Ever faster movement left

Weasel zippers reports some tweets:

Screen shot 2014-05-02 at 10.02.47 AM

Screen shot 2014-05-02 at 10.02.57 AM

Screen shot 2014-05-02 at 10.03.06 AM

Now, not only can free speech get you fired, supporting, people’s right to free speech behind closed doors with the blinds drawn, while piously deploring what they say, can get you fired.

Observe that Josh Olin did not take the horribly extreme ultra ultra far right neo nazi position that people have a right to free speech in public.

Can anyone remember a time when anyone was so ultra extreme far right as to support free speech in public?  I am sure that not only did I never support such a horrible thing, but my parents and grandparents and great grandparents never supported it either.

Everyone who was born before 1956 remembers a time when there was no such thing as marital rape, when the idea that there was something wrong with a husband compelling his wife to perform her marital duties was so strange that there was no easy way to say such a thing and be understood.  And yet, no one remembers ever thinking such a thing, nor the people of the time thinking such a thing.  The past is always changing, only the future is certain.

For a long time, esr has entirely forgotten that once upon a time, he, his entire family, and everyone he knew, took a husband’s right to compel his wife to perform her marital duties entirely for granted.  Now, it seems, he has entirely forgotten that once upon a time he supported not only the right to freedom of speech behind closed doors with the curtains drawn, but, gasp, horror, free speech in public, a position so extreme right wing that no one has words to express how horribly right wing it is.  Freedom of speech is now bullying, just as the marital contract is now rape.  All right thinking people agree on this, and they always have.

 

 

Tags:

167 Responses to “Ever faster movement left”

  1. B says:

    What does “compel” mean? Like, he could punch her in the nose if she didn’t put out? Or do you mean that failure to put out was sufficient grounds for divorce?

    Anyway, the above exchange is a bit deficient. In a really well-done scenario, Josh Olin and Turtle Rock Studios’ accounts would disappear, and Olin would appear along with the CEO a year later giving a press conference, looking ten years older and reading a confession from a prepared statement held in shaking hands. Then they would disappear forever. As it is, he’s free to spread his hate and raceism and hateful raceism on the internet, where the children play.

    • hitlerdidsomethingswrong says:

      Like, he could punch her in the nose if she didn’t put out?

      Not the most effective way to get sex. But if he did, it would probably be classified as domestic violence, which was made illegal in most US states in the mid-to-late-1800s, and was grounds for divorce.

    • jim says:

      What does “compel” mean? Like, he could punch her in the nose if she didn’t put out?

      Since the husband normally has much greater upper body strength than the wife, less drastic measures were usually feasible, and these less drastic measures were entirely socially acceptable – indeed much more socially acceptable than a wife refusing to put out.

      • B says:

        I’ve never tested the theory myself, but have it on good authority that it is difficult to rape someone without first beating them into submission, because they will fight and squirm and you will lose your erection while wrestling around with them.

        • jim says:

          The wrestling around is pretty sexy – and sexier for the woman than for the man.

          If they are willing to hurt you and have to be restrained from doing so, then it is not sexy.

        • Dr. Faust says:

          Most rape victims don’t really struggle. One of the things they teach women in self-defense classes is that they can fight back against a rapist otherwise they’ll just lay there. You’re greatly underestimating the influence an authoritative person has over a woman.

  2. peppermint says:

    The Political Corrector video from YouTube seems apropos ( Screaming is hatespeech! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChfAr8DpHQk )

    I don’t remember freedom of speech in public; that was killed before the Civil Rights Act. When has there ever been a distinction between public and private? Before the civil rights act, for certain jobs, if you could be proven to have said something politically incorrect, you could lose them. The function of the Civil Rights Act was to extend that to all professional jobs and many other jobs, ensuring that racism was just for truckers, construction workers, and trailer trash.

    • hitlerdidnothingwrong says:

      The function of the Civil Rights Act was to extend [racial speech censorship] to all professional jobs and many other jobs

      Have no doubt, that effect was entirely intentional. Censoring speech in indirect and hidden ways is a talent Singapore has mastered, along with the Cathedral.

      • jim says:

        I am not aware of these sort of incidents happening in Singapore.

        • hitlerdidnothingwrong says:

          Not the same sort of incidents. But the same subtle censorship. Activists are routinely driven into bankruptcy for defamation against political leaders, and the government owns one of the two major media outlets, and legally controls the other.

          As usual for Singapore, it’s entirely lawful, and not corrupt at all. But it’s still censorship that isn’t easily seen.

          • peppermint says:

            I feel like censorship is normal, unavoidable, and even desirable; but insanity is not.

            Neoreactionaries often point out how much less censorship there actually was in Christendom or under the Kings of Europe, and an important feature of insanity is the need for very strict censorship, but the absense of censorship is scarcely more desirable than any other leftist slogans.

            • jim says:

              If the official religion is insane, censorship tends to make it more insane.

              If the official religion is sane, we want to protect it from the free competition of ideas, since in a free competition of religions to be the official religion, the holiest religion, which is apt to be the least sane religion, is likely to win.

              See my post “leftism as cancer”

          • hitlerdidsomethingswrong says:

            the absense of censorship is scarcely more desirable than any other leftist slogans

            That’s a euphemism. Outside of the ACLU, nobody on the left actually wants to abolish censorship.

            I remember reading some neo-nazi publication, where they went on at length about how desirable free speech was. Below, there was an article about how awesome Adolf Hitler was. Leftists are similar.

  3. hitlerdidnothingwrong says:

    Now, not only can free speech get you fired

    That’s not an innovation. Businesses have always fired people for saying bad things.

    Granted, the only racial bigotry that counted was bigotry against the authority figure’s race (don’t say “I hate the Irish” to an Irishman). But we’ve always had private restrictions of speech, including racial comments.

    • jim says:

      Now, not only can free speech get you fired

      That’s not an innovation. Businesses have always fired people for saying bad things.

      Businesses did not have their businesses confiscated and given to a magic negro for allowing people to say bad things.

      • hitlerdidnothingwrong says:

        In New York City, Tammany Hall could ruin many businesses (i.e. by severing the connection with their patronage system) if you offended the wrong immigrant groups. Though you’d probably have to make more public comments.

        Ethnic politics has a long history, and it includes a lot of the tactics the left is currently using. The modern left uses them to a much more extreme degree, and for very minor offenses.

  4. hitlerdidnothingwrong says:

    when the idea that there was something wrong with a husband compelling his wife to perform her marital duties was so strange that there was no easy way to say such a thing and be understood.

    The interesting thing is, women still don’t quite understand it. Take this scene in Gone with the Wind:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M25sE8Ccapc

    By any “modern” definition, it’s clearly marital rape – he threatens her earlier in the scene, she walks away, then he forcefully grabs her, taking her up the stairs while she struggles against him. But if you look in the comments, most of the women don’t consider it rape. They see it as romantic.

    This was an unconventional expression of love. NOT RAPE.

    This is one of the hottest scenes ever put on film.

    This is NOT rape. How can it be? She is so happy in the morning – and in the book she starts kissing him back.

    Maybe it’s only rape if the guy is ugly.

    • dnf says:

      Be attractive rule. Legislating sexuality is bound to have bad consequences for the unattractive regardless of the damage done by him(if at all).

  5. Reader says:

    I don’t have any brilliant insights to offer…I just have a bad feeling in my gut about how fast the anti-racist hysteria is growing. It’s alarming that so few people seem to see how wrong it is to persecute a guy for something he said in a private conversation with a girlfriend, or for donating to a political cause. And these are the same people who look at the 50s’ Hollywood blacklist of suspected Communists as a time of darkness in American history. Now they do EXACTLY the same thing with a different type of unpopular political opinion and they can’t, for the life of them, see what’s wrong with taking away someone’s livelihood or business for expressing a “wrong” opinion.

    I remember hearing how in other contexts where things went bad relatively quickly (Germany in the 1930s, Rwanda, etc) that people couldn’t believe that sensible people they respected could turn evil like that. And here it appears to be happening in my own country in my own time.

    I’m certainly being very careful to keep my mouth shut with my real opinions…I suspect it won’t be long before some self-righteous left-wing hacker reveals the true identities of some posters of unpopular opinions on sites like this…and that may well be the end of people posting even anonymous un-PC comments online.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      Solution, identify the left wing activist who outed you. Post his physical address online. And always have an FU fund and friends among the armed militias.

      • peppermint says:

        terrorism does not work as a right-wing strategy. report to comrade moldbug for zio-reeducation.

        • jim says:

          This remains to be seen. Terrorism seems to be working for Muslims, who are right wing in the sense of being non Cathedral.

          • B says:

            Three things:

            First, if you read the Muslim terrorists’ literature, like the writings of Sayid Qutb, you will notice that it’s basically Lenin+a turban-40 IQ points.

            Second, when the Muslim terrorists take a place over, as they did in Anbar and Syria, they don’t rule like khalifs but like Pol Pot. This suggests that they are leftists with korans.

            Third, I do not know of any case where they have own without Cathedral support. In the absence of such support, they tend to do poorly. When the Cathedral is actively pursuing them, they tend to get wrecked pretty quickly-its pointier bits have gotten quite good at identifying targets and doing unpleasant things to them personally.

            Hence, I see no future in active resistance by the Western secular DE. At best, it can act like Procopius writing his Secret History for those who rebuild after the collapse to figure out what happened.

            • jim says:

              Hence, I see no future in active resistance by the Western secular DE. At best, it can act like Procopius writing his Secret History for those who rebuild after the collapse to figure out what happened.

              You need a tribe in order to fight, and you need a tribal religion to have a tribe. In this, the secular Dark Enlightenment is very weak. But, you need to understand what is going on in order to fight, and in this, the tradcons are weak, terribly weak. They allow the Cathedral to adjust their religions in ways that guarantee suicide. Bennett’s horror of “apartheid” will be his death, and the death of all Jews in Israel. You, B, are unwilling to tell us what your sect does to keep women in line, which makes it likely that your sect will yield on the measures it takes to keep women in line, as nearly all Christian sects recently have.

              Bennett says he will give 48000 “Palestinians” Jewish citizenship – and that this will supposedly mean his apartheid plan cannot be called apartheid. He should not be using the word “Palestinians”, if he hopes for Israel to survive, and if he is worried about people calling his plan what it is, he is not going to be able to implement it.

              We need a religion capable of fighting the Cathedral, and the fact that you will not tell us how your religion keeps women in line, and are keen on a plan to make 48000 “Palestinians” full citizens of Israel tells me that your religion is not it.

              As I said, your religion is still a religion of exile, unprepared to come home, inherently subversive not only of Christian states but of the Jewish state. Your religion changed before, remade as a religion of exile, and needs to be remade again, remade to be once again capable of functioning as the state religion of the Jewish state.

              Because if the state religion of the Jewish state continues to be progressivism, you are going to die.

          • B says:

            Actually, the topic probably deserves its own thread.

          • B says:

            >I keep asking B what his sect does to keep women in line – and he will not answer, though I know that progressives in Israel are trying to make the things his sect does to keep women in line illegal.

            I keep trying to explain-you don’t want to hear it. It’s not some Roissy trick. We have an integrated social code which lets us live with each other. What we do to keep women in line is what we do to keep children in line (I’ve never seen a religious Jew beat his child, and I’ve never seen children who are spectacularly ill-behaved in the American way,) which is what we do to keep ourselves in line. Primarily, women want men to be men, and not in the PUA sense (those guys are gay) but in the sense of basic masculinity and responsibility. We have a system that allows that to happen. We have role models for behavior, going back to our patriarchs and matriarchs. We also softly discourage promiscuous and immodest behavior-you won’t get rocks thrown at you (I’m just talking about Religious Zionist society,) but you’ll get a sense that it’s not cool.

            But that’s all particular expressions of a general principle. The principle is that before you serve your personal desires, you serve G-d, and in very particular, concrete ways. And this is something you don’t want to understand, but let me try to explain. A Jewish child or Jewish wife see the man of the house get up in the morning, and before eating breakfast, he goes and puts on tefillin (themselves a prophetic gesture demonstrating that we submit our thoughts and actions to G-d) and prays for half an hour or an hour. He comes home at night, the last thing he does is say the Shema. He goes to the store, and instead of buying the cheapest food he can, he buys kosher food (not so much an issue here, since you have to make an effort to buy unkosher food, but in exile it is.) He, and all his household, stop work on Shabbat, and instead of sleeping until noon and then going bass fishing, go to pray at 8 in the morning and spend the rest of the day with their community. So, this is a husband and a father whom you can, on a basic level, trust and follow, because you’re not just submitting to his will-you are both submitting to G-d’s will. There is a story I was told of a guy who, in the states, took his four year old son into a gas station, and the kid wanted a candy bar. His father told him it wasn’t kosher, at which point the kid said, ok, and put it back. Then he took another look, saw the little OU symbol, and threw a huge tantrum. Get the point?

            Not to say that all is peaches and cream, that there are not poorly behaved women, that nobody abuses their kids, that no children rebel, that all men are responsible and observant in the privacy of their homes as well as outside. People have their own minds, and being free to choose means being free to choose the wrong thing. We have, for instance, no-fault divorce, and always have-not only can people divorce if the other party doesn’t put out (and you absolutely can’t force them to put out,) but they can divorce if the other party is repugnant to them. That was, on the male side, explicit in the Torah, and the Talmud makes it explicit for the female side as well. Meaning, you can’t force people to do the right thing, or even the ideal thing as seen from an objective perspective.

            But overall, it works, and that’s how it works. Sorry-it’s not the “neg her to do a DHV when she shit tests you lozzzlozl” answer.

            >his inability to discuss those aspects of his religion suggests that it has occupied B’s mind.

            This is a bit paranoid. Perhaps my inability to give you a three word answer (“kino and escalate, man! Kino and escalate! Right to the butthexth!”) is caused by other factors.

            • jim says:

              >I keep asking B what his sect does to keep women in line – and he will not answer, though I know that progressives in Israel are trying to make the things his sect does to keep women in line illegal.

              I keep trying to explain-you don’t want to hear it. It’s not some Roissy trick

              Feminist elements in your government want to make some of your tricks illegal. No one would care to make illegal what you describe, nor could they. Plus, Saint Paul’s methods for getting Roman fertility above replacement were indeed some Roissy tricks, and talmudic Jews copied their shtick from the Christian patriarchs.

              You believe yourself, but I do not believe you, and feminists in your government don’t believe you. Your account sounds like the argument I had with Bruce Charleton, who is horrified by how cynically inegalitarian the Pauline prescription on reproduction, sex, and sex roles is, and desperately rationalizes it away, a manifestation of the fact that his brain has been colonized by the Cathedral, and though he has successfully thrown off Cathedral programming on science and the state, has not successfully thrown off the blue pill, not successfully thrown off Cathedral programming on women and sex.

              So, if you will not tell me what works, because you are reluctant to believe it works, reluctant to believe that your rules were designed by some ancient Roissy with cynical intent, tell me what feminists in your government want to demonize, lower in status, or criminalize, tell me what they think works, what they think you are doing, even if you believe they are wrong and that is not what you are doing. Tell me what a feminist would think you were doing to keep fertility up.

          • B says:

            >But, you need to understand what is going on in order to fight, and in this, the tradcons are weak, terribly weak.

            They don’t have a tribe, either. We are not tradcons-we’re something entirely different.

            >Bennett’s horror of “apartheid” will be his death, and the death of all Jews in Israel…Bennett says he will give 48000 “Palestinians” Jewish citizenship – and that this will supposedly mean his apartheid plan cannot be called apartheid. He should not be using the word “Palestinians”, if he hopes for Israel to survive, and if he is worried about people calling his plan what it is, he is not going to be able to implement it.

            Bennett is not an ideal or the Moshiach, and he’s not a religious authority. He is a democratically elected politician in a parliamentary state, with all that implies. However, if you ignore what the Israeli government says and look at what it does, and then compare that to what it was doing 10, 20, 40 years ago, there is definitely an improvement. This is largely not the result of a conscious strategy, I believe, but a natural evolution caused by the greater forces driving Jewish history. But don’t trust me-let’s see what that monster of realpolitik, Luttwak, has to say about it: “What will happen? That’s impossible to say. Anything is possible. I correctly predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, but I can’t predict the future of the state of Israel. All of the predictions, even those that are serious and based on data, like those in the Economist magazine, were always wrong when it came to Israel. The analysts were always wrong, and those who were consistently correct were the dreamers.” We don’t live by the same laws as China or the US.

            • jim says:

              >Bennett’s horror of “apartheid” will be his death, and the death of all Jews in Israel…Bennett says he will give 48000 “Palestinians” Jewish citizenship – and that this will supposedly mean his apartheid plan cannot be called apartheid. He should not be using the word “Palestinians”, if he hopes for Israel to survive, and if he is worried about people calling his plan what it is, he is not going to be able to implement it.

              Bennett is not an ideal or the Moshiach, and he’s not a religious authority. He is a democratically elected politician in a parliamentary state, with all that implies. However, if you ignore what the Israeli government says and look at what it does, and then compare that to what it was doing 10, 20, 40 years ago, there is definitely an improvement. This is largely not the result of a conscious strategy, I believe, but a natural evolution caused by the greater forces driving Jewish history.

              The greater force driving Jewish history is in this case that progressivism is the official religion, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that progressivism will kill you all. If you had a credible alternative official religion, it would win easily. But you don’t.

          • B says:

            Yawn. Let me know when it starts killing us all. In the meantime, we’re building more settlements, making more kids, starting more companies, making more tech, drilling for oil and gas in new fields.

            • jim says:

              Let me know when it starts killing us all.

              Is not making 48000 “Palestinians” Jewish citizens a start? You do that so you will not be accused of apartheid, but of course, you will be accused of apartheid because you are creating facts on the ground that make the two state solution unworkable, because you really are guilty of apartheid. So you will make some more “Palestinians” Jewish citizens. And so it goes. You proudly tell me that Israel is headed to the one state solution, and so it is, but to make that solution acceptable, you will take small steps towards the one democratic state solution, and away from the one apartheid state solution, and with each step you take, becomes harder to refrain from taking further steps. Finally you get a democratic one state solution, peace prizes for all, sainthood for some moderate “Palestinian” leader – who is in due course replaced by a less moderate “Palestinian” leader. And then they start killing you all.

          • B says:

            I’ll bet you a bottle of good whiskey that the 48K Arabs will not get Israeli citizenship at any point in the future.

            • jim says:

              How about a bet that there will be reforms towards making the one state solution more democratic and less apartheid like, which move alters the electorate or the situation to make it more apt to vote for making the one state solution even more democratic. Also, how far is the future? How long without “reforms” before I have to pay up?

          • B says:

            >Feminist elements in your government want to make some of your tricks illegal.

            Which ones?

            >No one would care to make illegal what you describe, nor could they.

            Exactly.

            >Plus, Saint Paul’s methods for getting Roman fertility above replacement were indeed some Roissy tricks,

            Except that he was unsuccessful.

            >and talmudic Jews copied their shtick from the Christian patriarchs.

            We’ve been over this before. The Talmud, written in 400CE, says, “we’re writing down the Oral Torah that we’ve had since the giving of the Written Torah.” Josephus, writing around 70CE says, “most Jews follow the rabbis, who are the carriers and expounders of the Oral Torah.” You say, “obviously, the Talmud rabbis copied their Oral Torah from Josephus. Or from the Christians.” Not very logical.

            >You believe yourself, but I do not believe you, and feminists in your government don’t believe you.

            They and you don’t have to-our method works fine without your belief.

            >Your account sounds like the argument I had with Bruce Charleton…not successfully thrown off Cathedral programming on women and sex.

            Any resemblance is coincidental. I am not by any means an egalitarian. We have a definite separation in various things-women are not bound by the time-bound commandments like prayer, tefillin, etc., are separated from men in synagogues by a mechitza (a wall of varying degrees of height and transparency,) etc. Boys and girls go to separate schools. Women are bound by standards of modest dress (head cover for married women, covering up everything between knees and collarbone and elbows) which are different from male dress standards. However, these things are not secrets, and they are not the essential thing keeping our society functioning. They are its inevitable outcomes.

            >tell me what feminists in your government want to demonize, lower in status, or criminalize

            You are talking in circles. First, you tell me that feminists in our government are trying to criminalize our secret women-controlling tricks. I have not been aware that they are. Then you demand to know which tricks the feminists in our government are trying to criminalize. How the hell should I know?

            >tell me what they think works, what they think you are doing, even if you believe they are wrong.

            As everywhere and always, feminists think that men and women should be equal. However, in our case it would be problematic to implement-what are you gonna do, legislate that women should pray three times a day and put on tefillin? They are already free to do so. Demand more stringent modesty standards for men? Demand women stop wearing modest clothing? Israeli women are already free to wear what they want. Demand the ordination of female rabbis? The reform and conservative already do that, but nobody listens to those rabbis, not even their own “followers.” Pass a law forbidding mechitzot in synagogues? The women will be the first to complain-they like being back there, free to observe and gossip. Demand equal educational rights? They’re already there, and the haredi women are better secularly educated than the men, have been for a long time. I’ve told you, we don’t operate by the same rules.

            • jim says:

              >Feminist elements in your government want to make some of your tricks illegal.

              Which ones?

              You are being evasive. No matter how I change the question to suit your presuppositions, you refuse to answer it.

              >Plus, Saint Paul’s methods for getting Roman fertility above replacement were indeed some Roissy tricks,

              Except that he was unsuccessful.

              I head that he was successful: That Roman Christians grew rapidly through natural growth rather than evangelism. Roman pagans declined rapidly through failure to reproduce, and were continually replaced by outsiders.

              We’ve been over this before. The Talmud, written in 400CE, says, “we’re writing down the Oral Torah that we’ve had since the giving of the Written Torah.” Josephus, writing around 70CE says, “most Jews follow the rabbis, who are the carriers and expounders of the Oral Torah.”

              If actually oral, unlikely to be stable, and, on all available evidence, any resemblance between the Oral Torah of Josephus’ time and three hundred years later was slight. For example Josephus tells us the Sanhedrin was a creation of the Romans. Josephus tells us the Septuagint is fine.

              >You believe yourself, but I do not believe you, and feminists in your government don’t believe you.

              They and you don’t have to-our method works fine without your belief.

              Women do not have equal status with men in any significant sphere of Orthodox Jewish practice. You are in denial. You regard the institutionalized and formalized Orthodox Jewish inequality as disturbing dirty linen, and deny that it is the cause of Orthodox Jewish fertility.

              Which is the Cathedral colonizing your brain, the leftwards movement of all organizations.

              It is perfectly obvious that Orthodox Jews use disturbingly forceful and drastic means to artificially lower female status and artificially raise male status. I can clearly see this from the outside.
              Precious Jewish Daughter: Please move to the side when a man approaches!

              You deny anything of the kind.

              Tell us how it works from the inside.

              If you will not admit what you are doing to keep your women in line, you will wind up not doing it. Just as if you will not admit that Israel and the occupied territories are single apartheid state, you will wind up with a single democratic state.

          • hitlerdidsomethingswrong says:

            B, if you’re looking for how feminists in Israel are going to fight non-Cathedral Judaism, check Saudi policy over the past 20 years. For women, encouraging higher education (especially in the social sciences), encouraging employment while working, defining spousal abuse more widely, restricting young female marriage, et cetera. Female conscription also has great potential for feminists, if they could get it passed.

            Also, what happens if a (unmarried) Haredi 20 year old woman is sleeping with all the men in an area? She is presumably not under the legal control of her father or (if she has one) husband. Does she lose friends among her peer group? Does her Father discipline her? Do the members of the community yell nasty things at her?

            I’m under the impression that women who dress like sluts are often harassed in Haredi neighborhoods. What happens to women who ARE sluts?

            • jim says:

              If one can effectively prevent slutty behavior, then female status lowered and male status raised, because guys are not hoping she will put out. And females, wanting sex, want to get married. Find themselves not nearly in as much demand as wives as fuck buddies, so form a more realistic assessment of their marriage market value. Lower female status, thus higher male status, thus early marriage, virgin marriage, higher fertility.

              Another measure to lower female status and raise male status is to never have a woman in charge of a boy or a man, except his own mother of course. No female teachers, no female bosses.

              Another measure is that males get together for male only activities from which females are excluded. These activities are automatically seen as high status, thus raising the status of all males who participate relative to all females.

          • peppermint says:

            hmm, I’ve had enough of pretending that condomistic sex is sex. What’s the difference between having sex with an understanding that there will not be a pregnancy, or there will be an abortion, and kissing? Legend has it that kissing was once taking more seriously than condomistic sex is today.

            Younger marriage? Perhaps we can go back to Plato’s plan of an approximately 30 year old man, who has paid off his student loans, marrying a woman about five years after puberty. That could work.

            Actually, I have a blog post about this issue at peppermintfrosted.wordpress.com/condomistic-sex-isnt-sex

          • B says:

            >I head that he was successful: That Roman Christians grew rapidly through natural growth rather than evangelism.

            And thus after 400 years of Christian exponential growth, the barbarians came along and took what they wanted. So…apparently, the Christians didn’t increase all that much.

            >If actually oral, unlikely to be stable,

            Depends how seriously it’s taken by the rabbis. We have other examples of stable oral traditions.

            >on all available evidence, any resemblance between the Oral Torah of Josephus’ time and three hundred years later was slight. For example Josephus tells us the Sanhedrin was a creation of the Romans.

            Quote, please.

            >Josephus tells us the Septuagint is fine.

            It is fine in the sense that it is a good translation. It is not fine in the sense that a translation in and of itself is a bad phenomenon. In any case, things like tefillin, etrog, etc. which are not mentioned in the Written Torah explicitly but only implied were the same in Josephus’ day as they were when the Babylonian Talmud was written, as they are today.

            >You regard the institutionalized and formalized Orthodox Jewish inequality as disturbing dirty linen

            I do?

            >and deny that it is the cause of Orthodox Jewish fertility.

            I do?

            >It is perfectly obvious that Orthodox Jews use disturbingly forceful and drastic means to artificially lower female status and artificially raise male status. I can clearly see this from the outside.

            Then why do you keep asking me to identify these means, if they are so visible to you?

            >Precious Jewish Daughter: Please move to the side when a man approaches!

            You will never see such a sign in a religious Zionist neighborhood-they exist in some small percentage of Haredi neighborhoods. Our birthrate is mildly lower than theirs, because our average age of first marriage for women in higher. That’s all.

            >For women, encouraging higher education (especially in the social sciences), encouraging employment while working, defining spousal abuse more widely, restricting young female marriage, et cetera.

            Haredi women work while their men learn Torah, and many of them have higher educations. Dati Leumi women work and many of them have higher educations. This is nothing new, and seems to have had no effect. Marriage before age 18 is rare in all communities anyway. We are quite different from the Saudis.

            >Female conscription also has great potential for feminists, if they could get it passed.

            But they can’t. The state is having enough trouble trying to get Haredi men to serve. In any case, I suspect that religious girls who serve would be largely unaffected by the experience-my one neighbor has four kids with a fifth on the way, the other has four kids, both their wives served in the military.

            >Also, what happens if a (unmarried) Haredi 20 year old woman is sleeping with all the men in an area?

            She will be warned by her rabbi, and if she keeps going, will be ostracized by everyone in the community. Of course, it is difficult to sleep with all the men in the area-in Haredi-world, men and women don’t interact so freely. Where is she meeting them, the local nightclub? The men, by the way, will get in more trouble if they’re sleeping with the women in the area (with a bunch, I mean.)

            >She is presumably not under the legal control of her father or (if she has one) husband.

            Of course not. But her husband can divorce her and give her nothing (we actually don’t have an alimony system per se.)

            >I’m under the impression that women who dress like sluts are often harassed in Haredi neighborhoods. What happens to women who ARE sluts?

            The harassment is generally directed at provocative outsiders.

            They have to keep it on the DL, generally they end up leaving the community before sluthood ensues. Of course, on the other hand there is not a religious police…if you keep things on the DL, you can get away with a lot. You should also understand the difference between Haredim and Dati Leumi-the second are the majority of religious Jews in Israel.

            >If one can effectively prevent slutty behavior, then female status lowered and male status raised, because guys are not hoping she will put out.

            Some people sleep around anywhere you go. The difference is, in religious Jewish society it’s viewed as a secretive, illicit activity, not something to be proud of and to flaunt.

            >And females, wanting sex, want to get married.

            They want to get married because it’s a) natural, b) considered the socially expected behavior, c) all their older sisters, aunts and friends are married and show off their kids. It takes a lot to destroy this institution.

            >Lower female status, thus higher male status, thus early marriage, virgin marriage, higher fertility.

            Interestingly, Northern Europe had late ages of first marriage for females traditionally.

            >Another measure to lower female status and raise male status is to never have a woman in charge of a boy or a man, except his own mother of course.

            Up to a point. Kindergarten teachers here are female, as are nannies.

            >Another measure is that males get together for male only activities from which females are excluded.

            Not quite. Women can’t learn Torah in a yeshiva, but they can learn in a Midreshet. The difference is that Torah learning is a commandment for males and an option for females. Other than that, I can’t think of any activities from which women are excluded-maybe a shalom zochar party (when a boy is born, the father throws a party where men eat chickpeas and drink beer)-but that’s not a big deal. All other occasions are mixed gender (though sometimes with separate seating.)

            >These activities are automatically seen as high status, thus raising the status of all males who participate relative to all females.

            Torah learning is considered high status-it is our definitive trait in some ways, though in Dati Leumi society, full-time Torah study is not considered more prestigious than full-time work, unless the person learning has some sort of accomplishments going for him. Other than that, I don’t know of anywhere that women have lower status in Dati Leumi society. But they have DIFFERENT status-they have a different set of responsibilities. That is enough, assuming the man is following his responsibilities, the woman will generally follow hers.

            • jim says:

              >Another measure is that males get together for male only activities from which females are excluded.

              Not quite. Women can’t learn Torah in a yeshiva, but they can learn in a Midreshet.

              Which is automatically lower status, and does not bestow status on women the way that attending the Yeshiva bestows status on a man. Simply because the man only activity is just naturally seen as higher status. You don’t even need tell people that God has made it higher status.

              I can’t think of any activities from which women are excluded-maybe a shalom zochar party (when a boy is born, the father throws a party where men eat chickpeas and drink beer)-but that’s not a big deal.

              Women find any social event from which they are excluded a very big deal. Even more effective is a social event where they are included, but are only allowed a substantially lesser level of participation, for example not allowed to speak, not allowed to participate directly in the major activity. Such an event is like boot camp for women.

          • B says:

            >How about a bet that there will be reforms towards making the one state solution more democratic and less apartheid like, which move alters the electorate or the situation to make it more apt to vote for making the one state solution even more democratic.

            Let’s make it something concrete.

            >Also, how far is the future? How long without “reforms” before I have to pay up?

            I don’t know-1 year? 2? 5?

            >Simply because the man only activity is just naturally seen as higher status. You don’t even need tell people that God has made it higher status.

            Sure. But there is something different about them studying Torah rather than, say, Lit Crit theory if the latter was a men-only affair.

            >Women find any social event from which they are excluded a very big deal. Even more effective is a social event where they are included, but are only allowed a substantially lesser level of participation, for example not allowed to speak, not allowed to participate directly in the major activity.

            Most women do not naturally wish to participate in what are traditionally male-only activities. Most women have no urge to learn the intricacies of Torah law, to program, to patrol through the woods with a rifle and large rucksack. Or, for that matter, to speak in front of large audiences. It takes a concerted and sustained effort to make them think these things are something they’re being left out of vs exempt from and should try to get in on.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          Terrorism works as a right-wing strategy when the government opposing such right wing is going deeper and deeper into debt. Do you realize that soldiers and policemen have to be paid? Or for that matter, advances in technology that enable individuals to kill entire battalions of enforcers with a single push of a button? This is a major hole in peppermint’s thinking. Peppermint, you don’t understand that authority requires armed men to defend it, and authority requires that single men must be encouraged to be married in order to secure their obedience. Too bad for the Powers that Be, that they made the mistake of instituting the family court system…

          A growing number of single men makes quite a dandy pool of armed militia recruits…

          As Jim has said, ask the Taliban…

          • R7 Rocket says:

            As Tom Kratman has said, random terrorism doesn’t work… Specific or genocidal terrorism works.

          • B says:

            As long as it can take on this debt, it’s fine-go to any military post and look at the parking lots. Do those guys look like they’re hurting to you? If the currency explodes, the ability to provide food, fuel and safety makes the govt’s position much better than yours. There’s a reason that the functional Euro govts of Dark Age Europe were formed around the remainder of the Roman governmental apparatus.

            Those single men are busy trying to put food on the table and pay the bills, and the last thing they want is more problems.

            The Taliban are not a good example for many reasons. Should I list them, or would you like to?

          • R7 Rocket says:

            Looks like B is unfamiliar with being in the military…

            As well as being a single male with no attachments…

            Those single men are busy trying to put food on the table and pay the bills, and the last thing they want is more problems.

            You are definitely not familiar with single men… It’s pretty easy for a single man to support himself on minimal labor and minimal pay. You should stop commenting on things you know nothing about.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            Let me correct myself, B has never been in the military of a polyglot nation. And my position on B’s unfamiliarity with single men still stands.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            Those single men are busy trying to put food on the table and pay the bills

            This is something I know a bit about, and I’ve got to go with R7 here. I’ve lived for 3 years on the money I made from teaching English abroad for one year, and that’s pretty near the bottom of the employment scale. It really doesn’t take that much for a single man to survive. Press us hard enough to make survival a real challenge, and you make survival impossible for a lot of families.

            It’s obvious the system slavers at the thought putting more pressure on us in order to extract ever more labor and submission; witness the regular pieces in the press complaining about the problem of worthless, immature, unambitious, slacker man-children. The self-proclaimed brains trust haven’t figured out a solution to us yet, and I don’t think they have the balls to do what it would take. What they have managed to do is destroy our chances of becoming fathers, family men, and providers, creating a body of men with little to lose, little to hope for in the future, and little loyalty to their system. This doesn’t seem like a brilliant move.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            Bravo Contaminated NEET! The Cathedral has no idea how it shot itself in the foot by turning marriage into a shit deal for men. Now there’s a growing body of armed single men. And it appears, 1,000 armed men is the magic number to cow the law enforcement of the central state. This doesn’t include technological advances that will eventually put Rings of Fnargl in the hands of the literate.

          • B says:

            And yet what I see single men doing is not taking to the hills with grandpa’s Garand, but rather what the Beautiful Ones did in the rat heaven experiment-grooming themselves and enjoying life. Some go do the thing where you teach English for a year in China or work on oil rigs offshore or a crab boat in Alaska for a season, then kicking back until the money runs out, but there is nothing like a resistance, and with very good reason.

          • hitlerdidnothingwrong says:

            A growing number of single men makes quite a dandy pool of armed militia recruits…

            Militias are not the exclusive province of the right. If the right manages to tap into the resource of violent, young males, you can be sure the left will follow suit. In fact, I’d expect the leftist to pioneer the area.

            The Cathedral will convince the men to terrorize churches, who want to judge their sexual promiscuity. And terrorize corporations, who fired them. Terrorizing the local Women’s Studies college department? Nah. They’ll use the leftist ideas these men believe, and persuade them to believe other leftist ideas.

            The right-wing terrorism won’t be tolerated, and the left-wing terrorism will be. Eventually, you’ll see this tool become a weapon in the arsenal of the Cathedral.

            The only actual solution is some process that ends in a unitary dictatorship. Anything that fundamentally relies on persuading a large number of people, will be taken over by the Cathedral.

          • peppermint says:

            * advances in technology that enable individuals to kill entire battalions of enforcers with a single push of a button

            three sentences later,

            * A growing number of single men makes quite a dandy pool of armed militia recruits…

            Why are video cameras such decisive weapons of war in the late 20th century that Moroccans can overrun Spanish positions armed with machine guns?

            Think it over, then realize how retarded your strategy is; then instead of pursuing teenage dreams of glory, improve yourself and glorify God according to the talents He created you with.

            • jim says:

              Why are video cameras such decisive weapons of war in the late 20th century that Moroccans can overrun Spanish positions armed with machine guns?

              Australia seems to be dealing with illegal immigrants just fine. Video cameras are only an effective weapon of war against the government when the government wants to lose.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            There’s a reason governments in the past encouraged men to get married by making the man the master of the house, such men tend to be tied down with attachments and are thus, more compliant.

            Some go do the thing where you teach English for a year in China or work on oil rigs offshore or a crab boat in Alaska for a season, then kicking back until the money runs out, but there is nothing like a resistance, and with very good reason.

            B continues to demonstrate his ignorance of the lives of single men…

            The Cathedral will convince the men to terrorize churches, who want to judge their sexual promiscuity. And terrorize corporations, who fired them. Terrorizing the local Women’s Studies college department? Nah. They’ll use the leftist ideas these men believe, and persuade them to believe other leftist ideas.

            This one is confusing single men with single women. You should start familiarizing yourself with the manosphere. There’s reason governments in the past kept women in the kitchen.

            The only actual solution is some process that ends in a unitary dictatorship. Anything that fundamentally relies on persuading a large number of people, will be taken over by the Cathedral.

            Got to pay the army first. Still confusing single men with single women… Why do you think the Publik Skule system is drugging boys?

            Think it over, then realize how retarded your strategy is; then instead of pursuing teenage dreams of glory, improve yourself and glorify God according to the talents He created you with.

            No wonder the tradcons are a joke.

            • jim says:

              No wonder the tradcons are a joke.

              I keep asking B what his sect does to keep women in line – and he will not answer, though I know that progressives in Israel are trying to make the things his sect does to keep women in line illegal.

              I conclude he is embarrassed by measures to keep women in line, the problem that Dalrock exposes with Christian tradcons.

              Just as the Cathedral has occupied the mind of Bennett, leader of the supposedly right wing religious Israeli party, his inability to discuss those aspects of his religion suggests that it has occupied B’s mind.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            It would be quite helpful for the Cathedral to balance the budget and quietly dismantle feminism, for its own sake. Otherwise, it will have no army and will be facing a growing number of armed men with no attachments (armed with increasingly powerful portable weapons).

            Tradcon says: Why are video cameras such decisive weapons of war in the late 20th century that Moroccans can overrun Spanish positions armed with machine guns?

            Cameras? The tradcon thinks its cameras! Reminds me of an argument I had with a poster with the nym “Semtex” in 2007. He said 3d printers were a made up fantasy and sneerly told me when my “3d printer IPO” would come out.

          • peppermint says:

            * advances in technology that enable individuals to kill entire battalions of enforcers with a single push of a button

            No one needs you and your disaffected jackboots, and when you stand up, you will not be killed and forgotten, like the pro-apartheid terrorists of South Africa and the Pieds Noirs of French Algeria. Instead, your name will be remembered, like the KKK.

            Whites do need guns in the US, for one reason: shooting Trayvon Martin. Taking down the government is never going to happen.

            And if you think you’re going to get your hands on one of those weapons and poison the name of the White race for however long it takes for the last White community to be hunted down and diversified, well, I for one hope the NSA gets you before you do anything (the Bomb Brothers, OTOH, I wish they had attacked the Harvard school of government, it would have been closer to their house than whatever target they chose at MIT, though, MIT is much more of a sacred space to the swipples. Hitting the marathon was genius).

          • R7 Rocket says:

            Tradcon doesn’t understand that countries with nuclear weapons don’t get invaded, unless said country allows the invaders in.

          • peppermint says:

            Are you and your militia of single men really going to start a country in Idaho and acquire nuclear weapons? That’s your plan?

            The people who control the land aren’t going to let you have any, and the people who control the nuclear weapons also aren’t going to let you have any.

            Maybe you can 3d print some land. A nuclear weapon would be more difficult, since uranium has a high melting point.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            B, you’re getting a lot closer.
            The contemptible, apathetic, tranquilized NFL-obsessed, WOW-playing, porn-watching, rat-heaven herbivore is a much better caricature of today’s single man than the desperate overworked proletarian, struggling for his next meal. You’re right that he’s not much of a threat to the princes of the Earth, at least for now, but he still presents a big problem. We know this because the media constantly whine about him, hector him, and try to reform him.

            First, men like me are not contributing much to the system, and a lot of us are taking more than we give. They’ve tranquilized us, sure, but that costs resources, when what they really want and need is to extract resources from us. Confucius was right: the hard-working peasant is the foundation of any society, but they’ve slated him for eradication without understanding what they were doing.

            Second, it’s not at all certain that this body of disaffected single men will remain inert forever. Granted, today’s bread and circuses are more entertaining, enervating, and addictive than anything seen in history, but nobody really knows what might or might not break their spell. I live the lifestyle, all my close friends live it, and I can tell you, it’s not very satisfying at all. To get the picture, browse 4chan for a while. If something came along that could credibly promise meaning, belonging, and a chance at power, a lot of men like me would find it hard to resist. I respect your choice, B: your fenced-in subculture provides all these things, but it’s not an option for most of us.

            @peppermint and hdnw: Yeah, the enemy looks invincible in his coat of scale armor of bronze weighing five thousand shekels, but we shall see. History won’t be over until the last human is dead, and trees don’t grow to the sky.

            Also, the plan isn’t to seize Idaho, or anything else. There really is no plan. I’m just looking at what appears to be serious vulnerability in the Cathedral’s situation; if you have any suggestions about how to exploit it, I’m all ears.

            • jim says:

              I rather think it is a serious vulnerability. Suppose they had continued using terror, more Ruby Ridges and Wacos, and people had continued to respond with terror, more OK City bombings.

              Well, they were reluctant to find out where that path leads. And being reluctant to find out where that path leads resulted in the militia winning at the Bundy ranch.

          • peppermint says:

            The Turner Diaries seems to have been written by someone connected to the anti-apartheid struggle, the successful strategy is the same: make the country ungovernable.

            Right?

            Considering how they accept and cheer for crimes by non-Whites against Whites, and let whole cities lie fallow, I’d say they could tolerate and would want as many crimes by Whites that they can use to talk about the need for Whites to be blended out of existence as possible. An OK city every other week would be great.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            Are you and your militia of single men really going to start a country in Idaho and acquire nuclear weapons? That’s your plan?

            That looks like Iran’s plan. I wonder, are you “Semtex” by any chance? You know, the one who said 3d printers are “a fantasy”?

            For thousands of years, governments made sure that men owned their wives and children, so that they won’t end up with a surplus male population. Seems such a prudent measure to me, yet a hipster tradcon like peppermint cannot understand this…

            Also, he (or she, I suspect) has a problem with understanding the importance of nuclear weapons (the real life Rings of Fnargl).

          • R7_Rocket says:

            peppermint says:

            Are you and your militia of single men really going to start a country in Idaho and acquire nuclear weapons? That’s your plan?

            That looks like Iran’s plan. I wonder, are you “Semtex” by any chance? You know, the one who said 3d printers are “a fantasy”?

            For thousands of years, governments made sure that men owned their wives and children, such that the men were tied down with these attachments (Morris Dees understood this, to bad he didn’t realize that the feminist policies were a threat), so that they won’t end up with a surplus single male population. Seems such a prudent measure to me, yet a hipster tradcon like peppermint cannot understand this…

            Also, he (or she, I suspect) has a problem with understanding the importance of nuclear weapons (the real life Rings of Fnargl).

          • B says:

            >The contemptible, apathetic, tranquilized NFL-obsessed, WOW-playing, porn-watching, rat-heaven herbivore is a much better caricature of today’s single man than the desperate overworked proletarian, struggling for his next meal.

            Well, it’s a combination, innit?

            Most single dudes work. Most of them work full-time. Gotta pay the rent, internet, phone, cable. Gotta have a car to get to work. Time free from work is spent on entertainment.

            >Second, it’s not at all certain that this body of disaffected single men will remain inert forever.

            If things keep going the way they are, they will die out-so not forever. If these guys had the balls to do something, they wouldn’t be living the life they’re living-even enervated American society offers plenty of opportunity to young men looking for action. You can be a gladiator in pro sports, you can be a stock trader, you can join the military and try out for the major leagues there. Most American men simply do not want to-the lifestyle of the beautiful ones is too alluring.

            >I live the lifestyle, all my close friends live it, and I can tell you, it’s not very satisfying at all.

            It doesn’t have to be very satisfying. It has to be satisfying enough. Like idolatry-it doesn’t have to work, it just has to give everyone a jolt every so often. You know, I just tried out the Oculus Rift. It’s not as fun as reality, but not as much work either, so…oh, hey, look what’s trending on IndieGoGo!
            https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/autoblow-2-a-realistic-robotic-oral-sex-simulator-for-men/x/7375679

            >If something came along that could credibly promise meaning, belonging, and a chance at power, a lot of men like me would find it hard to resist.

            This fundamentally passive viewpoint is the reason the current system works so well.

            >your fenced-in subculture provides all these things, but it’s not an option for most of us.

            You guys need to create your option, but to do so, you need to do some very deep analysis to find the principles on which to create it. I told you my suggestion.

          • B says:

            R7-a bit of humility, please. I can’t speak for anyone else on this thread, but I spent a good chunk of my life in the US military on the pointy end of things, and another sizeable chunk messing around with 3D printing and its sister technologies (which are a lot more capable.) My perspective is very different from yours, and different in ways that suggest yours is informed more by film, fiction and Wired Magazine.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            If things keep going the way they are, they will die out-so not forever.

            Nobody’s getting out of here alive, B. We aren’t growing in number by natural reproduction among ourselves, no, but people do join us. You’re the one who brought the Beautiful Ones analogy into this. What happened with those cute little rats, anyway? The rat colony didn’t shrug, say “good riddance to those pathetic losers,” watch them die out, and continue as before. It collapsed.

            If these guys had the balls to do something, they wouldn’t be living the life they’re living

            Most people don’t have the balls to do much of anything on their own, but it doesn’t take nearly as much in the way of cojones to jump in and join a group once it gets going. It’s like that inspirational TED Talk video where one crazy dancer gets the whole crowd dancing.

            This fundamentally passive viewpoint is the reason the current system works so well.

            Well, we’re back to the Beautiful Ones again. What made them so passive? Nobody really knows, because you can’t interview a rat, but they thought it was because there was no place for them in the social order. La Wik: “The conclusions drawn from this experiment were that when all available space is taken and all social roles filled, competition and the stresses experienced by the individuals will result in a total breakdown in complex social behaviors, ultimately resulting in the demise of the population.” This does not sound like a system that works very well at all.

          • peppermint says:

            that’s not Iran’s strategy, they already have the land. You do not. Since you do not have any land to defend, your precious surplus male population is even more useless than Iran’s.

            Why has the US not invaded Iran? Not because Iran has nuclear weapons, nor because Iran has enough tanks and airplanes to credibly make it a fight.

            When you understand why, you will understand why your surplus male population is totally insignificant.

            Now, the larger White male population is esentially the entire story in the US. As White men feel the squeeze, yes we can expect change we can believe in, but it won’t happen by your surplus military jackboots and rifles.

          • hitlerdidsomethingswrong says:

            Responding to R7 Rocket

            The Cathedral will convince the men to terrorize churches, who want to judge their sexual promiscuity. And terrorize corporations, who fired them. Terrorizing the local Women’s Studies college department? Nah. They’ll use the leftist ideas these men believe, and persuade them to believe other leftist ideas.

            This one is confusing single men with single women.

            Who are the closest things to terrorists in Europe today? Outside of Muslims, it’s the antifascists, whose illegal actions are often ignored, because the Cathedral supports them. Who are the footsoldiers of the antifas? Young, angry men. If left alone, young, angry men would be a dumb type of right-wing (see: 4chan /pol/), but they won’t be left alone. They’ll be guided by propaganda.

            Your best hope is for some kind of synthesis of Progressivism and Reaction, like Nazism. Except the right-wing element won’t be nationalism, it’ll be anti-feminism, or something.

            There’s reason governments in the past kept women in the kitchen.

            It’s not the government. Women have always been in the kitchen (or it’s pre-modern equivalent), even in places the government has little influence. Did feminism originate in the rural American South or the American West? Those were the least government-managed areas in US history.

            Got to pay the army first.

            And how did Hitler pay his Stormtroopers? Or Mao his guerrillas? A spoils system can work. Looting can work, if you’re given immunity by the courts. What right-wing form of payment do you propose?

          • B says:

            >The rat colony didn’t shrug, say “good riddance to those pathetic losers,” watch them die out, and continue as before. It collapsed.

            Right, they were a symptom of the overall collapse.

            >it doesn’t take nearly as much in the way of cojones to jump in and join a group once it gets going.

            Which is why USG is very careful to prevent groups from getting going, and crushes them like bugs when they do.

            >What made them so passive? Nobody really knows, because you can’t interview a rat, but they thought it was because there was no place for them in the social order.

            I suspect it was the lack of meaning and struggle in their lives, the fact that once there was a material surplus and nothing to fight for, their entire existence was purposeless. Note that the rest of the rats broke down as well-the females engaged in infanticide, the sexual system broke down…sound familiar?

          • B says:

            >And how did Hitler pay his Stormtroopers? Or Mao his guerrillas?

            Mao’s guerrillas were very disciplined and didn’t loot.

            >A spoils system can work. Looting can work, if you’re given immunity by the courts.

            Too complicated. If the system breaks down to the point that money’s worthless, the guys who control the fuel reserves, the refineries, the food reserves, the medical supplies, and have organization and discipline on their side are the last to hurt. This is the military/LE complex in the US. The idea that, if money becomes worthless and times get hard, most military guys and cops will abandon their disciplined units and supply chain and go wander off stupidly is ludicrous. Not how it works.

            • jim says:

              In the latter days of the Soviet Union, there was collapse of military discipline as a result of the collapse of logistics. The military were increasingly taking care of their own logistics by free lance banditry.

          • B says:

            True. But in Rome it was the opposite. What was the difference? I suspect that it was that the Russian military was composed largely of slaves in the best of times, and when they stopped being recruited, fed and led, the whole thing failed. Although, on the other hand, even in its worst days, nobody but the Chechens posed a serious challenge to the Russian military and police.

            • jim says:

              Although, on the other hand, even in its worst days, nobody but the Chechens posed a serious challenge to the Russian military and police.

              During the war of the laws, the Russian military declined to fight in the face of some pretty serious provocation, which suggests that lots of people posed a serious challenge to Russian military and police. Time and time again, the Soviet Union was challenged internally and externally, and declined to fight. You are telling me that the Soviet Union was mighty, and could have fought, but chose not to. It chose not to at a time when its army was in serious and increasing disarray.

          • B says:

            I’m not sure what the war of the laws is supposed to be, but I think I now understand the difference. During the 90s, the Russian military was not getting paid, but there was massive new financial opportunity for aggressive and intelligent young men outside the military. During the collapse of Rome, everybody who wasn’t in the military was even worse off.

          • hitlerdidsomethingswrong says:

            Mao’s guerrillas were very disciplined and didn’t loot.

            I wasn’t implying they did. I don’t actually know, but I assume he paid them with money he extracted from the areas he controlled. Political money.

            So long as our current government remains powerful, the militias will loot for progress. If they loot at all.

            The idea that, if money becomes worthless and times get hard, most military guys and cops will abandon their disciplined units and supply chain and go wander off stupidly is ludicrous.

            Well, this is assuming a very severe collapse. At this point, force is all that matters, and so the civil service, courts, academics, activists, et cetera, lose power. A possible scenario, but I don’t think it’s a likely one.

            What technologically developed states can you name that completely collapsed? To the point that there was no bureaucracy, courts, or law? More likely, there will be a partial collapse, as in the USSR.

            What emerges from this mix of military/police government and normal government, is just Progressivism tempered by practicality. The military isn’t willing to starve for progress, so they take enough control to get along. And if the economy recovers, we transition back to Progressivism, since the military will get paid legitimately.

            To win the endgame, you need to control the government. Even if the government partially collapses, it will just limit their power. A collapse could have a side effect of installing a dictator, because the political structure changed, and a smart man/group exploited it. But the collapse wouldn’t be the direct cause.

          • B says:

            >I don’t actually know, but I assume he paid them with money he extracted from the areas he controlled.

            I don’t think they actually got paid at all, but he did provide for their needs with taxes from the population. Like Bernard Fall said, a country losing a guerrilla war is not being outfought, it’s being outadministered.

            >Well, this is assuming a very severe collapse. At this point, force is all that matters, and so the civil service, courts, academics, activists, et cetera, lose power. A possible scenario, but I don’t think it’s a likely one.

            I agree. And even in such a collapse, a disciplined force always beats a gang. Smart people stay in disciplined groups. Hence, Roman Comites turned into feudal Counts.

            >What technologically developed states can you name that completely collapsed?

            Remember the movie Cyborg, with Jean Claude Van Damme? That one, I guess.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            “hitlerdidsomethingwrong” said:

            And how did Hitler pay his Stormtroopers? Or Mao his guerrillas?

            Looks like a good argument for ethnic and cultural homogeneity.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            R7-a bit of humility, please. I can’t speak for anyone else on this thread, but I spent a good chunk of my life in the US military on the pointy end of things, and another sizeable chunk messing around with 3D printing and its sister technologies (which are a lot more capable.) My perspective is very different from yours, and different in ways that suggest yours is informed more by film, fiction and Wired Magazine.

            I should have made a bet against the poster “Semtex” when he claimed 3d printers were a magical fantasy. He made claims that he was an “expert” on these matters like you did. He lost.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            B says:

            Too complicated. If the system breaks down to the point that money’s worthless, the guys who control the fuel reserves, the refineries, the food reserves, the medical supplies, and have organization and discipline on their side are the last to hurt. This is the military/LE complex in the US. The idea that, if money becomes worthless and times get hard, most military guys and cops will abandon their disciplined units and supply chain and go wander off stupidly is ludicrous. Not how it works.

            This paragraph makes me doubt that you ever served in the US Military.

            • jim says:

              If logistics continues to function, but money does not, then the army will hold together as long as logistics does, but the likely shape of collapse is that logistics collapses ahead of money. Platoons will hold together. Colonels will act to secure logistics independently of the army as a whole. To the extent that they succeed, they will hold their battalions together – but they will to some extent be functioning as warlords.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            peppermint said:

            that’s not Iran’s strategy, they already have the land. You do not. Since you do not have any land to defend, your precious surplus male population is even more useless than Iran’s.
            Why has the US not invaded Iran? Not because Iran has nuclear weapons, nor because Iran has enough tanks and airplanes to credibly make it a fight.

            I’m assuming peppermint claims to be a neoreactionary (I might be wrong on this assumption).

            What kind of neoreactionary dismisses thousands of years of wisdom regarding the importance of patriarchy, to the security and stability of the state and society?

            What kind of neoreactionary dismisses nuclear weapons?

        • hitlerwasabadman says:

          Actually, Moldbug merely said that Terrorism only works if you have allies in the government, media, courts, civil service, et cetera. They can protect you, giving you a kind of semi-immunity. Otherwise, the media will demonize your cause, the courts will jail you (and everyone you love), and the government will pass special legislation to crush you.

          So if you’ve got powerful friends in the capital, Terrorism may be effective.

    • Helmuth says:

      Complete disclosure of poster’s identities is practically inevitable–if not now then for “historical research” purposes in the not so distant future. The Gay Mafia will probably fund outing those who post against gay marriage, for instance. They are so exceedingly well funded by the likes of Geffen and others it would surprise me if they didn’t after some of things they’ve done and their lack of integrity.
      Regarding Tammany Hall–it worked hand and glove with the Democrat Party to terrorize New Yorkers (and others) for the better part of a century.
      It’s hard for me to accept that sometime in the next decade there won’t be armed resistance (however late in arriving) to the New Fascists remolding the culture. I wish there somewhere to escape to but the reach of Big Brother will planetary I expect.

    • scientism says:

      I don’t think any of us are prepared for how bad this could get and how quickly.

      Think about the following steps:

      1. Abolishing internet anonymity. This is already happening and in some countries everything you do online is tied to a national ID, so there’s a precedent. Most companies support it too (Facebook, etc).

      2. Expanded hate speech laws for any racist, sexist or homophobic comments. Given the way we’re seeing the definitions of racism, sexism and homophobia constantly expand to include ever more innocuous things, these laws will eventually be catch-all bludgeons for the Left. (Rape and divorce laws are a clear precedent for the Left being free to create extremely broad and arbitrary laws.)

      3. Hate speech offenders are permanently “marked”. This would follow the mechanisms we now have in place for sex offenders. A registry for “bigots” that warns all the women, homosexuals and minorities in your area that you exist.

      4. Banning offenders from parts of the internet. This would be an effective means of social shunning and also of ensuring that you can’t find work. All your online profiles would be marked in order to warn people of your bigotry. This could just be a de facto consequence of 1 and 3.

      5. Incarceration or institutionalisation for repeat offenders. Given incarceration rates, this isn’t difficult to believe. Society no longer has any problem with criminalising a large number of people (sex offenders, drug users) and industry encourages it. We’re already sending people to sensitivity training courses, etc, so it wouldn’t be a huge step to declare a segment of the population beyond reach and simply institutionalise them.

      6. Medical intervention. This would be the ultimate coup for the Left. Associate “bigotry” with too much testosterone and intervene with estrogen supplements. This has that added irony that (a) bigots used to do this to homosexuals (so they’re getting what they deserve!) and (b) it turns bigots into trannies (what they hate most!), so it’d be impossible to resist.

      7. Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill.

      • Helmuth says:

        Any expansion of your list would be considered a Public Service.

        • hitlerdidsomethingswrong says:

          It’s worth pointing out, I’d expect the censorship of the internet to start with places like college internet connections. Just deny access to a list of “hate websites”. The Cathedral cares more about a smart twenty year-old guy than the forty year-old high school dropouts on Stormfront.

        • scientism says:

          I ended the list at 7 because I didn’t know where to take it, but afterwards I realised that we already have medical intervention: we’re medically intervening in boys who act like boys in school. That would be point 8 if it wasn’t already happening: preemptive intervention. Generalised transsexualism.

          Personally I wonder if Jim’s vision of a “left singularity” might be too optimistic. Historically, Leftism that has ended in violence has been revolutionary Leftism, whereas we have something altogether more horrifying. The modern Left is more like a parasite that keeps the host alive or a torturer who flays the skin while carefully maintaining the vital functions of the body in order to draw the punishment out for as long as possible. I worry that it has become so good at this that it will never implode into orgiastic violence and will be able to keep inventing new ways to humiliate us for decades and even centuries to come.

      • Reader says:

        There’s a lot of reasons to be pessimistic. The only slightly positive thing that I’ve noticed recently was the way the government backed down on that Cliven Bundy thing. They’ll be back I’m sure, but when 100 people with balls (whether their good intentions were misplaced or not is another discussion) showed up the government did not want to create another Waco or Ruby Ridge. It makes one wonder just how fragile the whole Cathedral actually is. I can imagine 90% of the Cathedral’s supporters changing sides almost on a dime if the winds began to blow in the other direction…what they want most is to be on the “right” side…if the definition of that changes, they will change.

        • jim says:

          Waco and Ruby Ridge type incidents stopped abruptly after the OK City bombing, which would suggest that terrorism does work.

          • Red says:

            I’ve always thought of the OK City bombing was a major propaganda coup for the Cathedral. By around the time of the bombing there were so many militia groups that the next Ruby Ridge or Waco siege would ended with the government forces routed and destroyed in detail. The that bombing largely destroyed the Militia movement and saved Bill Clinton.

          • B says:

            Not particularly.

            First, that there were no further bombings after OK city suggests that the Feds got a lot better at monitoring and neutralizing white insurgency.

            Second, Waco and Ruby Ridge were specific examples of law enforcement raids gone WRONG and turned into PR disasters. In both cases, the Feds lost the element of surprise and ended up in protracted sieges/battles. I’ve never dealt with the HRT and Marshals, but from what I understand, they are pretty sharp guys, so it would surprise me if they hadn’t learned some big lessons. For instance, that rather than go sneaking up on your target through the woods, it’s better to use other forms of surveillance, or that it is better to arrest people when they go drive into town for a dental appointment than at their house, etc., etc. The larger lesson was that standoffs are bad news, because you lose the element of surprise, and a standoff with a shootout is worse news.

            As for Bundy-ok, he won the standoff. Hardly game over. Now the game is to isolate him from mainstream support-done and done, with the Negro comments thing. Then they’ll hit him with something at their leisure. Maybe some other violation, or maybe they’ll discover kiddy porn on his computer. Various sites like this one will make cynical comments, America will be watching Miley Cyrus twerk. This is not a game you can win by popping up on the radar.

            • jim says:

              First, that there were no further bombings after OK city suggests that the Feds got a lot better at monitoring and neutralizing white insurgency

              OK City was a response to provocation. After OK City, no further provocations. Looks like a win for the insurgents.

              OK City was a response to successful efforts to suppress the militia. After OK City, we now have a militia. Looks like a win for the insurgents.

          • Red says:

            “Second, Waco and Ruby Ridge were specific examples of law enforcement raids gone WRONG and turned into PR disasters. In both cases, the Feds lost the element of surprise and ended up in protracted sieges/battles. ”

            Neither Waco or Ruby Ridge were sieges or raids, they were punitive expeditions. Federal tactics at Waco in particular were geared towards making sure everyone died either through mass suicide(Keeping people up at night with loud speakers blaring the slaughter of rabbits) or have to watch their children die from tear gas. Ruby Ridge started off by shooting the kid’s dog to give the FBI the justification to shoot his son. Everything was geared towards making Randy Weaver suffer. They didn’t even identify themselves as the feds until days into the event. After the bad publicity from those attacks did the feds switch to raids and peaceful sieges with the only example I know of happening after OK bombing.

          • B says:

            I don’t have that impression. If you want to kill everyone, you don’t do it with tear gas, or by playing unpleasant sounds. It’s not very difficult to kill a cabin full of people or a compound full of people quickly. When I read the accounts of both incidents, I see botched raids caused by interagency fuckups, wannabe Delta Force law enforcement, poor planning, the desire to please political leadership and get on the news, no fallback plan for things going wrong/losing the element of surprise/the eyes-on element getting compromised.

            Having seen my share of fucked up raids, I find it easy to believe that is what happened in both cases.

            • jim says:

              The rules of engagement for Ruby Ridge could be summarized as “leave no witnesses” It was a punitive expedition that went wrong. What went wrong from the point of view of the feds is that they did not manage to kill everyone.

            • jim says:

              I don’t have that impression. If you want to kill everyone, you don’t do it with tear gas, or by playing unpleasant sounds. It’s not very difficult to kill a cabin full of people or a compound full of people quickly.

              If you are restricted to using law enforcement weapons, and they also have law enforcement type weapons, it is quite difficult.

          • Red says:

            “I don’t have that impression. If you want to kill everyone, you don’t do it with tear gas, or by playing unpleasant sounds. It’s not very difficult to kill a cabin full of people or a compound full of people quickly. ”

            You don’t kill everyone in punitive raids. You make people suffer as much as possible while keeping your “good guy” cover with the general public.

            “When I read the accounts of both incidents, I see botched raids caused by interagency fuckups, wannabe Delta Force law enforcement, poor planning, the desire to please political leadership and get on the news, no fallback plan for things going wrong/losing the element of surprise/the eyes-on element getting compromised.”

            So you don’t think the raids where punitive at all? Shooting Randy Weaver’s son’s dog with a sniper-riffle was what, an accident? Or killing all the dogs penned up at the Waco compound was in some way non punitive? I agree with that the feds fucked up, but there fuck up was in the level of force required to execute a punitive raid. They then elevated that level of force until they were pumping tear gas into an enclosed space with dozens of children who didn’t have gas masks. You certainly don’t give a fuck about the children when you do that.

          • B says:

            When you show up somewhere on a raid and there’s a dog, and you have any inkling the dog might bite you, you shoot the dog. Getting bit really sucks, it’s not just a little thing-I’ve seen a war dog take a guy’s arm and pull the skin right off, until it was hanging from his fingertips like an inverted glove. I’ve also seen pictures of people with all the flesh stripped off a limb. That’s just part of the deal-an operator getting maimed rather than endangering a civilian might be acceptable, but getting maimed over a dog? Nobody signs up for that. Obviously, they fucked up by making an over watch position that got compromised at Ruby Ridge and by doing the raid at all in Waco, but shooting dogs is pretty standard.

            It’s not true that there were no examples of peaceful sieges prior to OK City. CSAL surrendered peacefully in 1985.

            If you want to kill everyone in a compound or cabin, you can do it all kinds of ways, for instance, putting an AT-4 into every window and door (don’t tell me the ATF didn’t have any.) If you want to punish people, you don’t do it via a raid. You arrest them, then do whatever once they’re in custody. Which it seems to me was the goal in both cases. Which then spun out of control and turned into PR disasters.

          • Red says:

            “If you want to punish people, you don’t do it via a raid. You arrest them, then do whatever once they’re in custody. Which it seems to me was the goal in both cases. Which then spun out of control and turned into PR disasters.”

            That’s not the American way. Since the 1960s the punishment must come before they’re in custody. Americans have been trained to hate the police when they hurt someone after they’re brought in, but consider anything that happens before to be a case of “they had it coming for resisting”. This mind set forces law enforcement setup scenarios when “arresting” people that allows them to punish such people. Hence all the bullshit kick down the door swat raids where 99.9% of people being raided would have let the cops in after seeing a warrant.

            They had plenty of chances to arrest David Koresh when he came into town 2 or 3 times a week. The first person killed at the compound was a 15 year old boy cleaning the water towers. He was shot from an ATF helicopter because the ATF could claim he was a sniper after the fact and thus fit the criteria that allowed them to punish the Branch Dividains.

            For a smart guy B, you sure believe a lot of law enforcement bullshit.

          • B says:

            >Americans have been trained to hate the police when they hurt someone after they’re brought in, but consider anything that happens before to be a case of “they had it coming for resisting”.

            That’s not how you punish someone. You punish them by destroying their life and reputation in court, leaking bullshit to the press, planting evidence, taking their kids away, taking away their ability to make a living after their release.

            >Hence all the bullshit kick down the door swat raids where 99.9% of people being raided would have let the cops in after seeing a warrant.

            Source?

            >They had plenty of chances to arrest David Koresh when he came into town 2 or 3 times a week.

            True. But they were fuckups who couldn’t do right.

            >He was shot from an ATF helicopter because the ATF could claim he was a sniper after the fact and thus fit the criteria that allowed them to punish the Branch Dividains.

            As far as I understand, there were no ATF helicopters there. The helicopters were on hand from the Texas National Guard CTF. I’d like a source for your claim.

            >For a smart guy B, you sure believe a lot of law enforcement bullshit.

            I’ve seen how things work in Iraq, which is that the default option is to capture terrorists and to kill them only if they fight back, even though there is very little oversight and anyone can say, look, I thought he was going for a weapon. In fact, I know of a civilian who came outside during a raid and shot an operator in the leg with an AK because he thought his village was being attacked by another tribe. He realized his mistake, dropped the weapon, was taken into custody and released. I doubt stateside SWAT guys set out to kill anyone when they do a raid. Having seen my fair share of fuckups, sometimes with tragic results, I notice this one resembles them, and doesn’t resemble any kind of mission where you set out to kill everyone inside a compound. With Weaver, they had eyes on him from the start and could have killed him at any point if they wanted to. There was no reason whatsoever to lure the two kids and the dog off into the woods, except that the guys doing eyes-on were idiots.

            • jim says:

              I doubt stateside SWAT guys set out to kill anyone when they do a raid.

              There is clear and compelling evidence that the intent at Ruby Ridge was to kill everyone.

              At the trial that followed Waco, the defense case was that government intent was slaughter, and the jury acquitted, indicating that they thought the defense story reasonable.

              There is substantial circumstantial evidence that Aryan Nation was reduced by numerous murders that the government got away with.

              You sound like a tradcon: Your religion has been colonized by the Cathedral. Which does not necessarily mean that it will be assimilated, but the Cathedral has a long history of successful assimilation, which ends with churches turned into bookstores, their original purpose forgotten, or, if the church is too disturbingly religious in its architecture, demolished.

          • B says:

            >There is clear and compelling evidence that the intent at Ruby Ridge was to kill everyone.

            The ROE got changed after the US Marshal got shot. In general, when you shoot a cop, the rest of the cops want to kill you. But I don’t believe they came in planning to kill Weaver from the beginning.

            >At the trial that followed Waco, the defense case was that government intent was slaughter, and the jury acquitted, indicating that they thought the defense story reasonable.

            Or that they didn’t think the prosecution’s story convincing enough. If you want to slaughter people, you don’t bring your assault force in in cattle trailers. The ATF lost 20 guys on the initial raid, meaning their planning and training sucked. If the FBI had intended to kill everyone, I don’t think they would have waited 51 days to do it. At any one of those days, the Branch Davidians could have surrendered. They didn’t.

            >There is substantial circumstantial evidence that Aryan Nation was reduced by numerous murders that the government got away with.

            Not that I would be sad or anything, but what evidence is that?

            >You sound like a tradcon: Your religion has been colonized by the Cathedral.

            Oh, come on. I could say you sound like an Aryan Nations holdout in Northern Idaho. And what kind of Neoreactionary are you? If might makes right, and crazy strains of neo-religion need to be crushed before they get too crazy and dangerous, what did USG do wrong? “Who’s the nihilist here?!”

            Koresh, by the way, is a prime example of why you need an Oral Torah-the craziness he came up with by reading the Written Torah was remarkable. Not that that is any excuse for killing people who are fundamentally nonthreatening until you fuck with them.

            My religion is just fine-gotta go grab a beer for our Independence Day.

            • jim says:

              >You sound like a tradcon: Your religion has been colonized by the Cathedral.

              Oh, come on. I could say you sound like an Aryan Nations holdout in Northern Idaho. And what kind of Neoreactionary are you? If might makes right, and crazy strains of neo-religion need to be crushed before they get too crazy and dangerous, what did USG do wrong? “Who’s the nihilist here?!”

              What do I say that suggests that I think that might makes right?

              And I have long argued that crazy strands of neoreligion that threaten to obtain theocratic power need to be crushed. How many times have I said that William Wilberforce should have been sentenced to slavery for apostacy, and sent to the West Indies to cut sugar cane? But the people at Waco were not infiltrating the state, were not guilty of apostacy from the state religion because they were not part of the state, were not using state power to infiltrate and change the state religion.

              The Cathedral infiltrates every religion it can, and crushes those it cannot. You are infiltrated.

          • B says:

            >What do I say that suggests that I think that might makes right?

            Moldbug said it, I didn’t think you disagreed. So, what make right?

            >But the people at Waco were not infiltrating the state, were not guilty of apostacy from the state religion because they were not part of the state, were not using state power to infiltrate and change the state religion.

            The Shortest Way With Dissenters still stands. Remember-you let a bunch of crazies in some sheep-shearing corner like Norfolk do what they want, next thing you know, they’re chopping the king’s head off.

            As for us being infiltrated-50 years ago, Orthodoxy in Israel it was completely marginalized, limited to some crazies, and certainly a death knell for the career of any government servant, military officer or politician. Being an observant Jew was openly mocked everywhere except for a few ghetto enclaves which had made a deal with the govt to be left alone.

            Today, it’s more and more the opposite. There are cops, combat officers, university professors, politicians, civil servants with kippot on their heads. We are infiltrating the local Cathedral, making it work for us. We’re not there yet, maybe 20% of the way, maybe 40%-but it’s moving that way. And the best thing is, it’s not Muslim Brotherhood-style infiltration. Totally open, totally transparent. No getting around it, no stopping it.

            • jim says:

              >What do I say that suggests that I think that might makes right?

              Moldbug said it, I didn’t think you disagreed. So, what make right?

              I don’t think Moldbug said that. Moldbug identified right with order. Thus a mighty authority that does not impose peace, but like the communist regimes makes unending war on a conquered, defeated, and disarmed enemy, is pretty much Moldbug’s exemplar of evil.

              On this I disagree with Moldbug, my exemplar of evil being Snow White’s stepmother, but I think you would find the difference between me and Moldbug too subtle for you to easily grasp. Obviously I agree with him that an authority that creates disorder by permanent war upon its subjects is the more evil for being more mighty.

              The Shortest Way With Dissenters still stands. Remember-you let a bunch of crazies in some sheep-shearing corner like Norfolk do what they want, next thing you know, they’re chopping the king’s head off.

              The problem was not dissenters in Norfolk openly organizing as dissenters. Dissenters were infiltrating the state religion, thus, guilty of apostacy, claiming one religion while loyal to another, claiming to be holier than the Bishops, and therefore more entitled to the Bishop’s authority than the Bishops were. The guys at Waco were not dissing Harvard.

              As for us being infiltrated-50 years ago, Orthodoxy in Israel it was completely marginalized

              If marginalized, not seriously infiltrated. If not marginalized, then seriously infiltrated. You know how the Cathedral operates. The only question is to what extent it is succeeding.

              Conquests second law: Any organization not explicitly right wing soon becomes left wing. You cannot tell me what you do to keep your women in line because you don’t want to think you are keeping your women in line. If you don’t want to think you are keeping your women in line, by and by, you won’t be.

          • fnn says:

            I believe Maryland is the only state where SWAT raids have been investigated in detail:

            http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/45-swat-raids-per-day

            Over the last six months of 2009, SWAT teams were deployed 804 times in the state of Maryland, or about 4.5 times per day. In Prince George’s County alone, with its 850,000 residents, a SWAT team was deployed about once per day. According to a Baltimore Sun analysis, 94 percent of the state’s SWAT deployments were used to serve search or arrest warrants, leaving just 6 percent in response to the kinds of barricades, bank robberies, hostage takings, and emergency situations for which SWAT teams were originally intended.

            Worse even than those dreary numbers is the fact that more than half of the county’s SWAT deployments were for misdemeanors and nonserious felonies. That means more than 100 times last year Prince George’s County brought state-sanctioned violence to confront people suspected of nonviolent crimes.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            B says: As for Bundy-ok, he won the standoff. Hardly game over. Now the game is to isolate him from mainstream support-done and done, with the Negro comments thing. Then they’ll hit him with something at their leisure. Maybe some other violation, or maybe they’ll discover kiddy porn on his computer.

            That just puts paint over the crack in the Cathedral’s foundation. The crack is still there (the militia did deter fed law enforcement). There will be more cracks as Pax Americana declines.

          • B says:

            >Moldbug identified right with order.

            There was definitely order and a logic to the Waco and Ruby Ridge things. Not a GOOD logic, and the order was flawed, but it was a long way from the Congo.

            >Thus a mighty authority that does not impose peace, but like the communist regimes makes unending war on a conquered, defeated, and disarmed enemy, is pretty much Moldbug’s exemplar of evil.

            The guys at Waco were hardly conquered, defeated or disarmed. Quite the opposite.

            >I think you would find the difference between me and Moldbug too subtle for you to easily grasp.

            Perhaps. So far you haven’t said anything particularly difficult to grasp.

            >Obviously I agree with him that an authority that creates disorder by permanent war upon its subjects is the more evil for being more mighty.

            I do not see this with the Cathedral. It creates disorder by proxy war and by undermining institutions and traditional concepts, but there is no direct war on the American people per se.

            >The problem was not dissenters in Norfolk openly organizing as dissenters.

            What do you mean? That was EXACTLY the problem. The Barkers, etc.

            >Dissenters were infiltrating the state religion, thus, guilty of apostacy, claiming one religion while loyal to another, claiming to be holier than the Bishops, and therefore more entitled to the Bishop’s authority than the Bishops were.

            The Puritans et al were not, as I recall, infiltrating the Anglican Church or the English govt. They were quite openly organizing and explaining that the Anglican Church and English govt were corrupt, bad and not really Christian. Cromwell was not Alinsky.

            >The guys at Waco were not dissing Harvard.

            Oh, come on. I can’t picture any neoreactionary country which would tolerate a hundred heavily armed religious dissenters with an apocalyptic bend hanging out in a compound in its territory. I mean, picture Koresh setting up shop in Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore. It’s not even funny.

            Branch David was not violating any American principles, because America is a country built by and for Dissenters. Hence, its treatment by USG was outrageous. But it was definitely violating the most basic principles of Formalist/Neoreactionary government.

            >If marginalized, not seriously infiltrated. If not marginalized, then seriously infiltrated.

            We’ve been dealing with entryism from Christians and Muslims for a long time, and are pretty good at defeating it. The infiltrated parts of Judaism, which is to say, the ones that wanted the perks the Cathedral had to offer, split off into Reform and Conservative Judaism. We don’t recognize their marriages, divorces (meaning, the children of a woman who was married according to Torah Judaism but divorced in some other way who are born to her afterwards are mamzerim, not allowed to marry any non-mamzer Jews, as are their children, and so on,) conversions or any other institutions. Of course, a Reform Jew is just as much a Jew as a Torah Jew, but his religion is not Judaism. And the second you say e.g. a woman can be a rabbi, you are stepping outside the bound of Torah Judaism. So there’s a pretty effective defense against entryism. Not to mention that it is a whole lifestyle, and an entryist generally would drop out or find himself converted. It is difficult to fake the funk, and almost impossible if you’re coming in from the outside, and definitely impossible to do so long and well enough to gain a position of influence-we have a hierarchy, it’s not just a college where anyone can walk in and be a professor in 10 years.

            >Conquests second law: Any organization not explicitly right wing soon becomes left wing.

            Conquest was writing in a very specific context. We predate the right/left division.

            >You cannot tell me what you do to keep your women in line because you don’t want to think you are keeping your women in line.

            I have told you-we keep them in line by keeping ourselves in line with what G-d wants from us.

            Perhaps I can give you a different example.

            In the military, there is a well-developed disciplinary structure by means of which a superior can bring all kinds of unpleasant consequences to an insubordinate inferior. There are all sorts of rules designed to make explicit the power relationships-enlisted salute officers, junior enlisted stand at parade rest when spoken to by an NCO, etc., etc., etc. Punishments are frequent, ranging from physical punishments to punitive duties to administrative punishment to judicial punishment. Violations of the rules are also frequent.

            On the other hand, in the special operations world, while all the same rules apply in theory, in practice nonjudicial punishment, court martial, etc. are remarkably rare, as is physical punishment. People are on a first name basis despite ranks, and physical punishment is practically unheard of. A superior applying the theoretical rules to his inferiors would quickly find himself shunned and unable to lead effectively, then shunted off somewhere to a quiet corner.

            This works because everyone there wants to be there, and guys generally trust their leadership to follow some kind of basic principle. If the theoretical rules did not exist, and the only punishment would be getting kicked out of the group, things would continue to function exactly the same way.

            • jim says:

              >Moldbug identified right with order.

              There was definitely order and a logic to the Waco and Ruby Ridge things. Not a GOOD logic, and the order was flawed, but it was a long way from the Congo.

              A long way from Dubai or Singapore. The Congo is at war with itself on a fairly large scale. The American government is at war its people on a considerably smaller scale.

              >Obviously I agree with him that an authority that creates disorder by permanent war upon its subjects is the more evil for being more mighty.

              I do not see this with the Cathedral. It creates disorder by proxy war and by undermining institutions and traditional concepts, but there is no direct war on the American people per se.

              Failure to reproduce, taking men away from their families. It is a little death.

              >Dissenters were infiltrating the state religion, thus, guilty of apostacy, claiming one religion while loyal to another, claiming to be holier than the Bishops, and therefore more entitled to the Bishop’s authority than the Bishops were.

              The Puritans et al were not, as I recall, infiltrating the Anglican Church or the English govt. They were quite openly organizing and explaining that the Anglican Church and English govt were corrupt, bad and not really Christian.

              In the events leading up to the English civil war and the execution of Charles the First, they were explaining that the Anglican Church and English govt were corrupt, bad and not really Christian from the pulpits of the Anglican Church. Before the English Civil War, and in England after 1820 or so, Alinskyite infiltration.

              Cromwell, finding himself outflanked on the left, put an end to such methods, and Charles the second, at the instigation of General Monck, eradicated them even more thoroughly, and they did not resume until the nineteenth century. So from Cromwell to the early nineteenth century, they were not infiltrating, not because they virtuously refrained from Alinskyite infiltration, but because they were damn well stopped from infiltrating, often by quite spectacular violence.

              >If [Orthodox Jews] marginalized, not seriously infiltrated. If not marginalized, then seriously infiltrated.

              We’ve been dealing with entryism from Christians and Muslims for a long time, and are pretty good at defeating it.

              Not true.

              No you have not been dealing entryism from Christians and Muslims, ever. You have been under pressure to overtly convert from Christians and Muslims. Overt conversion is not the Cathedral style. You are facing a completely different problem from that which you have ever faced before and you are completely unprepared for it.

              Further, Muslims have been suffering entryism from Jews and Christians, and lately, Cathedral entryism, and despite long experience in resisting Christian and Jewish entryism, are succumbing to the Cathedral entryism. The Cathedral was born in entryism, and is very good at it. Maybe the communists were better, but, other than the communists no one else was as good as the Cathedral is.

              Plus. I hear you explaining how you don’t oppress women. Your brain has been entered already. If your religion is going to survive, if you are going to survive, you should be explaining how women need male authority in their lives, that the important decisions about their lives should be made by husbands and fathers, how Israel is an apartheid state and is divinely commanded to be an apartheid state, and Israel being an apartheid state is good for members of other religions.

              And if an Israeli Jew says “Palestinians” his brain is Cathedral occupied territory.

              I can easily google up a pile of Orthodox Jewish feminism, explaining how true Orthodoxy is a belief system with a striking similarity to progressivism. I find a great pile of entryists on the internet explaining how women should take on functions normally performed by rabbis, how women should join men in high status Orthodox activities and groups, how the Palestinians are oppressed, and so on and so forth.

              In the military, there is a well-developed disciplinary structure by means of which a superior can bring all kinds of unpleasant consequences to an insubordinate inferior. There are all sorts of rules designed to make explicit the power relationships-enlisted salute officers, junior enlisted stand at parade rest when spoken to by an NCO, etc., etc., etc. Punishments are frequent, ranging from physical punishments to punitive duties to administrative punishment to judicial punishment. Violations of the rules are also frequent.

              On the other hand, in the special operations world, while all the same rules apply in theory, in practice nonjudicial punishment, court martial, etc. are remarkably rare, as is physical punishment. People are on a first name basis despite ranks, and physical punishment is practically unheard of. A superior applying the theoretical rules to his inferiors would quickly find himself shunned and unable to lead effectively, then shunted off somewhere to a quiet corner.

              But in the special operations world, you still salute, and say sir, if not to the same extent, and you probably would not do so if those punishments were merely theoretical. That stuff is relaxed for special operations people, as it is relaxed for officers, because special operations are special and elite. But though relaxed, very much present.

              Similarly most Orthodox women are required to display respectful behavior to all men and any men – which raises not only their own fertility, but that of all the men they treat respectfully.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            Oh, come on. I can’t picture any neoreactionary country which would tolerate a hundred heavily armed religious dissenters with an apocalyptic bend hanging out in a compound in its territory.

            This is a good point. I can’t imagine that many neoreactionary governments would tolerate the Branch Davidians, either.

            Does that mean we shouldn’t criticize the USG’s actions at Waco, though? I say give ’em the Alinsky treatment: make them live up to their own rules, and shame them ruthlessly when they don’t.

          • B says:

            >Failure to reproduce, taking men away from their families. It is a little death.

            Dubai has a reproductive rate similar to that of the US, Singapore’s is lower. I don’t know what the divorce rate is and what the laws are. In Israel, the laws are swinging back in the direction of the man.

            >They were quite openly organizing and explaining that the Anglican Church and English govt were corrupt, bad and not really Christian.

            Koresh didn’t say anything much about USG, but if he had, we can basically imagine what it would have been. Any imaginable healthy government has an immune response which is activated by heavily armed apocalyptic cults.

            >and they did not resume until the nineteenth century.

            So who were the Whigs, and where did they come from, and how were they so damn subversive?

            >No you have not been dealing entryism from Christians and Muslims, ever.

            There was a lot of entryism from Christians in the beginning of the first millennium CE. Lots of guys who would dress, pray, eat kosher, but were secretly Christians. Hence, the Talmudic rules of removing the leader of the prayer if he insists on praying only if he’s wearing white, or says “one” twice when saying G-d is One.

            >Overt conversion is not the Cathedral style.

            Very little difference between Muslim/Christian rules for applying subtle and sustained pressure (lower status for Jews, lots of perks for converts in social status) and the Cathedral’s rules.

            >Further, Muslims have been suffering entryism from Jews and Christians

            No, the Christian and Jewish converts were mostly honest. Where they were not honest, it was because they were trying to keep from being crushed while keeping their religion, not because they were trying to undermine Islam from the inside. See: Sabbateans.

            >and lately, Cathedral entryism, and despite long experience in resisting Christian and Jewish entryism, are succumbing to the Cathedral entryism.

            No-they’re succumbing more to external pressure. MTV, offers of high status and coolness in exchange for conversion.

            >you should be explaining how women need male authority in their lives

            True.

            >that the important decisions about their lives should be made by husbands and fathers

            Largely true but not completely. The Torah does not support marrying women off against their own will, or corporal punishment or punishment via denying of marital obligations in the way the Koran does. A husband can’t physically force his wife to do anything, and if she refuses e.g. intimacy, he can divorce her with no ketubah, but that’s about all.

            >how Israel is an apartheid state

            Untrue.

            >and is divinely commanded to be an apartheid state, and Israel being an apartheid state is good for members of other religions.

            Very true.

            >And if an Israeli Jew says “Palestinians” his brain is Cathedral occupied territory.

            Sort of true. Arabs living in Judah and Samaria need some kind of different word to distinguish them from the Arabs living on the Western side of the Green Line to the outside world, because they have a different legal status (unfortunately, for now.)

            >I can easily google up a pile of Orthodox Jewish feminism, explaining how true Orthodoxy is a belief system with a striking similarity to progressivism.

            Yes, but you can’t google up rabbinical authorities supporting them, or a large mass of Torah Jews, because it is immediately obvious to anyone taking the Torah seriously that it’s bullshit. In my whole life, I’ve met exactly one family which fell into this camp, out of hundreds which had been exposed to Progressivism through university education, which suggests there is a good immune system against it.

            >I find a great pile of entryists on the internet explaining how women should take on functions normally performed by rabbis, how women should join men in high status Orthodox activities and groups, how the Palestinians are oppressed, and so on and so forth.

            Lots of noise, no visible effect on reality. Finding that they have no effect on reality, they usually either conform or drop down to Conservadox, then down the line.

            >Similarly most Orthodox women are required to display respectful behavior to all men and any men

            They are not. They are required to either ignore men or be polite, just as men are required to either ignore women or be polite (depending if you look at Haredim or Daati Leumi.) There is no deference required-just politeness.

            • jim says:

              Dubai has a reproductive rate similar to that of the US, Singapore’s is lower.

              That is the problem of the big city. The Cathedral sends around the stormtroopers to take men away from their families in the Texas exurbs. The relevant comparison with Dubai is not America as a whole, but our white, urban, rate in Silicon valley. If you look at our white, urban middle class reproductive rate in Silicon valley for affluent middle class people, it is, anecdotally, near zero. I don’t have statistics, but no one in Silicon valley seems to be reproducing except they reproduced before they came, or after they left. If you are a Silicon valley engineer and hope to have children, head to Austin, or forget about software engineering and head to Alaska.

              >They were quite openly organizing and explaining that the Anglican Church and English govt were corrupt, bad and not really Christian.

              Koresh didn’t say anything much about USG, but if he had, we can basically imagine what it would have been.

              You are ignoring the point: Koresh was not saying that stuff in a Harvard lecture theater, the way Alinsky was, but in the middle of nowhere. The heretics that executed Charles the First were lecturing that the Anglican Church and English govt were corrupt, bad and not really Christian from the pulpits of the Anglican Church, not from a tree stump in Sherwood forest. No one ever got into trouble or caused trouble lecturing from a tree stump in Sherwood forest.

              The English dissenters were analogous to Alinsky. Koresh was not analogous to Alinsky. We need to kill the Alinskys and the William Wilberforces. We don’t need to kill the Koreshs. Killing Koresh was tyranny. Failure to kill Alinsky and William Wilberforce was weakness. The threats to the state come from inside the state, not outside.

              Very little difference between Muslim/Christian rules for applying subtle and sustained pressure (lower status for Jews, lots of perks for converts in social status) and the Cathedral’s rules.

              The Muslims and the Christians wanted you to say you were no longer Jewish, and were now Muslim or Christian. The Cathedral wants you to say that Orthodox Judaism, rightly understood, is progressivism, that to be unprogressive is contrary to Jewish orthodoxy.

              And I see you are distinctly embarrassed about Orthodox Jewish treatment of women, which embarassment is several steps along the Cathedral road. And the Jewish Home party, being embarrassed about apartheid, is several more steps along the Cathedral Road.

              The Torah does not support marrying women off against their own will,

              And yet, it quite recently used to be the case, and in many orthodox communities still is the case, that marriages are normally arranged by parents, that the reward for male good behavior was a wife.

              or corporal punishment or punishment via denying of marital obligations in the way the Koran does.

              So a wife can say no but a husband cannot? Your brain is enemy occupied territory.

              >I find a great pile of entryists on the internet explaining how women should take on functions normally performed by rabbis, how women should join men in high status Orthodox activities and groups, how the Palestinians are oppressed, and so on and so forth.

              Lots of noise, no visible effect on reality

              The effect on you, and on the Israel Home party, is quite visible to me.

              The Jewish Orthodox are Koresh, not William Wilberforce. Need to be William Wilberforce.

              >Similarly most Orthodox women are required to display respectful behavior to all men and any men

              They are not. They are required to either ignore men or be polite, just as men are required to either ignore women or be polite (depending if you look at Haredim or Daati Leumi.) There is no deference required-just politeness.

              That sign in my previous comment demands deference.

          • B says:

            >The Cathedral sends around the stormtroopers to take men away from their families in the Texas exurbs.

            Exurbs are just an extension of the big city, given internet, highways and cheap gas. So what’s the difference?

            >The relevant comparison with Dubai is not America as a whole, but our white, urban, rate in Silicon valley. If you look at our white, urban middle class reproductive rate in Silicon valley for affluent middle class people, it is, anecdotally, near zero.

            And this is a symptom of a govt war? Getting pregnant is up to the woman. The fact that women are preferring sterile liaisons/serial monogamy and luxury spending throughout their fertile years to having children is an expression of a governmental war? I would maybe buy it if you blamed the Rockefeller Foundation…

            >You are ignoring the point: Koresh was not saying that stuff in a Harvard lecture theater, the way Alinsky was, but in the middle of nowhere…No one ever got into trouble or caused trouble lecturing from a tree stump in Sherwood forest.

            In today’s world, Waco is a lot closer to D.C. than Sherwood was to London. Again, I can’t picture any responsible reactionary govt tolerating that kind of thing. Not the Chinese, not Singapore, not Dubai, not Lichtenstein.

            >Killing Koresh was tyranny…The threats to the state come from inside the state, not outside.

            Entryist threats, yes. But entryist threats are not the only kinds of threats to the state available. USG is bad at dealing with entryism, but pretty good at dealing with the other kinds of threats (when it wants to be.)

            >The Muslims and the Christians wanted you to say you were no longer Jewish, and were now Muslim or Christian. The Cathedral wants you to say that Orthodox Judaism, rightly understood, is progressivism, that to be unprogressive is contrary to Jewish orthodoxy.

            You misconstrue the Muslim/Christian argument for conversion. The Muslims said, Abraham was a Muslim, Moses was a Muslim, the utmost fulfillment of their prophecy is Islam, therefore, become Muslims. The Christians said, Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to throw it out, so to be a really good Jew, you should believe in Jesus. So, rightly understood, Judaism was Christianity or Islam. These were their theoretical arguments, and their practical ones were very similar to those of the Cathedral (except the Cathedral doesn’t murder Torah Jews for failure to convert, so far.)

            >And I see you are distinctly embarrassed about Orthodox Jewish treatment of women, which embarassment is several steps along the Cathedral road.

            You keep showing that sign, but signs like it are to be found in a minority of Haredi neighborhoods, and the Haredim are a minority of Torah Jews. I am against what it represents, not because I am an egalitarian, but because the underlying logic is an innovation in Judaism-there is no evidence of such a thing in the last 1000 years, as far as I know. It is based on extreme prudery, and is similar to the more extreme Muslim countries, and these things tend to be counterproductive, leading to obsession with sex and undercover perversion. No such signs exist in any of the settlements I’ve ever been in.

            >And the Jewish Home party, being embarrassed about apartheid, is several more steps along the Cathedral Road.

            The Jewish Home party is maneuvering. Even the Outer Party is moving in the proper direction. For instance: http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-reported-to-say-legal-system-based-on-talmud/

            >And yet, it quite recently used to be the case, and in many orthodox communities still is the case, that marriages are normally arranged by parents, that the reward for male good behavior was a wife.

            Yes, but the bride and groom have the right of refusal, and in fact have the last say (parents make the introduction, usually through a professional shadchan (matchmaker,) then there are several dates, then the parties make a decision.)

            >So a wife can say no but a husband cannot? Your brain is enemy occupied territory.

            Why are you such a pain in the ass? Neither the husband nor the wife can say no. If they say no, they fall under the halakhic classification of a rebel, and a court will force them to divorce, no ketubah payment for the wife if she’s the rebel, if the husband is the rebel, he has to pay ketubah. Either party can divorce if the other one is repugnant to them. That’s the halakha as far back as we have a record.

            >The effect on you, and on the Israel Home party, is quite visible to me.

            That’s because you have a confirmation bias and a limited field of vision.

            >The Jewish Orthodox are Koresh, not William Wilberforce. Need to be William Wilberforce.

            No-don’t need to be either (Koresh, BTW, is a prime example of the stupidity of saying that the Torah’s meaning is immediately obvious-he interpreted, for instance, the Three Festivals where all male Jews must go to Jerusalem every year as saying that people needed to visit him at Waco.) Need to be Orthodox Jews and live by the Torah but in such a way that it doesn’t contradict verifiable reality. The rest of the Jews will follow and already are.

            • jim says:

              And this is a symptom of a govt war? Getting pregnant is up to the woman.

              For a white middle class women in Silicon Valley, hard to do with without male support. Hard to obtain male support when any male is apt to be sent to prison for being in the vicinity of a female temper tantrum.

              >You are ignoring the point: Koresh was not saying that stuff in a Harvard lecture theater, the way Alinsky was, but in the middle of nowhere…No one ever got into trouble or caused trouble lecturing from a tree stump in Sherwood forest.

              In today’s world, Waco is a lot closer to D.C. than Sherwood was to London. Again, I can’t picture any responsible reactionary govt tolerating that kind of thing. Not the Chinese, not Singapore, not Dubai, not Lichtenstein.

              Lichtenstein is a one city without much suburbs, and even so, I do not believe that the suppress their David Koresh’s. I very much doubt that his highness Muhammad bin Rashid al Makti cracks down on crazy sects in the desert outside the city.

              The English regime after 1660 was far more reactionary than China, than Singapore, than Dubai, than Lichtenstein. It was also far more successful, presiding over the rise of science, technology, and the conquest of much of the world. It was far more reactionary in that no one was allowed near the corridors of power unless they signed off on the Thirty Nine articles and the second book of homilies. But, after 1680, they did allow their Koreshs – just kept them far away from power. Which so pissed off their Koreshs that they emigrated to America, but after 1680 they were not ejected to America. Between 1660 and 1680 they were ejected to America – but not massacred.

              >And I see you are distinctly embarrassed about Orthodox Jewish treatment of women, which embarrassment is several steps along the Cathedral road.

              You keep showing that sign, but signs like it are to be found in a minority of Haredi neighborhoods, and the Haredim are a minority of Torah Jews. I am against what it represents, not because I am an egalitarian, but because the underlying logic is an innovation in Judaism-there is no evidence of such a thing in the last 1000 years

              Before 1972, it was hard to express the idea of “marital rape” because everyone took for granted that the husband was entitled to enforce the marital contract. After 1972, everyone was not only horrified by “marital rape” but believed they always had been.

              I don’t believe your “one thousand years. I believe precisely 44 years. You have been re-interpreting Orthodox Judaism to make it more consistent with progressivism. And progressives intend that you will continue to do so.

              >So a wife can say no but a husband cannot? Your brain is enemy occupied territory.

              Why are you such a pain in the ass? Neither the husband nor the wife can say no.

              But you expressed this position in the most progressive possible way, so that it sounded remarkably like “the husband should always support his wifes feelings”: see Dalrock ripping into Christian tradcons.

              It can be said that Christianity requires the wife to have sex with the husband, and the husband to have sex with the wife, but, though technically true, this is profoundly misleading, for what the bible actually requires is that the wife submit to the husband and honor him, and the husband cherish his wife and protect as if she was his own flesh.

              And I am pretty sure that is what the Talmud says, though they filed the serial numbers off to avoid plagiarism charges.

              >The effect on you, and on the Israel Home party, is quite visible to me.

              That’s because you have a confirmation bias and a limited field of vision.

              The Israeli Home party proposes to grant citizenship to 48000 “Palestinians”.

              Just as you don’t want to reach out and take the temple mount because that would activate a pile of deeply embarrassing commandments, you don’t want state power because you know that exile Judaism is ill suited for power. But without power, you are being successfully subverted by the Cathedral.

          • B says:

            For a white middle class women in Silicon Valley, hard to do with without male support.

            Most white middle class women in Silicon Valley are married. But they get married late, and don’t have children until it’s too late to have many.

            >I very much doubt that his highness Muhammad bin Rashid al Makti cracks down on crazy sects in the desert outside the city.

            He does if he’s got half a brain in his head: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Najaf_(2007)

            >The English regime after 1660 was far more reactionary than China, than Singapore, than Dubai, than Lichtenstein.

            Not relative to its peers it wasn’t.

            >But, after 1680, they did allow their Koreshs – just kept them far away from power. Which so pissed off their Koreshs that they emigrated to America, but after 1680 they were not ejected to America. Between 1660 and 1680 they were ejected to America – but not massacred.

            I suspect that a) those Koreshs were not heavily armed until they emigrated, b) that had the English seen how that colonization scheme worked out, they would have sunk those Pilgrims in the Channel.

            >After 1972, everyone was not only horrified by “marital rape” but believed they always had been.

            What relevance does that have to my argument? We have a closely documented history of halakhic opinions, responsa, etc. We can look and see what the history here is.

            >You have been re-interpreting Orthodox Judaism to make it more consistent with progressivism.

            Examples, please. Specific examples. I.e., halakha in 1950, halakha today. And no cherry-picking, i.e., 1950 Haredi standards, today’s Modern Orthodox standards.

            >But you expressed this position in the most progressive possible way, so that it sounded remarkably like “the husband should always support his wifes feelings”

            Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. A husband needs to be the man of the household, but he can’t use physical force against his wife. She has to listen to him, but if she doesn’t, he can’t beat her or deny her intimacy as punishment. That’s the halakha. What do you want? For us to be Muslims?

            >what the bible actually requires is that the wife submit to the husband and honor him, and the husband cherish his wife and protect as if she was his own flesh.

            And if one of the parties breaches the deal? What does Christianity say then? Marriage is fundamentally a two-way street.

            >And I am pretty sure that is what the Talmud says, though they filed the serial numbers off to avoid plagiarism charges.

            You keep coming up with this spurious allegation, but have no proof. If you want to know what the Talmud says, you can open a translation and read it. I recommend the Mishne Torah as a guide, but keep in mind that Maimonides lived in the Muslim world, so his standards of modesty reflected that.

            >The Israeli Home party proposes to grant citizenship to 48000 “Palestinians”.

            Which proposal is not seriously being pushed and will never happen.

            >Just as you don’t want to reach out and take the temple mount because that would activate a pile of deeply embarrassing commandments, you don’t want state power because you know that exile Judaism is ill suited for power.

            Who’s “you”? Me personally? Rav Adin Steinsaltz? The Haredim of Bnei Brak?

            >But without power, you are being successfully subverted by the Cathedral.

            Again-who’s “you”?

            • jim says:

              For a white middle class women in Silicon Valley, hard to have children without male support.

              Most white middle class women in Silicon Valley are married.

              not any more. Most white middle class women in the US get married eventually, when their fertility is drying up, but for women in Silicon Valley, my subjective unscientific non statistical impression is that the situation is much worse than than the average for America. What is apt to happen is that she tries to move in with some alpha male, he objects, she calls the police on him, and thereafter no male wants to spend any more time with her than the minimum necessary to dump a load on her.

              But they get married late,

              Because males in Silicon Valleyare low status, and the reason males are low status is that any time any women feels in a bad mood, this is apt to result in criminal charges against any males in the vicinity. Silicon valley men are scared of Silicon valley women for very good reason, and Silicon valley women view silicon valley men as low status because they are scared of silicon valley women and therefore Silicon Valley women do not want to have children with Silicon Valley men..

              >I very much doubt that his highness Muhammad bin Rashid al Makti cracks down on crazy sects in the desert outside the city.

              He does if he’s got half a brain in his head: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Najaf_(2007)

              That was a bunch of powerful Shia clerics plotting to murder another bunch of powerful Shia clerics, the equivalent of some people at Harvard plotting a sitin against other people at Harvard, only deadlier, the equivalent of the weathermen, not the equivalent of Koresh. Koresh was far from state power, and trying to stay as far from it as he could. The clerics were equivalent of the Weathermen, not the equivalent of David Koresh.

              >The English regime after 1660 was far more reactionary than China, than Singapore, than Dubai, than Lichtenstein. But, after 1680, they did allow their Koreshs – just kept them far away from power. Which so pissed off their Koreshs that they emigrated to America, but after 1680 they were not ejected to America. Between 1660 and 1680 they were ejected to America – but not massacred.

              I suspect that a) those Koreshs were not heavily armed until they emigrated,

              Everyone in the seventeenth century was heavily armed

              b) that had the English seen how that colonization scheme worked out, they would have sunk those Pilgrims in the Channel.

              That was two hundred years later, when America was no longer far from the corridors of power, but rather was the corridors of power. You can’t shoot people for what their descendants might do in two hundred years.

              Let us imagine an alternate history in which dissenters got excluded from power and therefore tended to wind up in the Americas to set up their own theocracy, but the likes of William Wilberforce, who falsely claim adherence to the official religion in order to get to the corridors of power got sent from the corridors of power to cut sugar cane in the West Indies as punishment for apostasy. Then probably Britain would be reactionary today, the British empire would still exist today and would still be making a huge profit today, Britain would still be a superpower, and if the descendants of those who fled England to set up their own theocracy ruled America, no one would care vary much, because the world would still be dominated economically, culturally, and technologically by a slave owning superpower.

              >After 1972, everyone was not only horrified by “marital rape” but believed they always had been.

              What relevance does that have to my argument? We have a closely documented history of halakhic opinions, responsa, etc. We can look and see what the history here is.

              But you are not looking. You, and everyone after 1972, Jews and Christians alike, are torturing past documents to bring them into compliance with current progressive orthodoxy. You are being assimilated into progressivism. Christians are lying about their recent past, their past within living memory, and Jews are also lying about their past, their even more recent past.

              I don’t believe you, and you should not believe yourself. Your account of traditional Jewish beliefs is inconsistent with pre-1972 evidence.

              Examples, please. Specific examples. I.e., halakha in 1950, halakha today. And no cherry-picking,

              Obviously halakha in 1950 took the Pauline position with knobs on. Husband is head of household as Christ is the head of the Church, wife shall submit. Indeed, the normative Orthodox huppah of one-sided kiddushin — in which a woman is silently “purchased” is a lot more extreme than the traditional Pauline ceremony in which the wife promises to submit.

              In most cases woman cannot own any possessions and these would immediately pass to their father/husband – because they themselves are a possession.

              The laws of how a man marries a woman are modeled explicitly on the laws for how a man purchases land or a slave (women, real-estate and slaves all all purchased by contract, money or usage). According to God’s eternal law a man may marry and divorce as many woman as he pleases although some rabbi in the 1500s, in a Christian dominated society, finally decided to fix up God’s eternal wisdom in this respect.

              Woman’s obligations in term of Mitzvot are exactly equal to those of non-Jewish slaves – possessions – or of children – that excludes them from most key obligations of a community or from being part of a Minyan.

              Woman are not trusted to be witnesses in court and are barred from most public offices. The Jewish courts would let a murderer – or rapist – go free rather than allow a woman to testify

              The penalty for raping a single woman is paying compensation to her father for devaluing his possession

              Orthodox Jews are still going through the motions of that completely and intentionally one sided system of male supremacy, while in fact, marriage is being “modernized”.

              And you yourself, in this very thread, have rationalized these massive changes as no change at all and a thousand year old tradition

              >what the bible actually requires is that the wife submit to the husband and honor him, and the husband cherish his wife and protect as if she was his own flesh.

              And if one of the parties breaches the deal? What does Christianity say then? Marriage is fundamentally a two-way street.

              If the husband breaches the deal, short of abandonment, the wife has to suck it up. Wife, however can be disciplined, and can be divorced for adultery. A divorced woman cannot remarry while her husband lives. Wife is answerable to the husband, Husband is answerable to his Christian community. His Christian community is answerable to the holy spirit, which is answerable to God. Strict one way hierarchy, with obedience and respect going in one direction, commands, guidance and supervision in the other direction.

              >And I am pretty sure that is what the Talmud says, though they filed the serial numbers off to avoid plagiarism charges.

              You keep coming up with this spurious allegation, but have no proof.

              The old testament, the written Torah, takes patriarchy for granted, but does not command it as the word of God. New Testament commands patriarchy as the word of God. Talmud commands patriarchy as the word of God, only even more so. New Testament is a lot older than Talmud.

              >The Israeli Home party proposes to grant citizenship to 48000 “Palestinians”.

              Which proposal is not seriously being pushed and will never happen.

              Because programs even further to the left are being pushed and will happen.

              >Just as you don’t want to reach out and take the temple mount because that would activate a pile of deeply embarrassing commandments, you don’t want state power because you know that exile Judaism is ill suited for power.

              Who’s “you”? Me personally?

              You personally, in that it is clear you are waiting for a miracle working Messiah to do the heavy lifting, rather than adjusting your religion to the reality of no longer being in exile so that it can do its own heavy lifting, and Orthodox Judaism in general, in particular, and for example, the Jewish Home party.

              Rav Adin Steinsaltz?

              Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz called for “a theological dialogue that asks the tough questions, such as whether Catholicism allows for Jews to enter eternal paradise.” – pure progressivism. He is calling on Catholics to convert, not to Judaism, but to progressivism, so the purpose of the dialogue is to get all religions to agree that progressivism is the one true religion.

              The Haredim of Bnei Brak?

              The Haredim of Bnei Brak refuse the draft, thus are, like progressives, hostile to Jews exercising political power over the land of Israel – you pointed me to a talmudic passage mandating that all Jews serve with very few exceptions. I suppose that the Haredim of Bnei Brak figure that today’s Israel is not the legitimate Jewish state. Perhaps it is not, but they don’t have any plans to institute the legitimate Jewish state other than wait for a miraculous Messiah.

              >But without power, you are being successfully subverted by the Cathedral.

              Again-who’s “you”?

              You personally and individually, as when you rationalized away male rule over his wife, and you the Orthodox community, as depicted in the above link, and you, the Jews of Israel.

          • B says:

            >but for women in Silicon Valley, my subjective unscientific non statistical impression is that the situation is much worse than than the average for America.

            My subjective impression from brief visits to Silicon Valley is that the suburbs of which it consists are full of families.

            >Silicon valley men are scared of Silicon valley women for very good reason, and Silicon valley women view silicon valley men as low status because they are scared of silicon valley women and therefore Silicon Valley women do not want to have children with Silicon Valley men..

            If this were true, they wouldn’t get married at all. While what actually happens is that they marry and don’t have many children. Also, the wife putting the husband in jail with a false DV complaint is (in my subjective experience) a rare thing in the upper middle class.

            >That was a bunch of powerful Shia clerics plotting to murder another bunch of powerful Shia clerics

            You are confusing it with the 2003 Battle of Najaf.

            >Everyone in the seventeenth century was heavily armed

            That was the problem. Immediately after the Restoration, Charles II went to work disarming the populace, having the learned his lesson the hard way.

            >You can’t shoot people for what their descendants might do in two hundred years.

            You can certainly take preventive measures based on the worst case scenario.

            >Let us imagine an alternate history in which dissenters got excluded from power and therefore tended to wind up in the Americas to set up their own theocracy, but the likes of William Wilberforce…got sent from the corridors of power to cut sugar cane in the West Indies as punishment for apostasy.

            It begs the question. I think that having a Puritan theocracy in a position to capture a continent’s natural resources immediately and the trade routes of the Atlantic and Pacific would have led to the same result.

            >You, and everyone after 1972, Jews and Christians alike, are torturing past documents to bring them into compliance with current progressive orthodoxy.

            Again, this begs the question. The Talmud and responsa are matters of public record. Please, find me where they say that a husband can physically compel his unwilling wife to have sex with him.

            >Indeed, the normative Orthodox huppah of one-sided kiddushin — in which a woman is silently “purchased” is a lot more extreme than the traditional Pauline ceremony in which the wife promises to submit.

            The ketubah, which the husband signs at the kiddushin, deals with his obligations to the wife. Her obligations are nowhere listed. If you look at Mishne Torah, which predates the 1950s by almost a millennium, it outlines them and also lists her rights, such as the right to divorce if the husband becomes repulsive to the wife. Mishne Torah is drawn clearly from the Talmud.

            >In most cases woman cannot own any possessions and these would immediately pass to their father/husband – because they themselves are a possession.

            Completely untrue. First, women’s right to inherit is set out in the Torah, plain as day, with the daughters of Zelophehad, who argued with Moshe (and were the first to do so successfully and without dying.) Second, there is the example of Rabbi Huna of the Talmud, who was so poor he had trouble feeding his family. His father-in-law was the guarantor of his ketubah (right there you can understand that women were not property and could own property.) Abbaye, another of the Talmudic rabbis, suggested to Rav Huna through his students that he should divorce his wife. The wife could then collect the ketubah, he could remarry her and they would have something to live on. It is obvious that this story is completely inconsistent with your story.

            >According to God’s eternal law a man may marry and divorce as many woman as he pleases although some rabbi in the 1500s, in a Christian dominated society, finally decided to fix up God’s eternal wisdom in this respect.

            Rabbeinu Gershon, who lived 1000 years ago, put this temporary prohibition upon the Ashkenazim. However, you misrepresent the law until then-polygamy was legal, but you couldn’t just marry as many women as you pleased-you had to be able to provide for their needs, as is stated in the ketubah, in the Talmud, etc. There are physiological limits, even assuming you have the financial resources. And you couldn’t just divorce as you pleased-there is halakha on that, too.

            >Woman’s obligations in term of Mitzvot are exactly equal to those of non-Jewish slaves – possessions – or of children – that excludes them from most key obligations of a community or from being part of a Minyan.

            They are not the same mitzvot as those of men, but they are not the same mitzvot as those of slaves and children, at all. Further, women have rights which children and non-Jewish slaves do not have.

            >Woman are not trusted to be witnesses in court and are barred from most public offices.

            True-though this did not prevent there being a female Judge in the Torah.

            >The Jewish courts would let a murderer – or rapist – go free rather than allow a woman to testify

            Not quite. There are halakhic procedures for cases where the evidence does not fit the standard (for instance, the criminal testifies against himself, which is inadmissible, or there is one kosher witness instead of two, or the witnesses did not warn the criminal that his actions bring the death penalty, etc.) for the death penalty, yet everyone is sure that the accused is a criminal. He is not just allowed to go about his merry way.

            >The penalty for raping a single woman is paying compensation to her father for devaluing his possession

            No. The money goes to her. Further, she can (and it’s her choice) either force the rapist to marry her with no right of divorce, or pay additional damages.

            >And you yourself, in this very thread, have rationalized these massive changes as no change at all and a thousand year old tradition

            What do you want me to do, agree with something which is not true?

            >Strict one way hierarchy, with obedience and respect going in one direction, commands, guidance and supervision in the other direction.

            I feel like I’m listening to a Communist describing the ideal society. And where can we see this state of affairs in existence? Oh, it doesn’t exist and never has? Great.

            >The old testament, the written Torah, takes patriarchy for granted, but does not command it as the word of God. New Testament commands patriarchy as the word of God. Talmud commands patriarchy as the word of God, only even more so. New Testament is a lot older than Talmud.

            That’s all you’ve got? Weak.

            >Because programs even further to the left are being pushed and will happen.

            Right here we have an opportunity for you to put your money where your mouth is. Let’s pick some quantifiable outcomes of those “programs even further to the left,” some deadlines, and put a few bucks on it.

            >You personally, in that it is clear you are waiting for a miracle working Messiah to do the heavy lifting, rather than adjusting your religion to the reality of no longer being in exile so that it can do its own heavy lifting, and Orthodox Judaism in general, in particular, and for example, the Jewish Home party.

            I am waiting for there to be a critical mass of Torah Jews who take the Torah and the commandments to conquer and settle the land seriously. I am personally working on producing more such Jews, making money to fund such conquest and settlement, etc. Having studied revolutions, I know that a premature revolution is worse than none.

            >He is calling on Catholics to convert, not to Judaism, but to progressivism, so the purpose of the dialogue is to get all religions to agree that progressivism is the one true religion.

            In progressivism, there is no paradise but the one we will build on earth. I suspect you are twisting Rav Steinsaltz’s intentions. I know that he built a yeshiva and lives in Tekoa, a settlement, and has ten grandchildren.

            >I suppose that the Haredim of Bnei Brak figure that today’s Israel is not the legitimate Jewish state. Perhaps it is not, but they don’t have any plans to institute the legitimate Jewish state other than wait for a miraculous Messiah.

            They are, like Moldbug, quietists, and dislike the state for being too Progressive. Notice that you and Moldbug don’t seem to have any plans to build your ideal state either.

            >You personally and individually, as when you rationalized away male rule over his wife, and you the Orthodox community, as depicted in the above link, and you, the Jews of Israel.

            I have an obligation to be honest. If the halakha is what it is, I can’t twist it to be what I want it to be (though there may be a spectrum of halakhic opinions, in which case I have to try to understand them.) A man has dominance over his wife, up to a point. He has rights over her and obligations to her. She has rights over him and obligations to him. These rights and obligations are not symmetrical, but they are very real. This system results in a sustainable high birthrate which we can see for ourselves, while preserving rights for all parties, even though this means that there is more divorce than in a theoretical Pauline ideal. The actual, implemented Pauline system had the outcome we see today.

            The Torah Jews of Israel are in a similar position WRT the commandments to conquer and settle the land. The factual outcome we see is moving in a good direction, though of course it is far from ideal, bad things (like this week’s destruction of a settlement by the IDF) happen all the time, etc.

            • jim says:

              If this were true, they wouldn’t get married at all. While what actually happens is that they marry and don’t have many children. Also, the wife putting the husband in jail with a false DV complaint is (in my subjective experience) a rare thing in the upper middle class.

              The problem is not so much false complaints against the husband, but rather, in the workplace, false or delusional reports of sexual harassment. The very real possibility of this lowers male status relative to female status, thus making workplace males unattractive.

              Immediately after the Restoration, Charles II went to work disarming the populace, having the learned his lesson the hard way.

              Did he? I am not aware of this. Source?

              >Let us imagine an alternate history in which dissenters got excluded from power and therefore tended to wind up in the Americas to set up their own theocracy, but the likes of William Wilberforce…got sent from the corridors of power to cut sugar cane in the West Indies as punishment for apostasy.

              It begs the question. I think that having a Puritan theocracy in a position to capture a continent’s natural resources immediately and the trade routes of the Atlantic and Pacific would have led to the same result.

              Not if a reactionary Britain retained an profitable empire on which the sun never set. (The empire had already become a useless burden by 1906)

              >You, and everyone after 1972, Jews and Christians alike, are torturing past documents to bring them into compliance with current progressive orthodoxy.

              Again, this begs the question. The Talmud and responsa are matters of public record. Please, find me where they say that a husband can physically compel his unwilling wife to have sex with him.

              It is an obvious implication, and in the Christian society, within living memory, people accepted that implication. The Second book of homilies urges husbands to use gentler methods than “stripes”, but that urging implies that they have every right to use “stripes” – which is to say thrash their wives with a stick. The Talmud advocates harsher patriarchy than the New Testament, so …

              >Indeed, the normative Orthodox huppah of one-sided kiddushin — in which a woman is silently “purchased” is a lot more extreme than the traditional Pauline ceremony in which the wife promises to submit.

              The ketubah, which the husband signs at the kiddushin, deals with his obligations to the wife. Her obligations are nowhere listed.

              Which implies her obligations are limited only by the ketubah, not that she has no obligations.

              >In most cases woman cannot own any possessions and these would immediately pass to their father/husband – because they themselves are a possession.

              Completely untrue. First, women’s right to inherit is set out in the Torah, plain as day, with the daughters of Zelophehad, who argued with Moshe (and were the first to do so successfully and without dying.)

              Only if there are no males remaining in the family – a woman has to be orphaned without a brother for her to inherit, has to have no father, husband, or brother. Since the claim was “pass to her father or husband” that has to be completely true.

              Can’t you see that what you are doing is torturing the Talmud and the Torah to make it compatible with progressivism?

              Which shows that Orthodox Judaism is losing. It is an exile religion, frightened of theocratic power, unwilling to pursue it, unsuitable to exercise it, so is being assimilated by progressivism, which does have theocratic power, and is willing to wield it.

              And progressivism will kill you all.

              If you cannot resist the doctrine that women are entitled to equality, you cannot resist the doctrine that “Palestinians” are entitled to equality, whereupon the one state solution kills you all.

              >And you yourself, in this very thread, have rationalized these massive changes as no change at all and a thousand year old tradition

              What do you want me to do, agree with something which is not true?

              But they are true. Talmudism endorses patriarchy even more extreme than that of Saint Paul, and you deny it, even when, as with the daughters of Zelophehad, it is plain as day.

              >Because programs even further to the left are being pushed and will happen.

              Right here we have an opportunity for you to put your money where your mouth is. Let’s pick some quantifiable outcomes of those “programs even further to the left,” some deadlines, and put a few bucks on it.

              I predict that before the 2020 presidential American presidential election, a glorious compromise will be announced, a peace program based on progress towards the one state solution, much as Oslo was progress towards a two state solution, with the nature of that one state being ambiguous, and unilaterally interpreted by progressives as an Israeli commitment to a democratic one state solution. Steps will be taken that do in fact bring Israel closer to a democratic one state solution. Peace prizes all around. And I will bet you a bottle of reasonably good whiskey on it.

              >I suppose that the Haredim of Bnei Brak figure that today’s Israel is not the legitimate Jewish state. Perhaps it is not, but they don’t have any plans to institute the legitimate Jewish state other than wait for a miraculous Messiah.

              They are, like Moldbug, quietists, and dislike the state for being too Progressive. Notice that you and Moldbug don’t seem to have any plans to build your ideal state either.\

              We are working on a belief system and institutions that are potentially capable of replacing progressivism. Exile, being out of power, is integral to your religion and you don’t want to change it. Compare and contrast with Bruce Charleton. He discusses various religions that quite recently exercised theocratic power, and indicates he would happily follow any of them, which is closer to my position on Leprechauns than he is likely to admit.

              If we had a belief system that would work as an official religion, it would still be very difficult for it to become the official religion. In your case, if you had a belief system that would work as the official religion, it would be a shoe in, for it is obvious your current official religion, progressivism, is going to kill you all.

          • B says:

            >The very real possibility of this lowers male status relative to female status, thus making workplace males unattractive.

            But there are other ways to meet mates besides the workplace, and the women of SV seem to be getting married.

            >Did he? I am not aware of this. Source?

            http://earlymodernengland.com/2012/12/it-isnt-about-duck-hunting-the-british-origins-of-the-right-to-arms/

            I mean, pretty obvious-antigovt religious fanatics+weapons=bad news for a reactionary govt.

            >Not if a reactionary Britain retained an profitable empire on which the sun never set.

            The empire was not profitable. What was profitable was the ecosystem of companies and privateers surviving in its shadow. But as these things always go, the bureaucracy inevitably extends into the private sector, using one pretext or another, to eat up all the advantages of arbitrage. No Progressivism needed-see the Spanish empire, which managed to leverage control over three oceans’ worth of trade and the global currency supply into unmitigated economic disaster and being beaten senseless by the Brits and Dutch.

            >It is an obvious implication,

            Not obvious to me, or anyone in the Talmud that I know of. “Obvious” is relative-it was “obvious” to Koresh that the three festivals where every Jew needs to go to Jerusalem meant that people should come by the Waco ranch and hang out, it’s “obvious” to you that Shabbat means “go bass fishing,” it was “obvious” to the Puritans that the Bible demanded they lop the king’s head off, etc.

            >and in the Christian society, within living memory, people accepted that implication.

            And that’s where you guys are fucked up. Of course, I doubt any decent Christian community actually tolerated husbands whipping their wives in order to compel them to have sex.

            >The Talmud advocates harsher patriarchy than the New Testament, so …

            The Talmud explicitly states the rights and obligations of husbands and wives over each other, and certainly physically forcing the other side to have sex is nowhere in there, and in fact non-physical cruelty is grounds for the wife to get a divorce, as is the husband’s refusal to allow the wife to work if she wants (as indolence leads to insanity.)

            >Which implies her obligations are limited only by the ketubah, not that she has no obligations.

            Which implies that her obligations are listed elsewhere in the Talmud, and that since the husband is the dominant and active party in the marriage, the ketubah explicitly lists his obligations. However, of course her obligations are limited, not just by the ketubah.

            Here, there is a basic rundown of their rights and obligations towards each other: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0009_0_09341.html

            >Only if there are no males remaining in the family – a woman has to be orphaned without a brother for her to inherit, has to have no father, husband, or brother. Since the claim was “pass to her father or husband” that has to be completely true.

            Not so-during marriage, her property stays hers, though he benefits from it, and she can choose to work and keep her earnings if she releases him from his obligation to support her financially. Proverbs 31,10-31 praises women doing business shrewdly. I notice you ignored the example with Rav Huna, which shows that obviously a divorced woman may do what she wishes with her ketubah money, and is not obligated to give it to her father, or even to return to his household.

            The daughters of Zelophehad, you’ll notice, not only didn’t become the property of their grandfather, cousins or uncles, but were able to challenge Moshe and the elders of Israel, and got an answer from G-d that women inherit if they have no brothers, and only if there are no children do a man’s brothers inherit his property. Further, upon complaints by the tribe of Menashe that Zelophehad’s daughters would then marry outside the tribe and the tribal inheritance lands would go with them, they were told that the daughters would be free to marry whomever they wished but only from within the tribe. Meaning the normal state of things was that women decided whom to marry without such a limitation. Finally, in the Book of Job we already see daughters inheriting equally with sons.

            >Can’t you see that what you are doing is torturing the Talmud and the Torah to make it compatible with progressivism?

            What I see is you having some preconceptions and then demanding Torah fits them. I am interested in what the Torah and Talmud actually say, and the logic behind it. In general, you saw your female colleagues at Gasonics diving under desks and said “the law needs to restrain these animals.” Which is the Muslim approach. The Torah says, the law needs to get people to elevate themselves above animal-like conduct. Given no choice, no elevation is possible, and animal-like conduct is always an option.

            >Talmudism endorses patriarchy even more extreme than that of Saint Paul, and you deny it, even when, as with the daughters of Zelophehad, it is plain as day.

            Paul was a misogynistic eunuch. The Talmud tells us how to live together with women. It places strict guidelines on men and women both, and while men have more rights, they have more obligations and stricter guidelines.

            >Steps will be taken that do in fact bring Israel closer to a democratic one state solution. Peace prizes all around. And I will bet you a bottle of reasonably good whiskey on it.

            Let’s get some concrete, quantifiable metrics down for those steps, and you’re on. I like Ardbeg, personally.

            >We are working on a belief system and institutions that are potentially capable of replacing progressivism.

            But you don’t believe in anything, and nobody will lay down their life for Roissy’s god of biomechanics (an idolatrous concept if I’ve ever heard of one.)

            >In your case, if you had a belief system that would work as the official religion, it would be a shoe in, for it is obvious your current official religion, progressivism, is going to kill you all.

            It will not-it hasn’t, and it is becoming increasingly obvious to even the secular population every day that it is bankrupt. The alternative is staring them in the face, and more and more of them are coming over, in large degree. Oslo-Gush Katif were the nadir.

            • jim says:

              But there are other ways to meet mates besides the workplace, and the women of SV seem to be getting married.

              I have spent a lot of time in Silicon Valley, and I am not seeing it. By the time they get married, it is too late to have children.

              >Did [Charles the second restrict British ownership of guns]? I am not aware of this. Source?

              http://earlymodernengland.com/2012/12/it-isnt-about-duck-hunting-the-british-origins-of-the-right-to-arms/

              That is not a source, being excessively derived. This is a source. It would seem to imply that every protestant male of rank or property had the right to bear arms.

              >Not if a reactionary Britain retained an profitable empire on which the sun never set.

              The empire was not profitable. What was profitable was the ecosystem of companies and privateers surviving in its shadow.

              You have this completely backwards. The ecosystem of companies and privateers was the empire. There was no official government empire to cast a shadow until the late nineteenth century. The official empire was a left wing attack by the state on the ecosystem of companies and privateers. Imperialism was anti colonialist from the beginning, the beginning of imperialism being around 1830-1860 or so. The beginning of official government imperialism was the beginning of the end of empire, and was intended to be the end of empire, was intended as an attack upon that lawless ecosystem of companies and privateers. Official government imperialism was left wing and anticolonialist from the beginning.

              >It is an obvious implication,

              Not obvious to me, or anyone in the Talmud that I know of.

              I was alive back when everything suddenly changed. I am pretty sure if that if orthodox Jews back then had a different (more progressive) view on marriage than Christians, everyone would have noticed.

              >Which implies her obligations are limited only by the ketubah, not that she has no obligations.

              Which implies that her obligations are listed elsewhere in the Talmud, and that since the husband is the dominant and active party in the marriage, the ketubah explicitly lists his obligations.

              “The dominant and active partner”- sounds like a restatement of my argument.

              Here, there is a basic rundown of their rights and obligations towards each other: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0009_0_09341.html

              That link is post 1972. Gimme the pre 1968 version.

              >Only if there are no males remaining in the family – a woman has to be orphaned without a brother for her to inherit, has to have no father, husband, or brother. Since the claim was “pass to her father or husband” that has to be completely true.

              Not so-during marriage, her property stays hers, though he benefits from it, and she can choose to work and keep her earnings if she releases him from his obligation to support her financially.

              And he manages it, and normally she does not keep her earnings. Again, cannot you see you are torturing the texts to bring them into compliance with progressivism

              The daughters of Zelophehad, you’ll notice, not only didn’t become the property of their grandfather, cousins or uncles,

              But they would have become the property of their brothers, had they had brothers.

              Meaning the normal state of things was that women decided whom to marry

              Not seeing that, since the Daughters of Zelophehad were specifically an abnormal state of things.

              What I see is you having some preconceptions and then demanding Torah fits them.

              The daughters of Zelophehad confirm my preconceptions almost word for word. I said “cannot inherit because these possessions would immediately pass to husband or father”, and the story of daughters of Zelophehad tells us that a woman cannot inherit because these possessions would immediately pass to husband, father, or brother.

              >Talmudism endorses patriarchy even more extreme than that of Saint Paul, and you deny it, even when, as with the daughters of Zelophehad, it is plain as day.

              Paul was a misogynistic eunuch.

              Paul had a deep and wise insight into human nature, and especially the nature of females. And if he is misogynistic, the Talmud is Paul on steroids.

              >Steps will be taken that do in fact bring Israel closer to a democratic one state solution. Peace prizes all around. And I will bet you a bottle of reasonably good whiskey on it.

              Let’s get some concrete, quantifiable metrics down for those steps, and you’re on. I like Ardbeg, personally

              Hard to be concrete and quantifiable when those steps will be described in slippery diplomatic doubletalk. How about we say that these steps are celebrated in the New York Times as movement away from an apartheid state, as movement towards a democratic one state solution, even if that is not how they are sold to the settlers, even if the settlers and the Israeli government are rather alarmed by the New York Times perception of these steps.

              But you don’t believe in anything, and nobody will lay down their life for Roissy’s god of biomechanics (an idolatrous concept if I’ve ever heard of one.)

              Says the man who does believe in a religion that demands exemption from military service in a state under dire and imminent threat.

              My, and Roissy’s, corrosive cynicism is a problem. But your inflexibility is a bigger problem. One change, obviously, you need to make is to valorize military service, courage in war, and the taking of risks in war. More importantly, for you and your descendants to stay alive, your religion needs to become the state religion in place of progressivism. And you cannot become the state religion until you fix up sixteen centuries of holier than thou disease, because the not very religious majority of Jews, including the not very religious majority of orthodox Jews, would be horrified by their religion in its current form taking political power.

              One solution to this problem is to pinch the Restoration Anglican doctrine of supererogation, article fourteen of the thirtynine articles, which was whipped up for exactly this reason, to deal with exactly this problem. So you are only going to legally enforce the law about boiling a kid in its mothers milk, and merely socially encourage the law against cheeseburgers. People can eat cheeseburgers and nonetheless still own land, vote, get government jobs, and go to the best universities. They just cannot boil a kid in its mothers milk, and own land, vote or go to the best universities. Current non Jewish landowners get long term leases, which in due course creep up to market rents.

              >In your case, if you had a belief system that would work as the official religion, it would be a shoe in, for it is obvious your current official religion, progressivism, is going to kill you all.

              It will not-it hasn’t,

              The same was true in South Africa until it did.

              If you are rationalizing the emancipation of women into orthodox Judaism, others are rationalizing equal rights for Palestinians – including your own, Jewish Home party, so terrified of being accurately accused of apartheid. You need to yield on what does not matter, the pile of holiness that makes most orthodox Jews not want Orthodox Judaism to become the state religion, and stop yielding on what does matter: Systematically lower status for women and higher status for men, and an apartheid state, a state that while not oppressing the non Jew, not oppressing non citizens resident in Israel (Exodus 22:21), nonetheless preserves the separation of Jews, is ruled by Jews, is a state of Jews, with non Jews as outsiders, non citizens, and non landowners. Start by segregating your universities and remedying non Jewish landownership.

              • jim says:

                What is the average Silicon Valley SWPL age of first marriage, 35?

                Hard to say, because I just don’t see anyone in Silicon Valley get married.

                >This is a source. It would seem to imply that every protestant male of rank or property had the right to bear arms.

                Your link is broken. Anyway, translate “protestant male of rank and property” to today’s terms, you’ll get “looneys living in compounds in TX need not apply.”

                If they said “Anglicans” would mean looneys need not apply. They had a large oversupply of loony protestants of rank and property in the boondocks.

                >The ecosystem of companies and privateers was the empire. There was no official government empire to cast a shadow until the late nineteenth century.

                Not so. The Sepoy Mutiny, which saw the failure of the East India Company to keep a grip on its military and subjects, caused a reorganization where the Empire took over completely.

                Indian Mutiny was 1857. I did say the imperialists started to attack the ecosystem of companies and privateers around 1830 or so.

                For a long time until then, the only thing keeping the French etc. from eating the EIC alive was the presence of the British Navy in the Indian Ocean.

                Not my interpretation of events. Reading Raffles and people around him, seemed that it was more the British government was trying to keep the colonials from piratically attacking their neighbors, not altogether successfully. Before 1820 or so, the British government did not seem to be aware that they had an empire in the East to defend, nor did Napoleon seem to notice they had an empire in the East to attack. He attacked Egypt, which, of course, pissed off the Ottoman Empire, which ruled Egypt at the time.

                During the Wars between France and England, the colonists in India and the West Indies proceeded to enthusiastically engage in their usual piracy, snaffling up the possessions of France, the French, and random innocent bystanders, which later Britain made them give back.

                >That link is post 1972. Gimme the pre 1968 version.

                If I just give you the book of Mishne Torah dealing with the halakhot of marriage, is that enough?

                OK: You are right it says a woman cannot be forced to sleep with her husband, except that if she refuses, she gets divorced on unfavorable terms.

                But, since women have very little right to property,

                Halacha 3
                The four privileges that the husband is granted are all Rabbinic in origin. They are:

                a) the right to the fruits of her labor;

                b) the right to any ownerless object she discovers;

                c) the right to benefit from the profits of her property during her lifetime;

                d) the right to inherit her [property] if she dies during his lifetime. His rights to her property supersede [the rights of] all others.

                divorce on unfavorable terms is mighty tough.

                >the story of daughters of Zelophehad tells us that a woman cannot inherit because these possessions would immediately pass to husband, father, or brother.

                There is no provision for a woman’s property passing to her brother.

                Where does her property come from? Everything she earns belongs to her father until she gets married, whereupon in belongs to her husband. She cannot inherit if she has a husband or a brother.

                >How about we say that these steps are celebrated in the New York Times as movement away from an apartheid state, as movement towards a democratic one state solution, even if that is not how they are sold to the settlers, even if the settlers and the Israeli government are rather alarmed by the New York Times perception of these steps.

                How about “no.” How about we take something quantifiable. Say, the number of settlement homes built in any three year period falls below the number of them destroyed by the Israeli govt.

                Under the one state solution, settlements cease to be a problem. Therefore the deal is likely to be something like settlements continue, but Palestinians make progress towards getting the vote Then they do get the vote, and you all die.

                Again, what to do once you have power is not a complex question. How to get this power, without causing a civil war, is a complex question.

                The reason you would face civil war to prevent you from taking power is because Orthodox Judaism has characteristics that only work in a religion of exile. You have to find a rationale under which orthodox Judaism comes to power, but these scary characteristics do not. Restoration Anglicanism faced the exact same problem. To come to power, you have to make Orthodox Judaism less scary than progressivism – which is not all that hard because progressivism is plenty scary for Jews.

                SA was an American/Euro client state, fighting Soviet client states. We can maneuver between Russia, the US, China and the EU ad infinitum.

                Russian client states like Syria and Iran. Russia and China are not going to support the right of Jews to rule over Muslims. EU is a muppet state of the State Deparment, and the Jews are being cleansed from the EU.

                That’s not where you start. You start by getting the power to make and enforce laws.

                Orthodox Jews are frightened of such power, which is why they don’t want the temple. Exile is very comfortable, for while in exile they have concocted all these laws that they are very comfortable not being able to enforce.

                Your problem is not that progressives are more comfortable with progressives in power and the temple just out of reach. Progressives are, as you say, more and more discredited in Israel.

                Your problem is that orthodox Jews are more comfortable with progressives in power and the temple just out of reach.

          • B says:

            >By the time they get married, it is too late to have children.

            What is the average Silicon Valley SWPL age of first marriage, 35? My mother had her last 2 kids at 44 and 45-I don’t buy the theory.

            >This is a source. It would seem to imply that every protestant male of rank or property had the right to bear arms.

            Your link is broken. Anyway, translate “protestant male of rank and property” to today’s terms, you’ll get “looneys living in compounds in TX need not apply.” Just to make things clear, I am all for gun rights for everyone at all times, except for actual criminals, just making the argument that this is not a very reactionary stance.

            >The ecosystem of companies and privateers was the empire. There was no official government empire to cast a shadow until the late nineteenth century.

            Not so. The Sepoy Mutiny, which saw the failure of the East India Company to keep a grip on its military and subjects, caused a reorganization where the Empire took over completely. For a long time until then, the only thing keeping the French etc. from eating the EIC alive was the presence of the British Navy in the Indian Ocean.

            > I am pretty sure if that if orthodox Jews back then had a different (more progressive) view on marriage than Christians, everyone would have noticed.

            People’s ability not to notice is phenomenal.

            >“The dominant and active partner”- sounds like a restatement of my argument.

            Your argument is that the minor partner has no rights or recourse, and the major partner’s obligations are not enforced upon him. Our law is not like this.

            >That link is post 1972. Gimme the pre 1968 version.

            If I just give you the book of Mishne Torah dealing with the halakhot of marriage, is that enough?

            http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/952878/jewish/Ishut-Chapter-Four.htm

            From here, you see that a woman has a choice whom to marry, she has agency.

            http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/952886/jewish/Ishut-Chapter-Twelve.htm

            From here and the following chapters, you can see a man’s responsibilities and obligations to his wife, her rights over him, etc.

            >And he manages it, and normally she does not keep her earnings.

            You can see that any property she did not bring to her husband’s household, which is not listed in the ketubah remains hers. He manages it, but he can’t sell it without her consent. He benefits from the proceeds (because of his obligation to redeem the wife if she becomes a captive,) but can’t diminish the principal. Anything he gives her as a present is hers.

            http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/952890/jewish/Ishut-Chapter-Sixteen.htm

            http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/952896/jewish/Ishut-Chapter-Twenty-Two.htm

            And in the Proverbs I quoted you, the woman is praised for her business acumen, managing her own property, buying, etc. Maybe King Shlomo was a writer for the NYT?

            >But they would have become the property of their brothers, had they had brothers.

            No, I don’t think so. You have a source?

            >Not seeing that, since the Daughters of Zelophehad were specifically an abnormal state of things.

            Only in the sense that there was divine inheritance being distributed. In the Mishne Torah above you can see that a woman does have a choice whom to marry.

            >the story of daughters of Zelophehad tells us that a woman cannot inherit because these possessions would immediately pass to husband, father, or brother.

            There is no provision for a woman’s property passing to her brother. Obviously her inheritance won’t pass to her father, as he is who she inherits FROM. Her husband gets to manage her inheritance and keep the proceeds only because of his obligation to redeem her if she becomes a captive.

            >Paul had a deep and wise insight into human nature, and especially the nature of females.

            Yes, making celibacy and eunuchhood the human ideal is indicative of a very wise insight.

            >How about we say that these steps are celebrated in the New York Times as movement away from an apartheid state, as movement towards a democratic one state solution, even if that is not how they are sold to the settlers, even if the settlers and the Israeli government are rather alarmed by the New York Times perception of these steps.

            How about “no.” How about we take something quantifiable. Say, the number of settlement homes built in any three year period falls below the number of them destroyed by the Israeli govt.

            >Says the man who does believe in a religion that demands exemption from military service in a state under dire and imminent threat.

            Not I, said the rabbit. All my friends and neighbors served, my son will serve, and I served in the American military for a decade and would serve here if they let me. I am religious Zionist, not Haredi. And you still believe in nothing. Not an insult, just a statement of fact.

            >One change, obviously, you need to make is to valorize military service, courage in war, and the taking of risks in war.

            Before telling us what we need to do, you might want to check that we don’t do it already. For instance, one of my students is in the special operations community. His unit is 30% religious, meaning, the religious Zionists are overrepresented vs. their percentage of the population.

            >More importantly, for you and your descendants to stay alive, your religion needs to become the state religion in place of progressivism.

            You then proceed to give some Baron Munchausen prescriptions.

            >They just cannot boil a kid in its mothers milk, and own land, vote or go to the best universities.

            The specific prescription is not workable. The overall thrust is alright, but does not deal with the real question, which is, how do we get in a position to enact religious laws from the current situation, where the institutions of power are secular and lefter than left.

            >Current non Jewish landowners get long term leases, which in due course creep up to market rents.

            Again, what to do once you have power is not a complex question. How to get this power, without causing a civil war, is a complex question. You are like a guy advising poor people what to do when they get rich. When they get rich, they will have plenty of ways to spend their money without asking for your advice. How to get there is the question.

            >The same was true in South Africa until it did.

            SA was an American/Euro client state, fighting Soviet client states. We can maneuver between Russia, the US, China and the EU ad infinitum.

            >If you are rationalizing the emancipation of women into orthodox Judaism, others are rationalizing equal rights for Palestinians – including your own, Jewish Home party, so terrified of being accurately accused of apartheid.

            They’re not mine.

            >You need to yield on what does not matter, the pile of holiness that makes most orthodox Jews not want Orthodox Judaism to become the state religion

            Those who yielded on Torah throughout the ages are no longer with us. I sometimes meet their descendants, coming back through conversion.

            >stop yielding on what does matter: Systematically lower status for women and higher status for men, and an apartheid state, a state that while not oppressing the non Jew, not oppressing non citizens resident in Israel (Exodus 22:21), nonetheless preserves the separation of Jews, is ruled by Jews, is a state of Jews, with non Jews as outsiders, non citizens, and non landowners. Start by segregating your universities and remedying non Jewish landownership.

            That’s not where you start. You start by getting the power to make and enforce laws.

  6. Thales says:

    “First they came for the people that thought private thoughts in their own home, but I did not speak out because I was a Leftist drone with no thoughts of my own.”

  7. Erik says:

    Wow, just wow.

    Also, lots of idiots in various places chanting (and further mangling) the line “it’s not a free speech issue unless the government arrests you for what you say!” from xkcd, probably the same idiots who think the McCarthy era blacklisting of communists was one of the worst things in history.

  8. Simon says:

    It’ interesting that a Jew has appeared on this blog and seems determined to take over the comments section. It’s only been happening for a week or two, but it has brought the discussion down some.

  9. VXXC says:

    Anyone remember in History where anyone was conquered by pussies, mental cases, hags, fags, cross-dressers and not a man, soldier among them?

    Me neither. Until now.

    Our core problem isn’t the Left. Our core problem is academia – you’re such pussies if it wasn’t the Left it would be somebody. All this nonsense is flowing from the Academy into American Life.

    We have free speech at my workplace. Even with Liberals [although they’re kind of cunts about it behind the back, but not to face].

    I have free speech where I walk. I have low crime in what could be dodgy neighborhoods. I don’t experience repression. If I do I will not be a zero cost proposition at the very least [that means I’m going to hurt you in plain language, which you don’t understand].

    I don’t have academic problems. I don’t live in fear of leftist micro-aggressions because I choose not to accept even real aggression. I’ll quite respond with aggression to aggression. We as a species had this figured out until we invented – writing.

    We have problems in America because we turned over the raising of boys into men from families to teachers and professors, and you’re every bit the cowards and shirkers the Old Timers thought you were. Hell you’re far worse. You’re not afraid of the Left, you’re afraid of it’s Shadow.

    We don’t have to get rid of the Left [for you]. We have to get rid of YOU.

    • hitlerdidsomethingswrong says:

      We don’t have to get rid of the Left [for you]. We have to get rid of YOU.

      Who are you talking to?

      • Dire Badger says:

        I think he’s referring specifically to the Manginae, leftist, and populist egalitarians that are too lazy to raise and educated their children themselves.
        These… for want of a better word, ‘Maleish’ people are directly responsible for the intellectual lexity that allows leftist ideology to thrive despite the mountains of evidence against their position… the founding fathers warned us that all it requires for tyranny to thrive is for ‘good men to remain silent’, and our generation, as a whole (with exceptions in the neoreactionary sphere) have allowed fear, pressure, and the police state to make this the most silent and obedient generation yet…
        Every instinct rebels against the propaganda we have been fed since childhood, and yet we remained silent.
        People get hauled away by the NSA or molested in public by the TSA and yet we remain silent.
        Our families are being wrecked by the person we love most in the world, our children euthanised or given away for adoption without our consent, and yet we remain silent.
        We are being sent to jail by arbitrary debts for a situation we did not create, or on the word of someone who is trying to get out of making daddy mad by claiming ‘rape’, our lives destroyed, and we are forever labelled as untouchables for being deadbeats or sex offenders, and yet we remain silent.
        Our children are being taught to hate freedom, hate men, hate themselves, hate our history, hate their race, hate their natural interests and proclivities, and yet we remain silent.

        And worse than that are the people who actively encourage their own marginalization, slavery and destruction… and they look just like us.

        We do not need to get rid of the authors of our downfall, we need to eliminate the collaborators, the trusties, the overseers, and it is quickly coming to the point where we must also shock or cause pain to those who continue to docilely remain silent, because their silence is assent.

        Humans learn through pain… and without pain, there is no education.

  10. Dire Badger says:

    I really want to ask a weird question… why is the obvious solution always dodged, ignored, subverted, missed, recessed, or never brought up at all?

    The Obvious solution may seem a little inhuman, but, in fact, drugging children and murdering infants is now considered mainstream!The alternative is dramatic, simple, elegant, and generally will make everyone except for a few malcontents happy.

    reinstitutionalize females as property.

    Seriously, this worked throughout history, and there is loads of psychological evidence that this is not only ‘natural’, but desireable.
    Making females property offers incentive to ‘pay’ disaffected young men with a family and a future of their own, it increases population growth, satisfaction, incentivizes loyalty to the organization and prevailing culture, and allows each and every individual to have full placement within heirarchy… something everyone apparently craves.

    It would remove much public vulnerability to propaganda and overloaded consumerism, appeals directly to female desire for involuntary submission (bodice ripper romances and alt books like shades of grey sell nearly three times as many paperbacks as all other genres combined) as well as masculine dominance, eliminates any questions of oppression (well, of course women are oppressed, how else do we protect them?) Eliminates many male incentives for violence and mayhem outside of approved forms, “Wrestle for our slaves? winner take all? how about we just trade, I am bored with mine..” and encourages responsibility… for men because it is neccessary to take care of yourself and your slave and family, and for women because it is absolutely mandatory.

    Sure, you could add in certain community standards “Murdering or maiming your slave will get you flogged… if she sucks, sell her instead”

    It also gives parenting a cash incentive… if you have several daughters, and train them in being pleasant, attractive, healthy, and talented, you could turn them around for an incredible profit if they sell well.

    Rape? rape is a property crime. You can protect your property with a firearm (a few dead rapists more or less) or the offender can be forced to buy the property or fined punitively or even flogged for disregarding property rights.

    There would certainly be a few abuses of the system, but compared to the abuses of the system we have RIGHT NOW, it would likely lead to a higher level of civility and order among the populace, and a greater feeling of fullfillment for all.

    • R7_Rocket says:

      Amen

    • jim says:

      I really want to ask a weird question… why is the obvious solution always dodged, ignored, subverted, missed, recessed, or never brought up at all?

      The Obvious solution may seem a little inhuman, but, in fact, drugging children and murdering infants is now considered mainstream!

      You neglected to mention healthcare systems that murder large numbers of pensioners.

      The alternative is dramatic, simple, elegant, and generally will make everyone except for a few malcontents happy.

      reinstitutionalize females as property.

      Rather wards, who are not quite property. Women have had this status longer than sheep have been property, and are maladapted to independence. They should be in the charge of their fathers, who transfer that authority to their husbands. But they should not be entirely property, rather the man who takes care of them has a duty to make decisions for the female’s good. Fathers should not be able to lease or loan them out. The transfer to a husband’s authority has to full, permanent, and complete, otherwise you encounter the disastrous problems that the Roman Empire and late Roman Republic suffered.

      The Roman problem was that though daughters theoretically remained subject to their fathers when they moved out of their father’s household to their husband’s household, they in practice became subject to no one, as the emperor Augustus discovered to his great embarrassment.

      • Dire Badger says:

        in some cultures, they were wards, but in many cultures, they were full bore property… in fact, in most cases when a culture backslides they immediately become property… transferable as such.

        • Dr. Faust says:

          Only God or other men could stop a group of men from doing whatever they wanted to women. Certainly not the women who would not have the will to resist nor the means. Men lack the will to do it though.

          • Zach says:

            God is dead, but, I suppose religion is entirely useful.

            Real details rape Jim up the mother loving ass of his. He won’t respond to real shit. Not hating. I’d want him to be my king… but he is CLEARLY an old ignorant bastard.

            Love the old man though. He can be my king any day of the week.’

            YOU GO GIRL!

      • hitlerdidsomethingswrong says:

        Fathers should not be able to lease or loan them out.

        Women should not be able to work? Isn’t paid labor effectively renting out your body for a task?

        Or do you just mean sexual leases/loans? Because that just means prostitution should be illegal. Sheep can’t be rented out for sex, either, given bestiality laws.

        But they should not be entirely property, rather the man who takes care of them has a duty to make decisions for the female’s good.

        Are you expecting the government to enforce this duty? How? That seems like either an immense social engineering project, or mere rhetoric that won’t be reflected in politics.

        • Dire Badger says:

          Actually, in my case, I see that as becoming a default state soon enough without interference.

        • jim says:

          Or do you just mean sexual leases/loans? Because that just means prostitution should be illegal.

          I mean that when a woman has socially approved sex with a man, authorized or commanded by her father, she is stuck with that man, he is stuck with her, and she is stuck with his authority, which he cannot sell or give away, he irrevocably gains authority over her and responsibility for her welfare and her father irrevocably loses authority over her. This maximizes everyone’s incentives for good behavior. The patriarchal system of the late Roman Republic and the pagan Roman empire was quite patriarchal, but had bad incentives, resulting in bad behavior, as in the family of Augustus.

          the man who takes care of them has a duty to make decisions for the female’s good.

          Are you expecting the government to enforce this duty? How? That seems like either an immense social engineering project

          Incentives. Fathers care about their daughters. When they transfer authority over their most precious possession to some guy, they will want assurances of good behavior. Thus, social enforcement comes naturally. That social enforcement merely has to be backed by coercive power, not artificially created by coercive power. Family A sues family B that family B has failed in promises made about family A’s daughter, and then, after much scandal and embarrassment, coercive power might (rarely) be applied to family B.

          I envisage this as a lawsuit by dad, not a divorce application by daughter.

          • hitlerdidsomethingswrong says:

            Thus, social enforcement comes naturally.

            Then why make women wards? Just make them the property of their father, and let him set the terms of marriage. You’ll achieve a similar result either way.

            Given what the modern conception of “ward” means, I think you’d be better off referring to women as property. Under our current system, guardians are liable for their ward’s schooling, food, shelter, et cetera, and the requirements are written by Progressives. Don’t want your kid to go to high school? Tough luck. Spank your kids? You lose them.

            The legal approach we take toward animals is preferable – prohibition of various kinds of abuse,, and not much else.

            • jim says:

              OK, outright property, with prohibition of various kinds of abuse, corresponds to what I would have in mind, while “ward” is apt to wind up as state ownership.

              But what has me worried is what happened with the late Roman Republic and the pagan Roman empire, where women remained the property of their fathers, resulting in bad sexual behavior, bad female behavior, and failure to reproduce. To maximize male and female incentives for good behavior, the female needs to become the property of the father of her children.

              On the one hand, do not want women passed around like poker chips. On the other hand, need to get them out of their father’s hand into the hand of the father of their children. The problem is not women as property, it is that we need a system where women become the property of men who have their eyes on the future and posterity, the property of men who have the right incentives.

              The practical effect of the late republic system is that the husband was not the master in his own home, which is the opposite of what you and I intend, and which had the effect of profoundly discouraging marriage and fertility.

          • Matthew says:

            Wifecoin.

  11. R7_Rocket says:

    VXXC said:
    We have problems in America because we turned over the raising of boys into men from families to teachers and professors, and you’re every bit the cowards and shirkers the Old Timers thought you were. Hell you’re far worse. You’re not afraid of the Left, you’re afraid of it’s Shadow.

    And even then, the Publik Skule “educators” must drug the boys in order to have them sit still during the boring leftist propaganda lecture.

  12. namae nanka says:

    ‘Wow, just wow’ is my reaction and the only time that I ever think this usually employed as a mark of lefty indignation makes any sense. Just wow!

  13. J says:

    Jim said: “The greater force driving Jewish history is in this case that progressivism is the official religion, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that progressivism will kill you all. If you had a credible alternative official religion, it would win easily. But you don’t.”

    We are aware that progressivism and democracy may kill us all. Our problem is that we are trapped in an universe ruled by fanatic progressivists in Europe and the US that are pressuring us, in a million ways, to be like them. Much of our elite has absorbed the progressivist religion (like the Justice, the Education and Environment branches of the State, as well as the media) and are working for our destruction.

    This conflict is going on since Napoleon, who granted civil rights to Jews conditioned on rejection Judaism and the adoption of the religion of Progress and the adoration of the Goddess of Reason (yes, the Jacobines invented such figure).

    We do have a credible ethnic/national religion, but should it be proclaimed as our State religion, the world would immediately return us to the status of parias in a ghetto (like in pre-Napoleon Europe) and that is impalatable after 200 years of almost freedom and equality and wealth. And we lack the conviction of Rav Kahana who urged us to stop this democratic imbecility and rebuild our ancestral national organization.

    • jim says:

      This conflict is going on since Napoleon, who granted civil rights to Jews conditioned on rejection Judaism and the adoption of the religion of Progress and the adoration of the Goddess of Reason

      And today, if an orthodox Jew applies to harvard, his submission essay needs to conceal his orthodoxy, or else explain that orthodoxy, rightly understood is, like Christianity and Islam rightly understood, progressivism.

      We do have a credible ethnic/national religion, but should it be proclaimed as our State religion, the world would immediately return us to the status of parias in a ghetto

      Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists seem to get away with proclaiming their religion the state religion. Christians, however, don’t. Jews have not tried it.

      But I don’t think you have a credible ethic/national religion. You have a religion of exile. In ceasing to be a ethnic national religion and becoming a religion of exile, it changed a great deal, a lot more than B admits. Needs to partially change back.

      • Zach says:

        Point blank fact!

        Heh… lovely.

        B is the biological fallacy of all that is. Truth and false is binary. So he’s not quite false. Perhaps we should consider him, the well intentioned Jew. I consider him on the good side, vs someone like Al Sharpton. And, if you know anything, you know free trade is gone, and the fuckers will dictate business on ideology not quality.

        Meh… and so it so…

  14. […] Well! Have we hit Peak Witch Hunt yet? Jim reports on the latest (gee, I dunno… what time is it?) purging of a poor, apologetic centrist, who made the mistake of thinking aloud: […]

  15. Zach says:

    Jim… I’m in awe. You actually know about this?

    Should I plant a thousand bombs here? Got at least 16 or so similar stories (recently). This one just made the news.

    The most pathetic version is the gheytarded speech some guy gave at the GDC, apologizing for being honest. What a whore.

    FYI: GDC 2013, the twitter fiasco, and the following talk.

    What a disgusting pig. The accused, and the victim.

  16. Zach says:

    Any one of you white trash have a problem with Mel Gibson or Sterling…

    ?

    Low on time, high on work. No trolling by me. Please… tell me…

  17. Zach says:

    Further example of real liberal thought:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dCD9977ARY

    Vomit inducing.

  18. Be wary of how much time you spend playing video games, as it can become addicting.

    i – OS games and applications are written in a programming language called Objective-C.

    Looking into your tire repair kit, you notice that the contents not
    only include patches and glue but also a tiny piece of sand paper.

Leave a Reply