure Power is good. Struggle breeds the good stuff. Compare the feudal West (no sovereignty whatsoever, perpetual Power sturggles) to Joseon Korea (probably the most perfect society that has ever existed by your standards, next to DPRK of course!). Joseon, secure Power yes, but West has forgotten far more civilization than Joseon ever had (not to mention science, technology, and wealth – Joseon managed to be one of the most backwards places on the planet with one of the highest IQ populations on the planet). So, if secure Power leads to Joseon and DPRK, and insecure Power to Feudalism and Wild West, why would anyone sane want secure Power?

      • peppermint says:

        What the fuck? Jong Un son of Jong Il son of Il Sung is a bad king, therefore kings are bad, while sovereignty resting in men with guns worked in the USA a while ago, therefore that’s the be all end all.

        Some Englishman responded to the American Revolution saying that we would eventually need a king. Which happened a hundred years ago.

        • Michael Rothblatt says:

          Historically speaking, there was no absolute monarchy that wasn’t a complete and utter crapsack of a country. In addition to that, absolute monarchs have themselves set all the necessary infrastructure up to replace themselves with democracies, so any kind of absolutist takeover is much less likely to work than even the failed French Restoration.

          America doesn’t need a king. It needs dissolution, and then every nation can get the government it deserves.

          • jim says:

            Dubai seems to be doing OK.

            Recall it was a monarchy that launched the scientific and industrial revolutions and conquered the world.

            • Michael Rothblatt says:

              But Dubai isn’t really an absolute monarchy in European sense, is it? Not in the sense of Louis XIV, Joseph II, Frederick II, Peter Alexeyevich, and their counterparts in the rest of the Europe. While European absolutists sought to undermine the church and tradition by setting up the Enlightenment project (it backfired on them, but the joke is on us), I very much doubt that any emir would hold on to his legitimacy – and head, for long if he started intentionally undermining Islam in his country.

              • jim says:

                The King of Dubai has to consult with aristocrats, as most supposedly absolute monarchs had to, but does not have a parliament pestering him. Seems like a standard issue traditional monarchy as used to be the norm in Europe.

                That the kings of Europe allowed the religion that gave them divine right to be undermined was a sign of weakness, not strength.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  It goes something like this. Monarchs unleash Enlightenment to usurp the powers of the clergy, and the aristocracy. The intelligentsia becomes the new clergy and the aristocracy tries to set up the parlament in order to return their stolen power. Dat democracy thingie tho quickly spirals out of control and the aristocracy loses even what they had under absolutism. Wherever you look you have the same scenario, England, France, Russia, etc.

                • jim says:

                  Not what happened. To understand what happened, consider the murder of Alexander the Liberator.

                  The problem was that he failed to perform his role as the fount of all honors, and instead allowed lefties to define status and virtue, and proceeded to chase status and virtue as lefties defined it. To his death.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  Absolutists (in case of Russia Peter I [the-not-really-great], in case of Austria Joseph II, etc.) use Enlightenment to set themselves up in place of God, i.e. as a fount of all honors. However that doesn’t work, because monarchs got inteligentsia to define status and virtue so that they could usurp the power of the church (and commonly also rob it of its material wealth) and the aristocracy in the first place. Inteligentsia are now official priesthood and are rapidly moving to the left as a result of frustrated ambition (they aren’t recongized so). At the same time aristocracy tries to use democracy to get back at king (nobles set up the British parlament originally, de Condorcet was a marquis, Georgy Lvov was a prince, etc.) but relatively quickly lose power to the far-left (Jacobins, Bolsheviks, etc.).

                • jim says:

                  Absolutists (in case of Russia Peter I [the-not-really-great], in case of Austria Joseph II, etc.) use Enlightenment to set themselves up in place of God, i.e. as a fount of all honors.

                  Kings are supposed to be the fount of all honors, mortal and divine. Which is to say, they are supposed to regulate and control status competition so that status is earned for constructive activity, like sponsoring science, or heroic wartime conduct, rather than destructive activity, like undermining the social order in pursuit of supposed utopia, and so that status competition does not go overboard and be carried to excess, like the peacock’s tail.

                  The problem with Alexander the liberator is that the intellectuals got control of the status contest, that he in his weakness allowed them to get control of the status contest, and he danced to their tune instead of them dancing to his tune, which led to his death, and eventually to communism.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >The problem with Alexander the liberator is that the intellectuals got control of the status contest, that he in his weakness allowed them to get control of the status contest, and he danced to their tune instead of them dancing to his tune, which led to his death, and eventually to communism.

                  Alexander was ultimately irrelevant. All of that couldn’t have happened if Peter I didn’t introduce Enlightenment to Russia, took most of the privileges away from the nobility, and made church into one of the state ministries.

                • jim says:

                  Peter the Great made wavering, uncertain, and disputed power clear and absolute.

                  Alexander the Liberator made clear and absolute power wavering, uncertain, and disputed.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  Jim, ask yourself this. Why does it take merely couple of generations after the establishment of absolutism for it to collapse in a bloody revolution? Not a particularly stable form of government, wouldn’t you say?

                • jim says:

                  Recollect the sealed train. The Kaiser treated Lenin like a pile of blankets infected with smallpox.

                  Russia was vulnerable to memetic plague. It was like introducing smallpox. In the homelands of the disease, people have built up resistance. It was not Peter that was the problem, and Alexander was only a problem in that he failed to vigilantly suppress the disease.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Why does it take merely couple of generations after the establishment of absolutism for it to collapse in a bloody revolution?”

                  I infer that you don’t consider Byzantium or the Ottoman Empire absolutist, but I can’t figure out why.

                  “In the Byzantine state, the emperor was the sole and absolute ruler, and his power was regarded as having divine origin.[225]”

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  @pdimov

                  First let me start with what you didn’t mention, i.e. the Imperial China. Chinese emperors couldn’t even legislate.
                  For “Byzantine” Empire read Anthony Kaldellis’ Byzantine Republic.
                  The Ottoman Empire was way too decentralized.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  @Jim

                  It certainly seems that Alexander II’s policies of abandonment of the suppression of heresies was the most to blame.

                  From La Wik:
                  “Student radicalism began around the time Tsar Alexander II came to power… He lifted many restrictions on universities and abolished obligatory uniforms and military discipline. This ushered in a new freedom in the content and reading lists of academic courses. In turn, that created student subcultures, as youth were willing to live in poverty in order to receive an education. As universities expanded, there was a rapid growth of newspapers, journals, and an organization of public lectures and professional societies. The 1860s was a time when the emergence of a new public sphere was created in social life and professional groups… The consequent conflict with the state was an important factor in the chronic student protests over subsequent decades. The atmosphere of the early 1860s gave rise to political engagement by students outside universities that became a tenet of student radicalism by the 1870s. Student radicals described “the special duty and mission of the student as such to spread the new word of liberty. Students were called upon to extend their freedoms into society, to repay the privilege of learning by serving the people, and to become in Nikolai Ogarev’s phrase ‘apostles of knowledge’.” During the next two decades, universities produced a significant share of Russia’s revolutionaries. Prosecution records from the 1860s and 1870s show that more than half of all political offences were committed by students despite being a minute proportion of the population.”

                • jim says:

                  Alexander allowed it because it was high status and he did not want to be low status.

                  Observe the interaction between progs and Trump. They keep telling him he is morally bad and low status, and in order to be virtuous and high status, he has to do what they want. He is disinclined to believe them, Alexander was inclined to believe them.

                  And, predictably, doing what they wanted, doing what was supposedly virtuous and high status, got him killed, because he was doing what his enemies who hated him and intended to kill him, intended to kill him and all his family, wanted him to do.

                • pdimov says:

                  “For “Byzantine” Empire read Anthony Kaldellis’ Byzantine Republic.

                  The Ottoman Empire was way too decentralized.”

                  I suspected something like that. All monarchies that don’t support your point aren’t _actually_ absolutist.

                  Tokugawa shogunate? I just need to read the right book and I’ll see it as a democracy, I’m sure?

                • pdimov says:

                  “Alexander allowed it because it was high status and he did not want to be low status.”

                  And it was high status because external powers have made it high status.

                • jim says:

                  What external powers made it high status?

                  When the Kaiser treated Lenin like a pile of smallpox infected blankets, he knew what he was doing.

                  Look at what progs are doing to stop Trump. That is what they did to Alexander. There is no external power there – the people that you see telling everyone that Trump is low status unless he does what they tell him to do are those people, there is no hidden foreign power behind them. Their power comes from successfully selling their version of how status is decided and what constitutes virtue. They are priests and preachers.

                • pdimov says:

                  “It” here is the liberalization of the universities, and it was high status because individual liberties were high status in the West.

                  He have no access to an alternative timeline in which Russia is free of Western influence, so we can’t settle this one way or the other, but I’m pretty sure that individual liberties would not have become high status on their own in the same way.

                  Trump is different; individual liberties and leftism in general have already been high status for centuries.

                • pdimov says:

                  *We have no access

                • Cavalier says:

                  >The Kaiser treated Lenin like a pile of blankets infected with smallpox.

                  By speedily and sensibly incinerating them?

                • jim says:

                  While at war with Russia, the Kaiser sent Lenin and a bunch of political activists, mostly Jewish political activists, in a sealed train, as if they were plague bomb. This indicates that the cause of leftism is local leftists.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  @pdimov

                  Shogunate was a feudal monarchy, which is obvious given a high degree of internal infighting in Edo period. It doesn’t have anything to do with me. Absolute monarchy in European sense (as it existed from 1660 to 1815) requires a high degree of bureaucratization, centralization, and only one army, the monarch’s so that’s a big no-no to feudal princes with their sub-domains and own armies. More importantly absolute monarchy requires a monarch to be above the customary law. For instance, in Japan example, Tokugawas could have become absolute had they overthrown the emperor and took the Chrysanthemum Throne for themselves, and then beaten all the opposition into submission. It would have been a gross trampling over the customary right, but then again so was the dissolution of the monasteries.

                • pdimov says:

                  The emperor had zero power under the shogunate.

                • pdimov says:

                  “… requires a high degree of bureaucratization, centralization, and only one army…”

                  Hmmm. All right. Saudi Arabia?

                • pdimov says:

                  “This indicates that the cause of leftism is local leftists.”

                  Local leftists are the pathogen, but not the cause of the weakened immune system.

                • pdimov says:

                  Or, stated differently, Alexander did not take status cues from local leftists, he took status cues from his peers.

                • jim says:

                  It is perfectly obvious that local leftists were very vigorously attempting to change the rules for virtue signalling and status competition to their favor and to the disfavor of the Czar. Do you suppose that they were whistling in the dark?

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >The emperor had zero power under the shogunate.

                  Exactly, but everyone, shoguns included was officially loyal to the emperor (which helped the downfall of the shogunate during the reign of Yoshinobu the last shogun). European visitors to Japan likened the office of the emperor to that of the pope in Western Europe.

                  >Hmmm. All right. Saudi Arabia?

                  Does a Saudi King have the power to replace or reform the state religion? Officially at least, the Saudi king must comply with Sharia and the Quran, so technically he’s not above the law.

                • jim says:

                  Does a Saudi King have the power to replace or reform the state religion? Officially at least, the Saudi king must comply with Sharia and the Quran, so technically he’s not above the law.

                  Monarchy in the Middle East corresponds to European monarchy before the peace of Westphalia.

                • pdimov says:

                  “It is perfectly obvious that local leftists were very vigorously attempting to change the rules for virtue signalling and status competition to their favor…”

                  That’s what local leftists do, always and everywhere. Doesn’t have to be successful. Status markers are set by the powerful, and power resided with the West, not with the local leftists.

                  Alexander “lost intellectual sovereignty” as you like to say, although I’m not very fond of this formulation, because it has less explanatory value than saying that Russia was less powerful than the West and therefore less influential status-wise.

                • pdimov says:

                  “European visitors to Japan likened the office of the emperor to that of the pope in Western Europe.”

                  I don’t think that the Emperor had anywhere near the Pope’s level of influence.

                  “Does a Saudi King have the power to replace or reform the state religion?”

                  That’s an interesting criterion for real absolutism. Has any monarch in history been able to replace the state religion without a civil war? Reform, maybe.

                  If your point is that the king is not the sole center of power because the grand mufti can, in principle, challenge some of his decisions on the basis of Islamic law, that’s correct (at least in principle – I don’t know what will happen in practice on such an occasion.)

                  Jim’s blog, the only place on Earth where the shogunate and Saudi Arabia aren’t considered absolute monarchies.

                • pdimov says:

                  On further reading, the Grand Mufti is appointed by the King and

                  “In 1969, King Faisal abolished the office of Grand Mufti and replaced it with a Ministry of Justice. The position was restored in 1993 with the appointment of Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz.[6]”

                  Seems absolute enough.

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              Dubai is not ok. Local men are priced out of the marriage market so they are bringing in lots of Indian and African brides.

              • Cavalier says:

                Why should I care if the Arabs further niggerfy their gene pool?

                • Dave says:

                  Because it blows the argument that their system works if men cannot marry women of their own tribe. Like my extended family, where men marry down the social scale while their sisters stay single. Your X-chromosomes get wiped out in two generations!

                • Cavalier says:

                  >if men cannot marry women of their own tribe

                  Which men?

                  >while their sisters stay single

                  This isn’t happening, or if it is, complete failure of patriarchy. We obviously have complete failure of patriarchy, which is the entire problem. Are you Arabic, and can comment on the situation in Dubai or similar?

      • reactionaryfuture says:

        “Struggle breeds the good stuff.” no it doesn’t, and that’s the problem. And your refusal to engage with the argument properly instead of engaging in shilling for “Classical Liberalism” aka anarcho-cannibalism is pointless, who are you trying to convince?

        Your “competition is everything” is an embracing of the deranged propaganda disbursed by centralising power centers. Centers which don’t submit themselves to competition, and which produce the integrative technological development by means directly opposed to anarcho-cannibalism.

        • Michael Rothblatt says:

          >no it doesn’t

          Of course it doesn’t, for you. What you consider good is bad in my book, and vice-versa.

          No, it is exactly the opposite. It is, in fact, your “secure Power is everything” that is an embracing of the deranged propaganda disbursed by centralising power center. Once, it used to be Filmer and Hobbes who were filthy propagandists, now these are Progressive journalists. It’s all the same, however, it’s all just a propaganda on behalf of the central Power. Your precious absolute monarchy is just a step in the evolution of the Progressivism, and absolute monarchs were just a bunch of left-wing nutjobs.

          • Cavalier says:

            If the state is defined by its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, then “world peace” means world empire, and challenges to its rightful authority mean politics, civil strife, and ultimately civil war.

          • reactionaryfuture says:

            You keep trying to claim I advocate the previous social arrangement labeled as absolutist, when I have made it clear a number of times I considered them to have not been in any way absolutist. Moldbug made the same point a long time ago. As for Filmer and Hobbes, they are oil and water. One is aggressively coherent, the other simply isn’t.

            You have to understand that Hobbes was working on the idea of property having been granted by god to all equally. This was the state of nature argument of Grotius, Bellarmine, Suarez and latter Locke. There has been no successful “secularisation” of this. It is still based on god, no matter how much Libertarians stomp their feet. Filmer tells you that all attempts to base an order on this are logically deranged. It is a giant philosophical fraud based. At least the likes of Rothbard were honest in just going full anarchist.

            Filmer may have been working on biblical grounds, but unlike the state of nature argument, he can be salvaged and used to present an accurate presentation of…reality. You should read Patriacha sometime. However, Patriarcha isn’t actually the pamphlet of his to read, the real fireworks happen in “Observations upon Aristotle’s Politiques Touching Forms of Government” where Filmer sets fire to Aristotle’s theories on government and the state of nature argument. Full bore autism 16th century style.

            • reactionaryfuture says:

              @Michael Rothblatt You know what, I have no idea why we are arguing. Neither side will convert to the other, and neither will convince 3rd parties. Best that can be done is to use other’s positiona to explore weaknesses in ones own.

            • Michael Rothblatt says:

              >oil and water

              Oil and water but working toward the same end, the same goal. Isn’t it interesting? Hobbes serves to subvert liberals into absolutist project, and Filmer to subvert conservatives into absolutist project. Doesn’t that pretty much look like what Cathedral is doing today, making different ideologies all advocate what IT wants. Of course to convince different people you need different arguments but all work toward the same end goal.

              • reactionaryfuture says:

                But Filmer has been dropped from memory as anything other than a punching bag for Locke, while Hobbes is lauded. That’s because Hobbes accurately portrayed what was happening intellectually. The idea being simply that we all “own” our property, as in possess in the anarcho-capitalist sense, but we must collectively submit to a central agency to manages us all. So in effect he just provided intellectual cover for bourgeoisie claims to “own” their property, yet justify a political system they clearly wanted. The project doesn’t make any sense, and that’s the dirty secret. This isn’t really new in Hobbes though, Filmer notes this in Grotius when he complains that Grotius’ claims mean: “That the lawful Kings have no propriety in their kingdoms, but an usufructuary right only, as if the people were the lords, and the Kings but their tenants.”

                I agree with Filmer on this. I cannot logically make sense of this claim.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  Filmer was dropped because he was no longer useful once everyone stopped believing in Divine Right. Hobbes however, having provided a liberal argument for unlimited state power, and one that wasn’t based on God, but on “the people”, was immensely useful to the powers that be. It was a simple matter to replace the monarch in his thought with whatever arrangement they wanted.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          So what type of regime exemplifies your ideal?

          I agree with Jim that no government can really be formalized, except maybe a situation like when the Spartans ruled the helots, because formalizing it would shatter the myths that allow the state to have cohesion in the first place. Even absolute monarchies tend to develop informal power structures – look at the role of palace eunuchs, etc. Giving all power to one person, and then having that one person be responsible to a hierarchical, organized elite, like the aristocratic republic of 18th – 19th century England, seem to be the best system, but is vulnerable to left wing entryism.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Lol jews.

  8. Alf says:

    (to which you may say: ‘Alf, the Rubicon is so shallow you don’t need a boat to cross it!’ Yes that is exactly what the liberals want you to believe.)

  9. viking says:

    YOU’RE ALL FUCKING RETARDED CHRISTIANITY IS A CUCK RELIGION AND A FAIRY TALE, I TOO HAVE EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT BUT ITS OVER LET IT GO.
    REACTION IS BASED ON TRUTH REALITY AND HBD IS ITS FOUNDATION HBD IS RACE GENDER YOU WANT TO RALLY AROUND AN IDEA RALLY AROUND, GNON MADE THE UNIVERSE FOR THE WHITE MAN, AND HE MUST WORK TO IMMANENTIZE THE ESCHATON OF A WHITE UNIVERSE.

    • viking says:

      Moldbug was right about one thing progressivism is whats left of slave morality -christianity; and of course Judaism. But of course being a jew he left out the jew part.
      I can not fucking believe reaction is is wasting a decade now debating whether to convert to judaism islam or revive fucking christianity.
      Fucking retarded this MM kike has you running in circles while the clock ticks for a decade,which is probably why he tinkered around in garage inventing a distraction for the reactionaries he anticipated would arise in opposition to his jew occupation

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Is that you, DoomPony?

      • Cavalier says:

        Dude, Moldbug is the most subversive reactionary agent in generations.

        • viking says:

          so they keep telling me, thing is he never wrote anything I hadn’t already concluded or read elsewhere, he is revelatory to former leftists and libertarians only.
          And his conclusion is do nothing while your entire people nations and civilization is overun by niggers and it will all be fine because zuckerbergs robots will save us. Translation larp whiteboy while the jews work things out, except we already know what the jews will work out and that they think whites are kind of less troublesome niggers. So enjoy your cucking

          • Anon says:

            You ducking dumbass he wrote it before most anybody else on the internet did, its them copying him, not the other way around.

            • viking says:

              LMAOROTF
              You think no one read Carlyle, Voegelin,Auster, Evola, and a 1000 others before Yarvin? You think no one used Puritan as a metaphor for meddling do gooder busybody? Or noticed the unholy alliance between capitalists and marxists in service of universalism? You think no ones ever thought restoration was the answer or authoritarianism could cut through the red tape? No one understood democracy and socialism are related before? maybe you neckbeard millenial that never read a book until the jw told you it was edgy but please tell me what was so original about Yarvin except he gave you permission to be a shitlord and edgy

              • peppermint says:

                Tldrvin was accessible to liberals and libertarians, by arguing in typical liberal fashion that Whig history is stupid while not arguing for anything serious in its stead, which was useful, and tried to convince people that yes the 20th century was full of lies but the holocaust and treatment of the Third Reich in general was completely true and we should be ruled by bankers and Jews directly, which was not.

                Moldbug isn’t a good first red pill anymore because there are better sources and all the intelligent people have already abandoned liberalism and libertarianism anyway leaving those movements intellectual ghost towns and graveyards. People don’t need tldr essays anymore either.

                • Alf says:

                  hehe, tldrvin

                • James Jacob Wilson VI says:

                  Obviously you haven’t actually read moldbug because he actually writes about how the holocaust is ridiculous in articles such as “The holocaust from a nazi point of view.”

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                So Yarvin is the reason that people are attacking the Puritans in NRx. I’d call it ironic, but it is worse than that; a lot of Yarvin’s source material came from the Puritans, like Rushdoony, but he twisted it on it’s head. Trying to kill the baby in the womb as it were. When Yarvin started his blog, the Puritans were poised for growth; Yarvin poisoned that.

                • peppermint says:

                  Puritan growth? You mean ever increasing levels of transsexualism and polyamory with marriage increasingly deprecated as icky, inherently patriarchial, and a distraction if not subversion from the human equality project?

                • Puritan's Pride says:

                  Read Rushdoony, foolish little peppermint Patrick. The Puritans I speak of are nothing like what you are talking about.

                • peppermint says:

                  Puritanism was always the human equality project.

                • Anonymous says:

                  You guys should read “Plays and Puritans” by Charles Kingsley, which is available online for free. The author was actually recommend by Yarvin. The book nominally deals with the Puritans’ antitheatricality, but it really gives platform to general Puritan apologetics. Whether you hate them or love them, it’s recommended. Okay, I’ll just drop you the link:

                  http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3142/3142-h/3142-h.htm

                  A taste, if you will:

                  “It is equally a fact that these vices were imported into England by the young men who, under pretence of learning the Italian polish, travelled to Italy. From the days of Gabriel Harvey and Lord Oxford, about the middle of Elizabeth’s reign, this foul tide had begun to set toward England, gaining an additional coarseness and frivolity in passing through the French Court (then an utter Gehenna) in its course hitherward; till, to judge by Marston’s ‘Satires,’ certain members of the higher classes had, by the beginning of James’s reign, learnt nearly all which the Italians had to teach them. Marston writes in a rage, it is true; foaming, stamping, and vapouring too much to escape the suspicion of exaggeration; yet he dared not have published the things which he does, had he not fair ground for some at least of his assertions. And Marston, be it remembered, was no Puritan, but a playwright, and Ben Jonson’s friend.”

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Yes, “driving the sodomites from the land” does pretty much mean ending theaters, movies, soap operas, and such. The Puritans read the Bible and understood is correctly.

                • peppermint says:

                  Getting rid of sodomites by brutal suppression of theater is a good idea in this country because theater isn’t for normal people and isn’t funded by ticket sales but by government largesse including tax breaks, university forced participation, and catladies. By contrast, the movie industry is run by Jews which is why it sucks and often even has a hard time selling tickets.

                  There is the rumor that Shakespeare was a sodomite, the fact about Oscar Wilde, and sodomites seem drawn to the theater. But, getting rid of the theater to purge sodomites is a prime example of going too far.

                  The Jews got the test for obscenity changed from including obscenity to having any redeeming features because weepy-eyed christcucks love the idea of redemption. The correct way to kill the porn industry and porn driven sexual behavior like damaging women’s rectums is to return to the old includes porn standard and then make porn not subject to copyright protection. Movies that want to make money will have to get rid of the sex scenes, there won’t be easy money for pretty young women in porn, making porn won’t be an excuse for prostitution, young women won’t see those cute girls with the cute butt plugs and want to give their man the level of service they see in porn.

                  Or we could go full CIA and outlaw having images of nudity and sex outside of medical textbooks.

                  Puritanism on sex is a purity spiral that’s all about saying you’re a more rational soul than the next person by reason of caring less for sex as demonstrated by a willingness to suppress it. Puritans even slept in separate beds from their wives, a ridiculous imposition against the pairbond.

                  Puritanism is about claiming to be the most rational soul in a world of rational souls, and of course rational souls are equal except that the Elect choose rationality and the damned choose damnation. So it implies the human equality project and state funding for propaganda aimed at the damned, including theater exploring the trans* experience and books for children like Heather Has Two Mommies.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >The correct way to kill the porn industry and porn driven sexual behavior like damaging women’s rectums

                  So your motivation for killing porn is that it supposedly encourages men to have anal sex with women. In other words, your motivation is sexual Puritanism. In still other words, you’re the Eternal Anglo.

                  Now, don’t get me wrong, perhaps porn should be banned for Americans. Fine. The only problem is the universalist evangelism. You can’t keep your Puritanism to yourself, you need to infect the whole world with it. If porn becomes illegal in the US, that won’t satisfy you. You’ll go after every country on Earth where it is legal, compelling them to join you in illegalizing it.

                  That’s what the Eternal Anglo does: invents rules which may or may not be good for him, then forces Indians, Zimbabweans, Spaniards, Danes, Slavs, Vietnamese, and ultimately everyone to follow those rules. That’s true of “human rights democracy” and that’s true of all the rest of your moralistic global crusades.

                  >young women won’t see those cute girls with the cute butt plugs and want to give their man the level of service they see in porn.

                  Here it is again, the Feminist/cuckboi lamentation about how men today have too high expectations which women need to satisfy, how men should have lower expectations.

                  You should write an article for Jezebel, explaining how hard it is for fat women today to find a boyfriend “because pornography teaches men to only be attracted to supermodels”. Lelz.

                  Needless to say, the reality is the exact opposite, women today have it easier than ever in history, and the reality is that the more is expected from women, the better are women behaved. Buttplugs are not my personal thing, but if that’s a popular thing now, which I seriously doubt, all the better – women should strain to satisfy men, and the bigger the challenge, the better it is for female discipline.

                  At any rate, porn caters to the desires and fetishes of men. If it creates those fetishes, I’ve seen no evidence that it does. The sickest fetishes you can think of have existed since forever. They should not be elevated above normal sex, but neither should a moral crusade be waged against this aspect of human nature. What is it with conservatives/feminists and getting into other people’s bedroom? (Wait, I know the answer: it starts with “Eternal”, but this time, it doesn’t end with “Jew”)

                  Given porn scripts today are often written by customers rather than (((producers))), that is, customers send scripts for the pornographers to perform, it is clear that all porn does is reflect the desires of men, not determine them. The only exception is trannies, who have indeed become normalized, but even they have existed forever, so who cares.

                  The average married couple today doesn’t have buttplugs – the average married couple is sexless, or not having enough sex. The solution is not Moar chastity for men, on the contrary, the solution is more obedience from women, and less chastity for men. Chastity in the form of Feminist laws and moralistic concern for the comfort of women, which is very common among cuckservatives, has killed the birthrate and has killed the testosterone.

                  The birthrate has been the dying in the whole world (minus shitskins) for the past 100 years, especially for the past 40 years, and it’s not because of internet porn, nor is it because of playboy magazines – it’s because the Eternal Anglo, lead by the Massachusetts Puritan, has conquered the world, and proceeded to impose sexual Puritanism on hapless people all over. Today even shitskins aren’t immune.

                  You want to redeem all people everywhere of their horrible, horrible vices and you won’t rest until everyone is moulded in the “ideal shape” designed by Harvard.

                  >Or we could go full CIA and outlaw having images of nudity and sex outside of medical textbooks.

                  Do it in America. Please. The whole world should know how diseased are the minds of Puritan Americans. Just keep the East Asians and the continental Europeans out of your madness.

              • Cavalier says:

                I’m pretty well-read, and none of those guys even vaguely appeared on my mental radar before UR. I’m sure I saw the names a couple of times, and the libraries I’ve used probably had them somewhere on their shelves, but I never even came close to cracking open one of their books. Total memory-hole.

                Moldbug was the giant flaming neon sign screaming “acid trips, get your hilarious acid trips here”, and then the trap door opens and cue Alice in Wonderland.

                • viking says:

                  Then Im guessing you were not conservative before moldbug and are much younger.

                  Look I dont dislike MM hes funny erudite in some ways original and certainly he was able to convince some liberals without triggering them certainly he seems to be the founder of much of what goes by the name neoreaction.

                  what biggest objection is he seems to be a justification to do nothing because we are apolitical and nonviolent.
                  also his solutions are so far fetched they cant actually be done. theres no where to exit, if there were its not going to be allowed. theres not going to be any AI robot cavalry or crypto locked patches, or restoration of monarchys.

                  what there is are about 50 white nations under attack from within and without. non whites are the attackers for the most part, moldbug is all over the wasps but glosses over the jews, wasp and jew liberalism are two different animals . whites that have pozzd jew liberalism were infected by jews not wasps. The sensible reply is racial solidarity and war. war is simply what you do when youre attacked.yeah it terrible but its the only thing that will do what needs doing. so reasons why we cant are nothing more than problems that need solving so we might live

                • James Jacob Wilson VI says:

                  nigga plz he said that as a strategy 8 years ago. He gave an interview to a german newspaper where he said he supported and voted from trump. He’s also wrote numerous times about bad jewish influence how they were disruptive to america.

                  Now he works with Peter Thiel and is if nothing else indirectly influencing trump. in all likelyhood he is more sucessful than you will ever be. Maybe one day you’ll blossom, kid, but right now I don’t see you doing anything.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      We pried religion off the pedestal for false claims and replaced the enlightenment with its false claims about rationality and then liberalism with its false claims about egalitarianism.

      It really looks like believing something false is necessary for the social order. Think of it this way- if you want to deal with sociopaths and other parasites, you need to have hard to learn beliefs to distinguish members of your community. This is because true beliefs are universible (and thus can be used to enter any community) while false beliefs are distinct to your own group (and thus show an investment).

      That and Christianity spent about 2000 years working over the question of ‘how do you run a society without it dying’ and managed to simultaneously make one that produced all the things we find good and worthwhile (in fact it is possible the churches position on marriage is directly responsible for the personality traits needed for modern society).

      To be blunt, we need fertility rates above 2.1- they don’t need to be massively higher, but in the end nothing else matters. And while government policy re:minorities and jews might be responsible for a significant part of the reduction, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea don’t have those and are worse.

      Unless you have alternatives (and not just hopes for future technology) we really do need religion in order to have white- heck, human- civilization survive.

      • peppermint says:

        The problem with christcuckoldry is that it believes in souls which is totally insane and inappropriate for a religion to preserve the White race and also that it upholds the Jews as our saviors which is also insane and inappropriate for a religion to preserve the White race. There are also other problems with a religion based on worshiping the Barack Obama of his day.

        The truth, on the other hand, has certain reactionary points inherent to it. While freedom of speech can theoretically be absolute, the king has arbitrary power to punish insults and subversion, because when you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. Every time the government creates government jobs for leftists it takes that money from normal people. The truth doesn’t need a priesthood and any formation that starts to look like a priesthood can be ridiculed.

        We do have a great social technology now that our ancestors lacked. They had anonymous suggestion boxes and bulletin boards. We have the chans, which is why we’re not arguing about whether or not we would be better off if Hillary made herself king.

      • viking says:

        its more like we edged closer to the truth the enlightenment was brilliant for its time if we had not let the jews in and they the jews had not pozed it might still be working ok, but it obviously doesnt stand up to outside infections so we need ethno nationalism that is not economically socialist call it dark enlightenment enlightenment with a caveat niggers and jews need not apply, all men means white men not women not not white men

        • Cavalier says:

          That Rousseau, what a genius, brilliant chap for his time.

          • viking says:

            you know youre insisting we would be better off in the middle ages. so youre either committed to niggerfication and imagine niggers as serfs and whites has lords and I would have to say tried that didnt work. or you actually want the exact same system and again tried that didnt work. letting a bunch of warlords rent seek them selves into genetic imbecility while the reast of mankind scrambles for a carrot is stupid and unsustainable. Just get off your moldbug fetish and broaden your possibilities

            • Cavalier says:

              Rousseau burned France to the ground, never to recover.

              In contrast, staunchly reactionary Germany still had its balls for another 150 years—figuratively and semi-literally—no fertility transition there.

              Why did the German population, historically smaller than the French population, explode, while the French population languished? Black magic, I guess.

              Second question: what was the proximate cause of the World Wars?

              • jim says:

                Good question: what was the proximate cause of the World Wars? When I read official history on the first world war, it is obvious that they don’t want to know. Supposedly, the war somehow just happened.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Moldbug indirectly claims it was leftist provocation. “Hey, we’re going to destroy you.” “Well…I might as well try to destroy you first, then? Only I’ma man up and stab you in the face.”

              • viking says:

                I might just as well ask why did the american revolution turn out such a success, and the germans end up with the series that leads to hitler.

                The answer is change is hard the bourbons time had come they were inept. Will i concede it might have been possible for some king to manage the transition sure the brits sort of did. But that would be begging the bigger question what was going on. the vast majority of people were going to be utilized this was a good development. yes t has its own problems and some of the sytems to manage them have proved to not work. socialism doent work. as you know i remain unconvinced democracy per se is the problem or cause of leftism. revolutionary france is one of the few places you can point to white guys with pitchforks chimping out demanding free shit and considering the appalling conditions that preceded that its understandable.
                The proximate cause of the world wars? well I guess its the proximate cause of our problems today elites putting their interests above that of their nations

                • Cavalier says:

                  >why did the american revolution succeed

                  Whiggery, notably including Lord Howe.

                  >manage the transition sure the brits sort of did

                  By this you mean, “relinquish all power and become nothing but a shriveled-up vestigial organ still desperately hanging on to your country’s government”?

                  >socialism doesn’t work. as you know i remain unconvinced democracy per se is the problem or cause of leftism

                  Socialism is the poor voting themselves the contents of the treasury. How clear is that causality?

                  >and considering the appalling conditions that preceded that its understandable

                  Yes, completely understandable. Have to break a few eggs to immanentize the eschaton.

                  >elites putting their interests above that of their nations

                  Not the cause of the World Wars.

                • peppermint says:

                  Socialism is the rich voting themselves the contents of the armory on behalf of the poor. Usually, but not always, Jewish rich who were rightly excluded from political power.

            • James says:

              The middle ages didn’t work? Or have you been propagandized to believe it didn’t work?

              • jim says:

                Dubai has a medieval social and political order, except that it has Islam in place of Christianity. And in spite of the fact that Islam is bad and tends to undermine civilization, Dubai manages fine.

          • jim says:

            I hope that is sarcasm, but it is hard to tell on the internet.

  10. viking says:

    Christian reactionaries are entryists, they intend to do eactly what they did to all earlier conservatism in the exact same way appeal to conservative emotional attachment to the past, and desperation for natural conservatives, and infect it with sentimental fairy tales.

  11. Samson J. says:

    Jim, I would say that one of the strongest evidences for the truth of the Living Christ is that you wrestle so hard with the yoke. Like Fox Mulder, you *want* to believe.

    In the end this entire question about marriage is a distraction from the central question of: how do I get forgiveness for my sins? The terrible knife of guilt over sin cuts through every human heart, and *that* is the heart of the Faith, for you and I, right now.‎

    ***In short, the Christian right, like the Republicans, are just progressives who are a bit behind the times.***‎

    If you object to this situation, then get in there and lead. People *will* follow. What I see is a lot of excuse-making and claims that because the churches aren’t 100 percent to your satisfaction, they aren’t living. Well, I can tell you, mister, I have experienced the living God. It starts with you, right now, in private if need be.‎ Just like it starts with me, right now, in private, confessing my sins and weaknesses and praying for aid.

    At my wedding, within the past ten years, I had our pastor quote Ephesians 5. He said, “The whole thing?” I said, “Yes.” He smiled and said, “Great!” And everyone heard it.‎

    • peppermint says:

      Hurrrrrrrrrrr follow the kike on the pike for “forgiveness” of your sins, i.e. for a faggot in a dress to recite a prayer for you after which your “soul” will be clean but the worldly effects of your actions will remain.

      Cuckstainty is for children asking mommy mary to kiss their booboos and make it better.

    • Dave says:

      “The terrible knife of guilt over sin cuts through every human heart”

      How universal is this “guilt” thing? Black and brown people do horrific things to each other with the same innocent delight that my cats feel while torturing a baby chipmunk to death.

      I’ve read that there are “guilt cultures” and there are “shame cultures”, and the difference between them may be genetic.

    • jim says:

      I am not suffering from this terrible knife of guilt of sin. I loved my family, I loved my women, I did good to my kin even when they did wrong to me. I was a good friend to my friends, and a terrible enemy to my enemies.

      If you are not a universalist, it is not that hard to be a good person. It comes naturally.

      At my wedding, within the past ten years, I had our pastor quote Ephesians 5. He said, “The whole thing?” I said, “Yes.” He smiled and said, “Great!” And everyone heard it.‎

      At my son’s wedding, we had the priest read every verse on marriage and the duties of man and wife, of which there are a great many, starting with

      Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

      Which he did. And then threw in a brief feminist prayer.

      Trouble is that you are making Christianity an individual religion centered on the individual’s relationship with God. But Christianity is a community, and a community is something very like a state.

      For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

      You need to gather two or three together.

      • Hammer Fan says:

        “But Christianity is a community”

        This is exactly one of the reasons our church baptizes infant children. We understand God’s covenant promises are for the entire family, and the church commits to help raising the child along with the parents, helping to reinforce what is good, forming a hedge against what is bad (heresy, feminism, social justice, relativism). Corporate worship (worshiping with other Christians, instead of, ie, just going to the beach and meditating) is important and required. But there will always be an element of individual action. At some point, the Christian must “repent and believe” (think: thief on the cross). However, the primary relationship is between God and “His people.” (His bride, His sheep, the church)

  12. Rollory says:

    What is your evidence for your statements about Dalrock?

    Based on what I have read in his blog, these statements of yours are clearly and measurably false, so if you have evidence to the contrary I’d be very interested in seeing it.

    If you don’t have any evidence I’d find that interesting too.

    I can’t comment regarding the other two, but they haven’t earned my respect the way Dalrock has.

    • jim says:

      I am banned from commenting on Dalrock’s blog and was called a troll, for saying the sort of things that I have been saying on this blog. Dalrock wants to restore the 1950s, and I want to restore the 1790s.

      Dalrock, of course, is welcome to comment on this blog. If I have unjustly maligned him, perhaps he will care to explain his position. He never explained why I was banned, or why I was a troll, and I would like to hear an explanation.

      The 1790 rules were directly and explicitly based on their understanding of the New Testament and what they found necessary to make it stick in the face of female bad behavior. (And of course male bad behavior, but we never eased up on the restraints on men, indeed steadily increased them, while, as Dalrock quite correctly says, abandoning the restraints on women).

      But while complaining about abandoning the restraints on women, he does not want to go all the way back to the 1790 restraints, or even the 1950s restraints.

      Pining for the fjords

      He wants the church to tell women that they should follow the biblical rules. The thought of the biblical rules being actually enforced generally by coercive means disturbs him.

      Or at least I think that is what the issue is. As I said, he is not interested in discussing the matter, nor interested in discussing the darker side of female nature.

      If Dalrock’s church was a state church, then the rules he theoretically favors would need to be law, and those laws would need to be enforced. My impression is that really does not want those laws to be enforced. But I am really just guessing about his position. All I really know is that my position got me insulted, abused, and banned. He never explained what he objected to about my position. He seemed to think it was completely obvious that my position was absolutely terrible and shocking, but I really have no idea what he found so terrible and shocking, so am just guessing.

      • Anon says:

        You probably should have spent less time on Dudley Dolrock’s Christfaggot blog and put more effort into your comments over at Cochran’s. Your arguments about the height of buildings being directly correlated with Western decline were fucking retarded and you know it. It would have been interesting to see you two actually have a discussion before you both melt into your geriatric wheelchairs but we can’t always get what we want now can we?

        As an aside, let’s not forget that if a true restoration were made we’d have to purge viking/michael for being a clueless illiterate chicken farmer whose punctuation-free posts cause cancer, purge Peppermint for having too low an IQ to understan why homosexuality is probably pathogenic (like narcolepsy) and being, essentially, a glorified Postmodernism Essay Generator with all the Marxian rhetoric replaced with stale old /pol/ memes, and Koanic for being an unironic Christfag who thinks the human race is a result of boars mating with bonobos. This comment section is a mess.

        • jim says:

          Your arguments about the height of buildings being directly correlated with Western decline were fucking retarded and you know it.

          The highest inhabitable floor of freedom tower is lower and far smaller than highest inhabitable floor of the twin towers, and the tower looks it. Thus it is obvious we cannot build tall buildings as we used to. This is the most direct and obvious sign of civilizational decline, and our enemies who knocked down the two towers are laughing at us.

          • TheBigH says:

            > Thus it is obvious we cannot build tall buildings as we used to. This is the most direct and obvious sign of civilizational decline, and our enemies who knocked down the two towers are laughing at us.

            Looking at Chinese building projects is especially depressing. They’re not super high quality, but there’s a lot of them and they are impressive structures compared to the ones we build these days.

            • Anon says:

              >Looking at Chinese building projects is especially depressing. They’re not super high quality, but there’s a lot of them and they are impressive structures compared to the ones we build these days

              I’m sure there’s some kind of government mandate about limiting the height of buildings so the Chinese can’t throw themselves off the top floor as they are wont to do in order to escape the reality of living in China.

              Jokes aside, what is with the obsession with buildings? Can you not think of a million more things an advanced civilization should be pouring its time and resources into?

              • peppermint says:

                Jackass, the reason we can’t have tall buildings is no one wants to put down several billion dollars on a building and then have the area go diverse. All the building happens on the cheap on the edges of civilization in this country for a reason. Materials have never been cheaper compared to illegal Mexican labor, but buildings aren’t even built to last two decades because no one expects to get any return on an investment anywhere.

                Until we wake up from Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, we can’t fund any projects other than it. No moonbase, no tall buildings, no high-speed rail unless it has subsidized tickets for niggers.

                • Anon says:

                  >the reason we can’t have tall buildings is no one wants to put down several billion dollars on a building and then have the area go diverse

                  You are an idiot. Why the fuck do you need both a tall building and a non-diverse area? I don’t give a fuck about how tall a building is, just give me a building where I don’t have to worry about my car getting broken into, surrounded by people like me and who think like me. In fact I’d rather just live in a nice large house instead of being packed into a high rise like a bunch of sardines.

                  Better yet, skip pouring billions of dollars into an asinine skyscraper and put it into a space program that is not invaded with incompetents (so not NASA).

                • peppermint says:

                  Don’t you think it might be nice to be able to walk to work instead of driving for an hour both ways?

              • TheBigH says:

                >Jokes aside, what is with the obsession with buildings? Can you not think of a million more things an advanced civilization should be pouring its time and resources into?

                The term civilization root is city. Cities are defined by the buildings in them. Great civilizations build amazing cities as monuments to their greatness because they’re rich enough to afford it. Declining civilizations find it too expensive to bother with and are soon forgotten. Jim’s just pointing out the obvious, that we’re in a quickly declining civilization and you just confirmed it.

              • pdimov says:

                “Jokes aside, what is with the obsession with buildings?”

                An objective indicator of decline out of which you can’t Talmud your way because our lying eyes >> your handwaving.

                “Can you not think of a million more things an advanced civilization should be pouring its time and resources into?”

                Sure, you no longer build tall buildings not because you can’t, but because you’ve advanced to the point of realizing that you no longer want to.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  Bingo. Tall buildings really aren’t all that special in and of themselves, but they are important as symbols, especially the Freedom Tower. If our civilization could have rebuilt the Twin Towers higher and better than before, it most certainly would have. Who can forget all the patriot and pro-NY bombast after the attacks? The fact that the Freedom Tower is shorter proves that we can’t build it taller, and as Jim has said, the fact the floors are misleadingly numbered shows mens rea. On some level, our leaders know that our capabilities have declined and they are deliberately trying to hide it.

            • Anon says:

              >Thus it is obvious we cannot build tall buildings as we used to

              Again, no, this is not obvious, except to low IQ goatherders. Why are you trying to impress them?

              • Jack Highlands says:

                It’s at times like this I wish we had ‘Like’ and ‘Don’t Like’ buttons. Sure it’s argumentum ad populum, but it still hits morons and hasbara like Anon here in the guts when they see no one agrees with them. Especially hasbara, since it undermines their utility.

                • Alrenous says:

                  But then they’ll learn it isn’t working, and they might by chance pick something else that does.

                  Vengeance is often counter productive. Revenge is Sour, George Orwell. Do serenity prayer instead.

            • A.B. Prosper says:

              Chinese building look impressive but are usually shoddy.

              On top of that , density isn’t a good thing.

              The West with a few exceptions is grossly overcrowded now and would still be overcrowded if we reversed diversity entirely.

              Too much urbanization is a huge chunk of the problem, simply patriarchy and urban modern life are not compatible

              If we want virile men and feminine women and we really do we need space to make it happen, not jammed in overcrowded rabbit warrens to be tax farmed and used as livestock for the elite

              Less people, Less city people. better people

              and yes the capitalist pigs have to be reigned in too, the Left doesn’t get a new electorate and capital (they aren’t right by any real measure) doesn’t get cheap labor and more consumers

              So long as society is homogeneous, a few generations of population decline is a good thing.

              And note too the era that Jim favors, the population was about 1 /5 to 1/6th of what it is now and 3% urban as vs 80% urban

              • jim says:

                Pretty sure Chinese buildings are not shoddy. Check out Chinese airports.

                In any case, all that is just excuses. CEOs need to have an corner office that is higher than the other CEO’s corner office. If our CEOs have lower corner offices than Chinese CEOs, our companies are less capable than Chinese companies.

                • Anon says:

                  So one up everyone and put the corner office on Mars. Obsessing over tall commercial buildings is small-time.

                • jim says:

                  If we can no longer build tall buildings, cannot go to Mars.

                  Musks Mars plan is vaporware. He is not working on numerous necessary technologies that would be required for a Mars settlement.

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  China is a low trust society and bad construction is rampant.

                  Exported Chinese steel is bad too.

                  Bay Bridge

                  http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Bridge-s-troubles-How-a-landmark-became-a-6021955.php

                  It far better to have smaller but sturdier building that last for long stretches and is beautiful. What’s worn with modern buildings is they like our cars are ugly and while the function well enough lack grace, beauty and any sense of “this is how we do it”

                  Its why the empire State Building though far from modern is still classic, form and function both

                  If we recover, our material goods need to represent our spirit and our self confidence even our smaller houses need to be something other than ticky tacky little boxes

                • jim says:

                  The bay bridge failed because we lack the technological capability to build impressive bridges these days, not because the Chinese sold us bad steel.

                  You keep telling me that Chinese stuff is no good, but my lying eyes tell me that the Chinese do great buildings, great dams, and great bridges, while we no longer can.

                • Anon says:

                  >The bay bridge failed because we lack the technological capability to build impressive bridges these days, not because the Chinese sold us bad steel.

                  You keep saying “we”. Why are you assuming our best minds, or at minimum minds equal to the people who originally built the twin towers, are spending their time and resources with urban planning? A more elegant explanation for the talent drain you’re talking about would be that major metropolitan areas select for poor administrative talent, are shitty overcrowded places to live, and those who did have the talent to engineer a suitable replacement for the Twin Towers either didn’t have the political pull to get it done or simply don’t give a fuck about how tall a skyscraper in Jew York is.

                  Jim, are you really telling me that if you were an engineer on the committee to build the Freedom Tower you would have done everything you can to make sure it was over 2,700ft. tall? Why would you invest time and resources into a project that basically amounts to proving to goatfarmers (who apparently compulsively check Wikipedia to see how tall a building is) how great America is, even though you know damn well there is little left defending here anymore?

                  We absolutely do have the capability to build tall buildings and bridges that don’t have to be shored up every decade. It’s just that our talented people are doing other things. Hell, SF’s Muni got hacked by someone who is most likely a teenager. Does this mean America lacks the capability for decent IT security? No, it means the people in charge are incompetent and should have been fired immediately.

                  Fire most people in charge immediately, bring in competent managers, and then maybe there would be an attractive reason for talent to want to build tall buildings again. But the freedom tower not being higher than both of the Trade Center buildings combined is not due to a lack of capability or talent, it is a political move, and thus there is no reason to give a fuck. And so nobody does.

                • jim says:

                  We absolutely do have the capability to build tall buildings and bridges that don’t have to be shored up every decade. It’s just that our talented people are doing other things.

                  No they are not. Talented people get fired, retire early, become plumbers, or move to Asia.

                  I was reading up on what went wrong with the Bay bridge. Everyone that knew how to build bridges said the design was no good. They were ignored. After a while, most of them somehow were not around any more.

                • pdimov says:

                  “We absolutely do have the capability to build tall buildings and bridges that don’t have to be shored up every decade.”

                  How do we know that if no tall buildings are getting built?

                  Similarly, the moon. We absolutely do have the capability to go there, we just don’t want to, right? How do we know that?

                  (Even if the capability still exists, it will disappear eventually if not exercised, so this distinction is not particularly important in the grand scheme of things. Still.)

                • TheBigH says:

                  >We absolutely do have the capability to build tall buildings and bridges that don’t have to be shored up every decade. It’s just that our talented people are doing other things. Hell, SF’s Muni got hacked by someone who is most likely a teenager. Does this mean America lacks the capability for decent IT security? No, it means the people in charge are incompetent and should have been fired immediately.

                  The decline of civilizations rhymes in history. The Romans thought it was the crappy people in charge that was causing their declining ability to build big things. We have pretty good evidence that the decline was real because things like Roman concrete, large Roman buildings, and good roads where not built by the Goths once they had conquered the empire and kicked out the existing elites. The Goths tried very hard to continue the Roman system but they discovered the Romans themselves could no longer continue their existing system and the civilization continued to decline.

          • Anon says:

            And the Millennium Tower is leaning so far it’s set to wipe out most of SoMa. So what?

            I know you were an engineer of some sort but trying to string together very specific instances of bad architecture as a case for general civilizational decline is very silly and I hope you see that. I for one am glad that some of our better minds are more preoccupied with things like CRISPR or SpaceX instead of attempting to impress goatherders with how tall our buildings are. Really?

            Shouldn’t you be arguing instead that high-rise commercial buildings in massive metropolitan IQ shredders are degenerate or something anyway?

            • jim says:

              I know you were an engineer of some sort but trying to string together very specific instances of bad architecture as a case for general civilizational decline is very silly and I hope you see that

              If we could have replaced the twin towers, would have done so for reasons of national prestige. That we did not, shows we could not.

              • Alrenous says:

                A functioning market would have gone, “Oh good, now we have an excuse to build an update.” And made either a non-ugly tower or a much bigger tower.
                Feeling: *Shrug* and *facepalm* as they casually swat down the quotes-‘threat’

              • A.B. Prosper says:

                Exactly, A confident nation would have built them higher and stronger and had defiant slogans .

                A really confident nation would have the severed heads of convicted terrorists on display in the lobby which would have sent a rather stronger message

          • Cavalier says:

            >our enemies who knocked down the two towers are laughing at us

            Who are these enemies that they had the power to controllably demolish the most iconic buildings in the World Imperial Capital?

            https://youtube.com/watch?v=p34XrI2Fm6I

            Heh.

            • viking says:

              I thought it wasn’t possibly a conspiracy though sure was a godsend for cathedral, recently some evidence really seems like they did it but i still dont see how they can keep it it getting out

              • Cavalier says:

                How do they keep the science of race from getting out? It’s the same thing, except racism is more a crime of outrage, whereas noticing that the towers’ collapse were visually indistinguishable from any ordinary controlled demolition will just get you labeled a tinfoil kook.

                • jim says:

                  There is an obvious difference between a controlled demolition and the collapse of the towers, in that two planes full of passengers flew into the two towers, indeed flew right through the two towers, emerging on the other side in small pieces.

                  Indeed, human bodies moving at very high speed proceeded to do major damage to additional buildings.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Hey Jim, why were there demolition-like squibs at regular intervals precisely centered on each tower face?

                  Why was there a glowing liquid dribbling down the side?

                  How does a tower using its gravitational energy to destroy itself, go down at free fall acceleration?

                  Why didn’t the towers tip or roll?

                  How and why was the “pull” predicted?

                  Why was all the steel sold to China within three days of it being cool enough to extract?

                • jim says:

                  I have watched the videos frame by frame. There were no demolition like squibs at regular intervaln.

                  There was no glowing liquid going down the side, and if there was it would be evidence against the demolition theory.

                  The gravitational energy of the tower is converted into energy of motion, hence free fall velocity, and then where the lower part of the falling tower hits the upper part of the still standing tower, the energy of motion is abruptly converted into demolition energy as that part of the tower disintegrates. Just as it is not falling that kills you but the sudden stop at the end, it is not falling that demolishes, but the sudden stop at the end.

                  The tower did tip and roll. It did not go straight down.

                  The steel was not sold to China within three days of cooling.

                • Cavalier says:

                  This has obviously been done to death, but whatever.

                  * Were the towers not literally designed to withstand a Boeing 707, basically the same plane as the 767? (Yes, yes they were.)

                  * How likely were the towers, both of which were crashed into by one plane on one side, to fall precisely into their footprint (at least the part below the plane impact)?

                  * How did the steel melt, when even under the most generous possible conditions, jet fuel simply doesn’t get hot enough to melt steel, much less turn it into slag?

                  * Why were government agencies running hijacked airplane terrorism simulations at the precise same time that those events were actually happening?

                  * Why were there explosions of dust and debris well preceding the leading edge of collapse?

                  * Why did the BBC report Building 7 to have collapsed 20 minutes before it actually collapsed?

                  * Just how long does it take to rig a building to “pull”? Can it be done in 6 hours amidst “uncontrolled fires”?

                  * And this is my favorite part: Why is the official cause of Building 7’s collapse “uncontrolled fires”, not, in fact, controlled demolition?

                  The below is from: http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610. Peruse at your leisure.

                  >This is the final report on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), conducted under the National Construction SafetyT eam Act. This report describes how the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse of WTC 7; an evaluation of the building evacuation and emergency response procedures; what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction,operation, and maintenance of the building; and areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision. Extensive details are found in the companion reports, NIST NCSTAR 1-9 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9A.

                  >Also in this report is a summary of how NIST reached its conclusions. NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.

                  >The report concludes with a list of 13 recommendations for action in the areas of increased structural integrity, enhanced fire endurance of structures, new methods for fire resistant design of structures, enhanced active fire protection, improved emergency response, improved procedures and practices, and education and training. One of these is new; the other 12 are reiterated from the investigation into the collapse of the WTC towers. Each of the 13 is relevant to WTC 7.

                  Thanks, peer review!

                • jim says:

                  No, the towers were not designed to have a plane crash into them.

                  No, the towers did not fall precisely onto their footprint.

                  No, steel in the towers did not melt, nor did anyone claim that it did.

                  No, there were no explosions of dust and debris well preceding the leading edge of collapse.

                  No, the BBC did not report Building 7 to have collapsed 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. They reported it was going to collapse, because people on the ground looking at could see its collapse was imminent. That lots of quite ordinary people could see it was going to collapse makes the proposition it fell as a result of explosives stupid.

                  No, government agencies were not running hijacked plane simulations at the exact moment that an actual hijacking was happening. If they had been, they might have reacted more competently.

                  The reason that the the official cause of Building 7’s collapse “uncontrolled fires” is that any idiot looking at Building Seven could, and in fact did, conclude that the uncontrolled fires in building seven were about to result in its collapse. The last two people in Building Seven got out saying they expected collapse.

                • Alf says:

                  scenario 1: the cuckservatives and derpstate working together to pull off the most intricate complex heist ever, expertly setting off bombs while allowing muslims to fly hijacked planes into the WTC so they can justify invading a country.

                  scenario 2: Muslims doing what muslims do. Dubya responding like you’d expect Dubya to respond.

                  Looking back I think the 9/11 paranoia was proto-reactionaries sensing something was very wrong with the narrative, but not yet being able to put their feelings into the right ideas.

                • jim says:

                  The angle of view is deceptive. The controlled demolition goes straight down.

                  When you view the World Trade center from a different direction, you will see the tower tilts sideways.

                  The selection of timing is deceptive. When you watch the towers falling, you will see they sag a little, then go down all at once. Controlled demolition goes down all at once.

                • Cavalier says:

                  The sag is the center of the building being blown first to ensure that it implodes in on itself. It’s characteristic of most controlled demolitions.

        • peppermint says:

          Homosexuality is a sexual strategy, “homosexuality is caused by a pathogen” is a political strategy.

          We can have tall buildings again when the God-Emperor promises to keep an area gentrified, a promise that He can’t even make now much less publicly state.

          • Anon says:

            >Homosexuality is a sexual strategy,

            No, “sneaky fucker” strategy being related to homosexuality in humans is on its face retarded and you would know this if you ever left your basement.

            How many kids do you have Pep Pep?

            • peppermint says:

              …only because you’ve never left your basement and take the dictionary definition of a homosexual at face value. I know the kids at high school who said they were gay. One of them is a decade later taking pictures of himself with all kinds of beautiful girls. One of them got one of the hottest girls in the school to watch him jack off “to show her how it worked”.

              • Anon says:

                So you are basing your explanation of faggotry off of instagram photos and old stories that a kid from your high school told you? I applaud your rigor.

                How many kids?

                • peppermint says:

                  …and the Kinsey data that showed that degenerates change their sexual orentation over time, and the fact that it takes two minutes to get a woman pregnant once you achieve access, and the fact that everyone instinctively knows faggots need to be bogged and kept away from their women

                • Anon says:

                  Faggots need to be kept away from women because women generally have no discernment and are easily impressionable, not because homosexuals are sneaking one in during a binge watch of Will and Grace. Same reason you wouldn’t really want your kids around one.

                  >change their sexual orientation over time

                  You mean people lie on surveys? Radical!

                  >Kinsey

                  No

                • peppermint says:

                  something tells me you let your gf tell you not to worry because he’s gay

                • Anon says:

                  You would be wrong and you’d know why if you had a gf.

                • peppermint says:

                  I bet your gf has a gay personal trainer at the gym helping her position her ass for squats and telling her for her lifestyle it’s unhealthy to be she shouldn too emotionally dependent on one person, and takes her yoga pants and bra off for a gay tailor so he can measure her for dresses and dildoes

                • Anon says:

                  I position my own gf’s ass at the gym. Tell me, do you take your fuckpillow with you when you go to the gym or do you fly solo?

                • Anonymous says:

                  Both of you are degenerates for having a “girlfriend”. Get married, let your children be born within wedlock.

                  /breeder_signalling.txt

        • Anonymous says:

          >purge Peppermint for having too low an IQ to understan why homosexuality is probably pathogenic (like narcolepsy)

          You sure sound very confident, sir “probably”. (Henceforth that’ll be your moniker) Wouldn’t want to be left with an egg all over your face when geneticists finally determine which specific genes are responsible for homosexuality in hominids.

          Peppe and sir Probably are both wrong. Homosexuality stems from a chromosomal mutation, not unlike other pathological conditions that render their sufferers unlikely or even unable to procreate yet which stably persist among the general population, albeit disproportionately between various groups and families, rather than perish (e.g down syndrome, autism, hermaphroditism aka “intersex”); the politically incorrect Chinese would, if left to their own devices by globalists — and (((globalists))), — eventually make inroads in this field of inquiry and experimentation that the West at present is simply too timid (that is: intimidated) to attempt.

          At any rate, the problem with faggotry, by which I mean both male and female homosexuality, is twofold:

          it’s intrinsically disruptive of social harmony (such as when faggots don’t fuck members of the other sex, thus, from a statistical viewpoint, rendering sexless members of the other sex, and depriving them of healthy family relations; furthermore, due to their brain abnormality, faggots are very prone to engage in sex-atypical conduct in all dimensions of life, e.g lesbians who crave male jobs, which is a junction where the personal meets the political);

          more often than not, paralleling its disruption to social harmony on the individual (object) level, and as a direct consequence of the object-level malformation of those afflicted by it, it manifests in pernicious political agitation and ultimately destabilization – that is, it engenders adverse political turbulence as an ineluctable result of the sundry Progressive weltanschauungen which it predisposes those it afflicts to espouse – namely, the Progressive weltanschauungen of Feminism and cultural nihilism.

          The latter problem can be solved by re-institution of non-progressive state religion. The former problem is genetic and will only be solved by the genetic engineering programs currently pioneered by the politically incorrect Chinese, or by the genetic engineering programs that may launch in the West if the West unshekels (not a typo) from the steel grip of Progressivism at any point in time between 2017 and 2050 (an unlikely scenario), the grip of Progressivism being a totalitarian domination of Western thought and Western scientific capacity, smothering or downright preventing the utilization of science for pro-social objectives, such as our subject matter of homosexuality-extirpation, but also possible eugenic projects at large, for instance, the gradual elimination from the gene-market (by humane methods of fertility-control) of those with any physical, mental, or moral defect. But I digress.

          Put another way: those afflicted with faggotry — particularly the female faggettes aka lesbians, but also, to a moderately lower degree, the poofters — are wreaking havoc both on the inter-personal level and on the meta (societal) level, and those two forms of detriment can be stamped out by wedding biological realism and the requisite technology to implement the corollaries of biological realism on a mass scale.

          And it took me not too many paragraphs to elucidate, in very broad terms, the peril of faggotry, without resorting either to the “it’s a sin” or to the “ewwww gross” types of argumentation so beloved by conservative retardos.

          Dalrock and ilk, by the way, cannot articulate a coherent program to expunge faggotry, because that would require genuine opposition to the Progressive worldview — a worldview which is both galvanized by, and, due to its ever-alarmed, all-encompassing, hysterical, puritanical, and (((zealous))) fervor, ensures the perpetuation of, faggotry, — which genuine opposition Dalrock and ilk do not possess.

          >This comment section is a mess.

          If we’re all such swine, then stop casting the pearls of thy wisdom before us, o great sir Probably, and purge yourself off of here immediately. Be logical!

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            “Faggette”

            Lol the average “lesbian” has fucked multiple guys while not having sex with her “girlfriend”. Lesbianism doesn’t exist. It’s a shit test at most.

            • James says:

              Lol the average “lesbian” has fucked multiple guys while not having sex with her “girlfriend”.

              Ahhh, the memories

            • Anonymous says:

              >meets a bunch of slutty drunken bi-curious girls in college who don’t even self-identify as lesbian, except for a few short months, who subsequently try to forget about ever having identified as such – YOLO.

              >ignores completely all the life-long bull-dykes and the unequivocal, irrefutable evidence that they have male-typical brain structures and exhibit male-typical behavior and interests from cradle to adulthood, which unequivocal and irrefutable evidence has recently been corroborated by DNA research.

              >doesn’t understand that with women it’s not primarily about the fucking, it’s primarily about the feeling – and their feeling is indeed very masculine compared to normal heterosexual women.

              >concludes: “guys, guys, guys, I’ve figured that lesbians don’t really exist LOLOLOL”

              You see, ROL, millions of years of evolution have primed you to think exactly as you do, have primed you to not take threats posed by women seriously, even while such threats are in plain sight and serious.

              That’s what happens when you follow your blind instincts rather than empirical evidence and logical deduction, and follow a bunch of bloggers who do your thinking for you because you’re not intelligent enough to think for yourself, rather than thinking for yourself.

              How’s the weather in blue-pill land?

              Regardless, once it becomes apparent, indeed undeniable from a well-researched scientific perspective, as well as strongly suggested by anecdotal evidence of tomboy girls who eventually grow up to munch carpets, that you’re dealing with a concrete biological entity with its own distinct interests, perhaps it’s time to reconsider your position. But alas, you think it’s some sort of a game they are playing, right? Biological entity? What biological entity?

              The reason faggettes occasionally have sex with men is that female sexuality is fluid. Of course, you know that, but you think that this is proof that lesbians don’t exist. Whereas it’s not proof of that, it’s actually the opposite of proof of that, because if the sexuality of women is fluid, that means that heterosexual women can become sexually attracted to other women, which sometimes they do, and gay women can become sexually attracted to men, or at least tolerate some sex with men until they figure that they are perverted carper-munchers, which is the usual case.

              If you are a gay man, you know you are gay because you have a raging boner at 12 years old when you see a hot dude, and ever since then your mind is consumed with thoughts about hot dudes. If you are a faggette, you only realize that you are a faggette after falling in love with your best friend at 18, having been “not quite feminine” since you remember yourself, but because the female sex-drive is weaker, only realizing the truth of the matter later in life.

              And the problem with faggettes is not just their sexuality, but the fact that they have male-typical brain structures which leads to male-typical behavior (which is very clearly reflected in their non-verbal body language) and male-typical interests, hence, they shove themselves into jobs that men are suited for and women aren’t suited for, demanding to be allowed inside, and attempt to normalize the infiltration of women into traditionally male jobs, which normalization they’ve managed to achieve during the early 20th century.

              This “lesbians don’t exist” thing is probably the most retarded conclusion reached by the “too clever by half” cohort of right-wing armchair thinkers, right next to “evolution – where is your proof of it? check-mate, atheists” and “every minute now, the nasty libruls are going to lower the age of consent to 3, because the nasty libruls are secretly pedophiles” (when in fact more and more men are arrested every year by the “librul” Feminist regimes of the West for bogus age-related “sex crimes”).

              Your attempt at originality has failed, orientalbot!

              • jim says:

                Lesbians do not exist in the sense that almost all lesbians have substantially more sex with men than they have with women.

                Gays do exist in that there are a lot of men who have sex only with men and only wish to have sex with men.

                “masculine” women, “tomboyish” women are in practice seldom very capable at doing male things. The extent of androgyny has been enormously exaggerated for political reasons. While dysfunctional sexual behavior is very common, and out order sexual development and sexual misdevelopment is not rare, androgyny is rare.

        • viking says:

          HAHAha

          I did raise chickens pigs and goats several summers when my daughter was young, But Im also a born and bred NYC kid who grew up oscillating between bohemian east village and upper east side gallas at the met so not exactly illiterate just autodidactic didn’t include writing and i dont give a fuck that it bothers in fact enjoy bothering people.

  13. peppermint says:

    Failrock understand that modern christcuckoldry and “post-“christcuckoldry is fucked and without blaming the Jew, which is the only alternative narrative to the obvious fact that christcuckoldry developed naturally into its current mainstream form, he intends to purge christcuckoldry of its mainstream interpretation and restore the christcuckoldry of the 19c that made women swim in boxes, mutilated boys’ penises to prevent masturbation, and bowdlerized Shakespeare, exactly as today’s christcuckoldry has women wearing thong bikinis, mutilating boys’ penises into fake vaginas, and bowdlerizing Richard Scarry.

  14. Antipas says:

    Jim, you already answered yourself on this. The problem is not Christianity, the problem is its social code has been outlawed by people who believe themselves to be more enlightened than St. Paul.

    Dead Christianity? Perhaps, but you say we need a religion yet it’s very hard if not impossible to invent a new religion in these times. Digital age makes it too easy to debunk as hoax.

    These things take time, but for now red-pilling as many young men as possible is strongest tactic. They will come to understand as you do that compassionate yet stern religion is necessary for society and order – otherwise you end up sitting around a campfire worshiping trees with the rest of the dirt eaters.

    • peppermint says:

      (1) redpilll people on how dune coon lies nearly destroyed their race nation and personal families
      (2) this will lead them to understand that dune coo lies are necessary to avoid being goat fuckers like the dune coons

    • TheBigH says:

      >Dead Christianity? Perhaps, but you say we need a religion yet it’s very hard if not impossible to invent a new religion in these times. Digital age makes it too easy to debunk as hoax.

      Have you checked out the Cult of Kek? Invented in late 2015 and it’s growing fast. I don’t know if Kek is real, but Meme magic is real and has power. Maybe all religions get started as a inside joke that becomes real as they show success and gain power.

      • Antipas says:

        Cult of Kek? Isn’t that just the new Slack/Church of the Subgenius?

        • peppermint says:

          Why Kek:
          * meme magic is real. Kek is the avatar of meme magic and pepe is the avatar of kek. Worshiping Kek means recognizing the importance of memetics and anonymity to social problem solving.
          * the Alt-Right is a movement and a movement needs symbols
          * Kek is an insult to christcuckoldry and thus the primary enemy of the Alt-Right, cuckservatives

      • Jack Highlands says:

        All desirable Western religion has consisted of Noble Lies at least since classical Greece. Esoteric Kekism stands as good a chance as any potential successor to Christianity if its subjects continue to evolve its rituals until they are widely admired and wise nobles of the same folk as the subjects evolve its Lies to be compatible with both human nature and those rituals.

        • Antipas says:

          Disagree. As I said, these things take time and we don’t have a lot of it. From what I see Kek has just been a delivery mechanism of red pills to normies online. I don’t see any moral code or dogma. We need law and order. Kek doesn’t even have a ten commandments, let alone a sermon on the Mount.

          The red terror of the west will not hold up since they are largely staffed by weak faggots and blue hairs. If Christians don’t reassert power we can just forget about western civilization and let the Muslims and Chinese pick through the bones and fight over the scraps.

          • Anonymous says:

            >I don’t see any moral code or dogma. We need law and order. Kek doesn’t even have a ten commandments, let alone a sermon on the Mount.

            You’re thinking in terms of “old time religion”. That’s gone forever. The West should rather go full-Nietzsche and embrace whatever ideals are most conducive to staving off social entropy — civilizational decline — and accelerating capitalistic-technological progress towards the AI singularity and beyond, as a certain “android sent from the future to terminate human security” would have it. Kek delivers!

            >If Christians don’t reassert power we can just forget about western civilization and let the Muslims and Chinese pick through the bones and fight over the scraps.

            You didn’t mention those who “never forgive and never forget” (i.e never learn), you know, the ones whose ethno-state, located on a strip of land along the Mediterranean basin, has 80+ nuclear warheads. Because they, too, would pick through the bones of the civilization whose death they eagerly assisted to precipitate.

            Cultural Marxism, which is now murdering the West in full force, was not invented by the Muslims or the Chinese. They were not there. (((Someone else))) was there, “causing that feel”.

            • James says:

              Good luck. What you’re talking about is the mirror image of Marxism. They both lost for a reason.

              Voluntary cooperation through spiritual inspiration is the only sustainable form of social organization. No nation has really worked without God — they’ve all eventually collapsed on themselves or decided to let God back in. Russia, France, China, and what have you. “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against you” is a promise in the Bible, and it’s one borne out by history, and the reason it’s true is simple; people want to connect with God, and if you don’t let them, they become miserable, uncooperative, and petty creatures.

              The spiritual death of a society precedes its material death. God is here. You have to deal with it. Seek to open your nous.

              • Jack Highlands says:

                Religion is ethnically specific. Explain to me how East Asians, other than East Asian Christians, have let God back into their societies. That would be a meaningless statement, since spirits and ancestors are not God even in the sense of Jove or Vishnu, let alone Allah or Yaweh, let alone the strange – and absolutely central, let us never forget that – Christian compromise of the Trinity.

                The only way to unite them all as something societies seek back to is as collections of Noble Lies. Which they are: ethnically specific noble lies, necessary to prevent collapse.

          • peppermint says:

            If you want dogma, look for repeating digits and come up with your own fanfiction. If you want a moral code, there’s the 14w.

  15. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Julian died trying to invade Persia, reigning as sole emperor less than two years.

    Do not know if his project failed because of inherent impossibility.

    If Julian had succeeded in invading Persia, he would have earned the title Caesar, and been unchallengeable. If he had died at 85, he would have reigned 55 years as sole emperor. He would have pass the empire to his son, who may not have been worthless.

    Could have been close to a century of apostasy. Who knows.

    More worrying is that Julian’s “Paganism” took on many aspects of Christianity.

    Either way, Christianity is as dead as Paganism at this point.

    • TheBigH says:

      >Julian died trying to invade Persia, reigning as sole emperor less than two years.

      >Do not know if his project failed because of inherent impossibility.

      It was an impossible task with the Roman army he used. You can’t beat horse archers in the desert with mostly heavy infantry. A good Roman leader would have used a series of fortification, wall cities, road building to create a frontier to the Persian border taking way the Persian’s ability to raid his supply train. Then proceeded to raid Persia until the Persians gave open battle or where starved from lack of food.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        I don’t mean it is not clear that his invasion of Persia couldn’t have succeeded, but that his project to build a non-Christian state religion couldn’t have succeeded.

  16. Randy says:

    The 2nd and 3rd centuries AD were were not host to a conflict between Christianity and Greek paganism but between Christianity and Greek philosophical schools. Actual paganism had been long dead, de facto.

  17. Salmed says:

    Chrisianity is a nihilistic movement for the slave. It’s followers revere the slave, the woman, the Nigger.

    Islam is a nihilistic movement for the low to underemarkable IQ man (Arabians, Niggers).

    We should be upfront about how “Left VS Right” is really Nihilist VS Growth. When you consider this, the affection Lefties have for both Buddhism and Islam (nihilistic creeds) isn’t a surprise anymore.

    • James says:

      You say “Christians revere the slave”, yet in the history record we have numerous accounts of courageous, dominant, and powerful Christian leaders. We also have records of cowardly and slavish Christians. However, what’s noteworthy about the cowardly Christians is that they are generally not very into Christianity per se; they just want to approved of by any means possible, and so they selectively reject or ignore all aspects of reality (including all aspects of their religion) which call them to task.

      These people aren’t Christian because they do not preach God, they ignore the admonition to “go your way and sin no more”, and they would *never* be martyred for their beliefs.

      They claim faith, but “faith without works is dead”.

  18. Narm says:

    Off topic– am I getting this right?

    peer review -> demotism -> leftism
    Harvard runs on peer review
    Hence US turns leftist

    This is a great insight.

    It shows you why gender studies majors exist.

    It shows you why prestigious academics are often stupid at a lot of things and make terrible mentors. Apparently a CS professor (not necessarily Harvard) failed a Google interview. And Google isn’t very selective! https://www.quora.com/Can-every-CS-professor-pass-Googles-interview/answers/24989034

    It shows you why credentials are important for big monopoly companies trying to stay alive (peer review — “interviewing” candidates — sucks if your interviewers suck, so they’re effectively outsourcing it to academia). Similarly, for quant hedge funds, hard science credentials (physics/math PhDs) are valued since even though the corresponding knowledge is basically useless those credentials are the most resistant to peer review, so they maximize the chances of keeping the stupid people out of your company. (One quant hedge fund I worked at failed to keep the stupid, charismatic (((people))) out, and now half the company is a mess with no cure except restructuring. Crazy enough, a couple of the most selective, successful finance hedge funds in the US are actually falling into the trap of hiring charismatic undergrad women. There are some true believers out there.)

    It shows you why PhD’s are snobbish to non-PhD’s. It’s the best you can do in terms of credentials.

    It shows you why somebody who “misses the boat” on e.g. college admissions can fall years behind. Have to go full throttle since the credentialing system is so fragile, based on all these recommendations and extracurriculars, and so on.

    The red-pilling never ends.

    People (or at least progressive people) are just horrible at identifying talent in other people, and at mentoring other people. So you end up with a unwieldy mess of peer review and credentialism which can be gamed by savvy, ambitious young men (with the requisite IQ). However most of the men who are best at gaming the system are true believers, so the Cathedral ends up with vulnerabilities. Reactionaries gotta be smart and form the right coalitions.

    • Narm says:

      Steve Jobs on interviewing: “Do we really still ask such stupid f-*ing questions during interviews… what possible answer could be offered that would tell us whether or not they are completely stupid or utterly brilliant?” https://www.quora.com/How-hard-did-Steve-Jobs-work/answers/36745309

      Google has hiring committees (for software engineers at least) and is only slightly credentialist. The founders, who were PhD students, are apparently trying to set up some halfway-decent credentialing system based on IQ proxies, running in parallel to academia. I’m sure Google has tons of problems in its bureaucracy, but it’s probably a lot better than other places.

    • Narm says:

      Note: The women out of undergrad I mentioned are going into positions earning millions of dollars a year (after a couple years experience), or a bit less (but with better brand value). Their interviewers genuinely believed they would be the ones who’d add the most value to the company. The Cathedral is mind-boggling.

  19. Alrenous says:

    Christianity was less false than the alternatives.
    However, it wasn’t ever unflawed, as with any works of Man. Recently the flaws have become blindingly apparent.

    Philosophy likes to pretend it isn’t a religion, but it is. Philosophy is not particularly correct either…yet. Philosophy is allowed to improve itself.

    • Salmed says:

      Chrisianity as actually practiced by Jesus and followers was an apocalyptic Jew cult. With Jesus being an ancient Jim Jones or Charles Manson.

  20. Jack Highlands says:

    I don’t like to dwell on it too much, but for twenty years I have recognized the strong congruence between the end of the state religion of ancient Rome/end of Roman civilization, and the end of Christianity in the West/end of Western civilization. IMO, this is a model we are unlikely to overcome.

    Our six-thousand year trend is Aryans emerging from the Steppe in all Eurasian directions.

    Our four-thousand year trend is their barbarian descendants in the Balkans and Central Europe kindling, them renewing, European civilization as they invaded south and west.

    Our two-thousand year trend is that all our main ethnolinguistic groups from the E branch of IE have either had a crack at this or been absorbed. Except the Slavs, who have created their own, Eurasian, civilization instead.

    Our four-hundred year trend is that the Slavs, in the form of their Russian core, have been on their way to eventually conquering the West for quite awhile. It’s just possible that Orthodox Christianity could transform into the religion of the next White civilization, though I have my doubts. More likely the Russians will be the ones to make the Next Synthesis.

    All the Russia manipulation and paranoia on the Left right now is interesting. Of course, the Alt Right must draw back from embracing Russia or risk the appearance of treason. Which the Left senses well and is keen to exploit. It’s debatable how long we will be able to keep up the drawing back from Russia.

    • James says:

      I’ve just started the process of catechism into the Eastern Orthodox church. My plan is to settle down with a slavic bitty and pop out 6-8 children on a mountain homestead in Montana. Welcome to the future of white civilization.

      I also want to add that I went to the Orthodox church not sure what to think, but I am genuinely deeply growing in faith and understanding. It feels right and sacred. A lot of what we take for granted as Western Christians is unheardof there. They lack the spliterism, build-your-own-Jesus, and holiness spiraling of the Protestant churches, but they maintain the “personal relationship with God through Jesus” via their concept of “nous”, which is said to be that part of us which can touch and be touched by God, making us the conduit between the Divine and Nature. Their whole theology, liturgy, and culture is radically different from Catholicism and speaks to my soul wonderfully. I think that it has the strength and flexibility to overcome both the Marxist and Islamist memeplex handily, albeit in fits and starts.

  21. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Christianity is the source of all our problems. If you trace leftism back through the written record, and you don’t speak multiple ancient languages and have access to a research library, your record dies around the time the printing press is invented. At that time Christianity looks pretty OK. That is because Christianity had been comprehensively paganised. The paganisation of Christianity was made possible by loss of vernacular Bibles and displacement of Church power by kings – by Caesar.

    The Bible cannot be forced out of the vernacular. It can however simply be expunged from the Western canon – and is being expunged from the Western canon.

    The Caesaropapist bureaucracies in which we now live can only be resecularised by outside conquest or by loss of belief by the bureaucrats. Outside conquest is not the preferable outcome.

    The death of Christianity is both inevitable and desirable. The restoration of Christianity is probably impossible. The restoration of 1100 AD paganised Christianity is impossible.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      The Bible contains the memetic DNA; Christianity (and Judaism) are able to continuously adapt because of, not in spite of, that DNA. Druidism had its own Bible, a cycle of myths that their laws and morals were based on. Druidism didn’t die out until those myths were expunged. Took 20 years to memorize them properly, so beheading the serpent by killing off the druids did the trick. WIth a written book DESIGNED to be read and understood by kindergartners, it is a bit harder. The faith can spring back to life at any time, like Ezekiel’s dry bones. The Poz is cyclic and no religion can avoid it. But Bible based religions are able to survive the cycles, like the dandelions return after the winter snows. Also, people dislike dandelions, but they cure cancer.

      • Salmed says:

        Chrisianity is nihilistic. All the dancing around it won’t shift that.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          Come back when you’ve read the Bible from cover to cover. Your comment about nihilism has no relation to the Bible, or to Truth.

          • jim says:

            Nihilistic interpretations of the bible (for example most gnosticism) are possible and common.

            A living church has to declare such interpretations heresy and expunge them.

          • Salmed says:

            Yes, I’m sure the scribblings of goat herder muds and a Jewish death cult have much to show us.

    • TheBigH says:

      Interesting points. I guess it’s the Cult of Kek going forward.

  22. Stephen W says:

    Praise KEK!

  23. Alrenous says:

    No molten metal?

    Okay. What’s this?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE

    How is molten metal a count against it, at the same time that nobody claimed that the fire got hot enough to melt metal?

      • jim says:

        In any case, this entire discussion is stupid. If the evil conspiracy flies an airliner into a building, planting charges is gilding the lilly. It would only make sense if airliners full of people were not in fact flown into the buildings.

        One can plausibly claim that an evil Joo conspiracy turned a blind eye to the terrorists, but a blind eye plus demolition charges is overdoing it.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          “In any case, this entire discussion is stupid. If the evil conspiracy flies an airliner into a building, planting charges is gilding the lilly. It would only make sense if airliners full of people were not in fact flown into the buildings.”

          Bingo.

          The WTC had already been bombed so it wouldn’t have even been a stretch.

          There are hundreds of thousands of eye witnesses (myself included incidentally) to the second plane hitting the second tower (a burning hole in the WTC is a giant spectacle and the buildings were visible over a huge densely populated area).

          Not only would one jet full of people have been gilding the lily, the second jet was even more so.

        • Alrenous says:

          They installed and used explosives because they were afraid of this happening at several times the scale:

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

          • jim says:

            Someone who flies planes into buildings is not afraid of that happening at several times the scale.

            • Alrenous says:

              …and if you actually read what I wrote, you would have seen that’s not what I’m claiming.
              You’re usually good at reading what’s there. I would have said always until now.

    • Alrenous says:

      The ‘spontaneous’ implosion of the towers, a unique historical event, is part of the evidence of secret Cathedral competence. If they had been allowed to topple naturally, it would have caused widespread destruction.

      No, buildings cannot be rigged to self-destruct in a few hours while everyone is watching. It must have been rigged to self-destruct either during construction or soon after the 1993 bombing, in a demonstration of foresight and hard decisions being made.

      The cover up is simply due to another hard decision: they decided some thousands of lives wasn’t worth the risk of the buildings toppling, so the self-destruct was activated. Of course a democracy cannot pull the lever on the trolley problem, that would be wrong. If the towers had toppled, the deaths would have been due to terrorists. Instead, it’s due to supposed ingroup members. Voters are dumb.

    • jim says:

      Scale. Those are not drops of molten metal. Those are lumps of burning debris the size of you. It is a big building. You would not be able to see individual drops of molten metal.

      Also, molten steel is intensely bright. These are ordinary burning stuff bright.

      • Cavalier says:

        There wouldn’t be molten steel on video of the towers’ collapse because the plane could not have melted steel. There may possibly have been molten aluminum; I haven’t investigated that bit; it obviously isn’t relevant to the collapse.

        The molten steel was the stuff the rescue teams later found deep in the ruin. Apparently, it was still burn-your-eyebrows-off hot a week or two after the collapse.

        It all boils down to one thing: steel frame buildings simply do not spontaneously melt into the ground at free-fall velocity. We have been building steel frame buildings for over a century, and there are only three exceptions to this rule recorded in history, and they all happened within 300 yards and 9 hours of each other.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          “We have been building steel frame buildings for over a century, and there are only three exceptions to this rule recorded in history, and they all happened within 300 yards and 9 hours of each other.”

          It’s almost as if some kind of extraordinary event occurred in those 300 yards during those 9 hours – one that hadn’t happened ever before in recorded history. Baffling.

        • jim says:

          I am pretty sure the rescue team did not find melted steel deep in the ruin.

          Any sufficiently tall building or large structure when it collapses goes into free fall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62-uWAsu9DI

          We have not seen that many collapses of really tall buildings because there just are not that many really tall buildings.

          I repeat. If you are going to fly an airliner full of people into a really tall building, demolition charges are just gilding the lily.

          The taller a building is, the more its collapse looks like the collapse of the towers. It is just scaling law. People just don’t perceive how big the towers were.

          Suppose it was totally the Joos that flew the planes into the two towers. Suppose the pilot was a rabbi. Would they bother with demolition charges?

          • Cavalier says:

            First vid: if you look carefully you can see that the building, or at least the frame, is still there, entirely uncollapsed.

            Second vid: Possibility 1) A random building with no one in it suddenly decides to crumble, though fortunately the proud owner of a potatoSLR was standing around filming a lifeless building with a crowd of people standing around staring at said lifeless building as though something was about to happen. Possibility 2) Arabs. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/08/27/Dramatic-footage-shows-moment-of-Makkah-building-demolition-1107.html

            Maybe we don’t see ANY spontaneous collapses of tall buildings because we don’t see ANY spontaneous collapses of steel frame buildings, and while not all B are A, all A are B.

            If the rabbi pilot was Ovadia Yosef himself, those buildings would still be standing. They would have gaping holes in them, and the topmost floors would be burnt to a crisp, but they would still scrape the New Yawk sky.

            P.S. I’m not pointing fingers at anyone — or (((anyone))). I have no clear idea who “they” is. I’m sure it will come out eventually, perhaps after all those involved are dead, but as of now I simply cannot separate fact from conspiretardation, but am limited to judgements informed by the physical laws and my own lying eyes.

            • Alrenous says:

              Yeah, poster boy principle: if that’s really the best we can do in terms of building collapses, then there’s been no steel-framed building collapses. And certainly no spontaneous implosions.

              I’m less sanguine about the truth coming out. If there’s no paper trail, it could remain a mystery permanently. Even if there is, the trail may have broken links.

              As to them staying up…not clear. When they start to collapse you can see the top tip. (And then magically correct.) It’s quite possible the whole top cube could have rolled off the stump, into the street, across the street…
              Or even if it’s not possible, it’s reasonable to fear the risk during the crisis.

      • Alrenous says:

        It’s pretty clear you’re in cognitive dissonance here.
        There’s actual fire in the same shot for comparison. It doesn’t look like the fire. It’s a different colour, it isn’t smoking, and anyway there’s no reason for solid objects to decide to form a conga line out of a window. Looks like those ribs are three feet wide. 108 sections and 330ish feet of facade. I could go on but facts don’t work on cognitive dissonance.

        It is very strange that someone managed to fly planes into the buildings, and nobody has managed to do anything at all since. But as per Taleb, we don’t live in mediocristan, so that’s not evidence of conspiracy.

        But the thing is, it’s irresponsible to have such large buildings, especially when they’re known to be a target, without the capacity to bring them down safely(ish) in a hurry. I would have rigged them to collapse. At that height, even minor lateral velocity would have devastated nearby buildings with a fusillade of siege cannon shots, quite possibly leading to a chain reaction.

        Plus, somebody got to live like they were in a movie, with a genuine self-destruct button. Americans like their movies.

        Of course it is also irresponsible to design them on the assumption planes wouldn’t get larger. So that happened.

        • jim says:

          It is very strange that someone managed to fly planes into the buildings, and nobody has managed to do anything at all sinceIt is very strange that someone managed to fly planes into the buildings, and nobody has managed to do anything at all since

          Nothing strange about it at all. People used to cooperate with hijackers, now they fight them to the death.

          • Cloudswrest says:

            Exactly. That bug in the social programming got corrected jiffy quick.

          • Alrenous says:

            Evasion.

            I didn’t say, “It’s weird there’s been no hijackings,” I said, “It’s weird there’s been -nothing-.” There’s supposed to be a continuum between underpants bomber and coordinate plane hijackings?

            Remember how Boston was shut down, and it wasn’t even a terrorist campaign? Remember the transformer sniping incidents? Do you know how easy it would be to replay the 2003 August blackouts?

            Some folk are saying, “Well yeah, FBI.” And I’m wondering when the government become competent all of a sudden.

            But, as per Taleb, there doesn’t need to be a continuum all the time. It’s weird, but very far from proof of anything.

            • Alrenous says:

              As as point of fact, the government has been repeatedly shown to be incompetent, as journalists can get bombs into planes more than 90% of the time.

              So no, it’s not the FBI. But apparently every last competent Muslim flew a plane into a building instead of getting married and having kids.

        • TheBigH says:

          >It is very strange that someone managed to fly planes into the buildings, and nobody has managed to do anything at all since.

          The problem was corrected in the very next hijacked plane where the passengers fought the hijackers and the plane ended up crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Passengers learned from the the hijackings, and hijackers gave up on the tactic once it had been countered. It’s the like the attack on Pearl Harbor, it only works once.

Leave a Reply