Neoreaction and Identitarianism

Neoreactionaries rightly look down on identitarians as low class, vulgar, stupid, and, worst of all, leftist.

“You think construction workers should vote!  Worse, some of you think women should vote.  You are so ignorant of history that you hate capitalism, forgetting how Europe became rich.  And a lot of you are so stupid you think the Joos brought down the two towers.”

This tempts neoreactionaries to say to progressives

“See, we are not like those horrible identitarians. We are like you progressives, smart and civilized”

Then the neoreactionary slobbers all over the progressive’s boots like a puppy and rolls over like a puppy to expose his stomach.  Then he pees himself in his excitement.

But, of course, neoreactionaries are identitarians, among other things.

And to remind myself, and everyone else, that neoreactionaries are identitarians, I say that for the white race to survive, it has to reverse the emancipation of women, for we cannot have families if women are equal, and whites cannot reproduce successfully without male headed families, and that for the white race to survive, we must end universal suffrage, for universal suffrage gives politicians an overwhelming incentive to buy the cheapest possible votes, and the cheapest possible vote bank is to import an unproductive foreign alien underclass to live on crime and welfare to outvote and ethnically cleanse the natives.

And when any identitarian hears me say “for the white race to survive”, he knows that I also am an identitarian.

Tags:

166 Responses to “Neoreaction and Identitarianism”

  1. Sam says:

    Identitarians’ critique of Neoreaction is that although it nominally sees “Ethno-Nationalism” as one of its essential tenets, practically speaking, Neoreactionaries don’t dwell enough upon it, indeed they neglect it. Since Ethno-Nationalism is the most controversial part of Neoreaction, at least according to Identitarians, it then follows that to be truly *reactionary*, one must not shirk from addressing thoroughly the issues of racial purity, the Jews, religion vs. nationalism, etc. To do so would be to only go as far as the Progs allow you to, although within very broad limits.

    Patriarchy/Tradition, although degraded by the MSM which deems it too “controversial” to even consider, can still be publicly argued-for in certain (small, diminishing) circles, likewise immigration-restriction. Anti-democracy stances are also nothing unheard of. But what cannot be discussed are exactly those issues Identitarians insist upon bringing up: Jews, Christian universalism, race-realist policies (we already know races are different – but what should we do about it?), etc.

    • jim says:

      Racial impurity is only a problem to the extent that is leads to dysgenesis – importing slaves, then mingling with them is dysgenic. Importing and absorbing east asians not a problem. Nor is importing blacks and not absorbing them a problem.

      • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

        Can you name an area that, while geographically intermixed with blacks, did not absorb them? Obviously, only long-term examples count.

        Afrikaners are about 6%-10% black.

        Most Latin American “Whites” who lived around blacks, have substantial black admixture. (And the ones that don’t, have American native admixture)

        The best example is the US, which was pretty geographically segregated until the 1900s. And has it’s fair share of octoons.

        • jim says:

          The Aryans invaded India about three and half thousand years ago. The native population was a black low IQ population unrelated to negroes, devolved during a period of urban civilization.

          After over three thousand years, some clearly white, Caucasian, high IQ, Aryan groups remain, although Cathedral policy is to breed them out, and it may well be succeeding.

          • Dr. Faust says:

            So I did a quick search for the Aryan invasion of India and all it turned up was some sites calling it a myth. The wiki page doesn’t provide much information either. I’m curious about the subject. Can anyone give me a link to where I can read more?

            • jim says:

              The people on West Hunter‘s blog will be more helpful than here.

              The Aryans (politically correct name proto Indo Europeans) domesticated the horse and developed the war chariot, then proceeded to conquer a large part of the world, sometimes ruling the previous inhabitants, frequently exterminating, rather than ruling, the previous inhabitants.

          • peppermint says:

            well, it has to be a myth, because everyone in India looks the same. It was probably invented by racist Brits to control the population. Some racists claim that the Buddha had blue eyes but told people that the caste system is wrong.

            Also, the Holocaust is true. Nazis really did gas millions of Jews in wooden shower stalls, then process the corpses to get soap and lampshades; nothing else explains the extraordinary reduction in the Jewish population from 2.4 million in Allied-occupied Europe to 3.8 million claiming survivor benefits.

          • josh says:

            What makes you say that the Harappan civilization was low IQ? The invented a writing system and their planned cities and waterworks are extremely impressive for their time. They traded with Sumer and possibly Egypt as well. I would imagine that the relationship between caste and IQ was a result of selective intermarriage during the period following the collapse of the Harappans and the development of Sanskrit.

            • jim says:

              Their descendents are low IQ.

              I conjecture that their upper class women were emancipated, so the upper class failed to reproduce. This enabled upward mobility wherein the upper class sucked in all the smart people, who then failed to reproduce. Seems like a common mode for civilizational failure.

            • jim says:

              Clearly the Harappan civilization was high IQ. The refugees that fled the Harappan civilization were low IQ, and to this day, still are. The refugees could not create or maintain the high culture of the cities that they abandoned. The Aryans don’t seem to have been sufficiently well organized to kill the smartest Harappans, so I think they were invaded because in decline, rather than in decline because invaded.

          • josh says:

            Its likely that the upper classes were massacred and/or intermarried with the Aryan ruling caste. I would assume the disgenic effect came either after the invasion or at least after the natural disasters that cause the Indus to change course and disrupted the society. While its possible that “emancipation” of women and urbanization are a natural fit; you are also essentially just making things up, no?

            • jim says:

              The Indus changed course due to the deliberate destruction of irrigation works. The pastoralist invaders converted the land, or a substantial part of the land, from crop farming to grazing.

              Its likely that the upper classes were massacred and/or intermarried with the Aryan ruling caste.

              The Aryans did not intermarry with the indigenous upper class, and had a long history of indiscriminate massacre. That they converted the land from farming to grazing indicates that they did not want slaves or peasants, they did not want to rule, they wanted grazing land. That they wound up ruling was an unwanted and unintended long term consequence of the fact that it is too much work to kill absolutely everyone.

              While its possible that “emancipation” of women and urbanization are a natural fit; you are also essentially just making things up, no?

              I did say “I conjecture”. Yes, I am making a wild assed guess, to explain the data, the data being that we have a people who are too low IQ to build cities, whose ancestors built the most advanced cities, and had the most advanced technology, of the ancient world.

              The survivors fled eastwards, but did not re-establish or maintain their high level society, nor build cities.

      • Sam says:

        To Identitarians/White Nationalists, racial impurity is a problem regardless of whether it is with brought by intermingling with 90 IQ blacks, 107 IQ East-Asians, or 115 IQ Ashkenazim – the issue is losing the White character, the European essence. East-Asians may be nonviolent and intelligent, but they are not like Europeans. Their sense of morality/empathy, their temperament, mentality (being collectivists), their levels of curiosity and creativity, being less sexually-dimorphic and having a lesser variety of personalities – it all accounts for major differences. Besides, they are just not White. For you this may not be an issue – but it is for most people who identify as WN. Also, how much impurity is too much? How many of them can be imported (and “absorbed”) before Europe losses its White character?

        • jim says:

          Diversity destroys cohesion. IQ is not everything.

          But we have already lost cohesion. If civilization survives, and if whites continue to be a part of it, it is going to be a eurasian civilization. Reality is that the white civilization of the future, if there is one, is going to be in substantial part a mingling of western europeans and east asians.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            He’s talking about more than lost cohesion. To him, and most people, whether they admit it or not, there is an intrinsic value in being around similar people. Not just the cohesion stuff.

          • Michael says:

            jim you seem to miss the obvious problems multiculturalism poses right here and now as do many DENRX blogs. For myself though Though I am glad to see you are more forthright than most while not being of that hateful or nazi socialist fetish group; but while I can understand outsides desire for metropolitan cities and have no objection to guest workers of any race as long as they dont run media practice law etc.
            but when you write that having large non white population is not problematic as long as we don’t interbreed i wonder where you live. Who is to support and police them, and as for the Jews and Asians its the same problem in reverse they pursue their own interests often at our expense in a sort of entryism. now i wish this were not so there are obvious advantages to their high IQs while im open to ways of reprogramming their inherent ethnic preferences i need to see some evidence

            • jim says:

              Jim Crow system worked great. Take the best blacks, sent them to black universities with a syllabus and exams determined by whites, manufacturing a black middle class, including black judges and black lawyers, which you use to rule blacks. Segregation forever!

              As for Jews, east asians, and such, diversity undermines trust and cohesion, so just allow freedom of association. The Jews can run the diamond trade, the whites the beef trade, or however people choose to sort themselves out. There will be Chinese companies in which pretty much all the executives and most of the workers are chinese, and white companies in which all the executives and most of the employees are white. No problem. All university professors at a white university will be white, except for a few exceptional cases. There is a New York City University, I forget its name, that used to be predominantly Jewish, and in consequence had a shitload of noble prize winners. When Jews got to go to Harvard, it lowered its standards, and is now run largely by mentally deficient affirmative action blacks. I doubt that this change has really made Jews better off.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            I’m pretty sure that with your plan, “Jim,” it would be somewhat more than freedom of association. So, “Michael,” take heed. The purveyor of this blog seeks a state church which works to favour a certain group above any others that might gather around it.

            Yes, that’s the right way. There will be a state religion even in a “secularised” state, so let’s take care to ensure that the one that is enacted is one that benefits that benefits the people and the state, not only the short-term benefit of the people(ie. demotism and The Cathedral)

  2. Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

    North Korea has universal suffrage. And I think Singapore and Saudi Arabia do too.

    The key is to render voting irrelevant. There are two options: abolish elections altogether, or abolish elections in effect, while maintaining symbolic elections.

    (even with non-universal suffrage, voting is a terrible way to run government – the people cannot make specific decisions, so they must give the power to an aristocrat, politician, civil servant or whatever)

    • peppermint says:

      Socrates trolled Athenian democrats into killing him, thus proving that democracy is stupid.

      Trolling is the best weapon against the enemies of Gnon. And when they are trolled into using naked force and directly suppressing dissent, they will be on the path towards something more reasonable.

      • peppermint says:

        if you don’t think that Jesus is God, then the death of Socrates at the hands of an orderly process of democracy is more relevant than the death of Jesus at the hands of a feckless bureaucrat trying to placate a raving mob.

      • Thrasymachus says:

        I think Socrates was stupid. Not to mention a degenerate. His buddy Alcibiades was a degenerate and a traitor. These people had at least as much to do with the disaster in Athens as the demos.

      • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

        Socrates’ execution was a big deal because non-progressives ran the Athenian equivalent of the media. It gave the already-anti-democratic philosophers like Aristotle and Plato a way to condemn democracy.

        Today, not so much. The only way an anti-progressive story will be heard by lots of people, is if it’s spread on the internet.

      • Tryptophan says:

        “Socrates trolled Athenian democrats into killing him, thus proving that democracy is stupid.

        Trolling is the best weapon against the enemies of Gnon. And when they are trolled into using naked force and directly suppressing dissent, they will be on the path towards something more reasonable.”

        So the plan is to troll until we are killed? I want off the ride now.

  3. Albert says:

    I agree with everything in there; except using that unappetizing saltless pretzel for a graphic.

  4. Mark Yuray says:

    Jim is always on-point.

    As an aside, you might want to define identitarianism. There seem to be numerous strains that differ heavily in terms of ideology, demographics and cladistics.

    Does identitarianism mean…

    …high-IQ white Brahmins on an incomplete journey to neoreaction?

    …the far-right wing of Europe’s populist nationalist movements?

    …the alternative right wing of Europe’s populist nationalist movements?

    …the motley crew of ideologues from Stormfront, VNN, etc.?

    …the reserved intellectual revival of the Old Right by Spencer, Hood, etc.?

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      He means those who prioritise their own race. It’s easy to see when you make a habit of visiting a lot of pro-white media outlets. “Identitarians”, if that’s the terminology to use today, are all over the place when it comes to value of technlogy, market structure, religion, and tradition. The different stances on the non-racial issues are practically a hallmark.

      A.J.P.

      • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

        For the White Race to Survive:

        1. Politically: a series of genuinely independent countries, who can each set their own immigration policies, gender policies, et cetera. If each country can manage it’s own demographics, over about 100 years, the high-fertility and anti-immigration countries will dominate the world. To do this, you need to break up the USA, and the EU.

        2. Religiously: end all Sola Scriptura religions. Protestantism must die. Catholicism must either return to it’s pre-1914 form, or die. Progressivism must die. In all likelihood, the best religion to replace Progressivism is one that guts it, while maintaining an outward appearance of Progressivism. Just like Deng Xiaoping Theory did to Maoism.

        3. Patriarchy – repeal female emancipation

        4. End low-IQ immigration

        If we’re looking for a Deng Xiaoping Theory of Progresivism, I suggest we start with Lee Kuan Yew, and the ruling Singaporean ideology.

        • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

          This was supposed to be it’s own post

        • jim says:

          If your country is genuinely independent, you don’t want the priesthood answering to Vatican City any more than you want them answering to Harvard and the State Department.

          Christianity is like Paganism in the days of Julian the Apostate: Walking dead.

          Instead of attempting a Christian revival, could rip the guts out of progressivism and do to it what Deng did to Maoism, replace its innards with a bit of confucianism, a bit of paganism, a bit of the Christianity of Charles Martel, and a bit of Odin worship. Announce that this is progressivism with characteristics. Bar anyone with Harvard or Yale connections from any participation in any institutions that are supposed to support progressivism with characteristics. Treat institutional connections to old fashioned progressivism as McCarthy wanted membership of the communist party treated.

          Ruling Singaporean ideology is fine with the very serious exception that women are theoretically equal.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            Fair point about the Pope. Historically, a lot of Roman Catholicism was independent of him, but that is pretty much impossible nowadays. Vatican I, mass media, et cetera.

            And I’m not convinced all of Christianity is dead. Protestantism and Catholicism are. Mormonism and Orthodox Christianity might not be. We’ll see how Russia and the Mormon church play out.

            So far as Singapore goes, I was focusing more on how they’ve tweaked and redefined terms like “free press” and “democracy”. To quote Lee Kuan Yew:

            “Freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore, and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government.”

            “What people mean by consultation is an imitation of what they see in America; pressure groups and lobby groups..It’s an unthinking adoption of Western practices of development without any pruning and modification to suit our circumstances.”

            Basically, he’s expressing reactionary concepts, to appeal to a typical Singaporean, which is a fairly Westernized mind.

            >replace its innards with a bit of confucianism, a bit of paganism, a bit of the Christianity of Charles Martel, and a bit of Odin worship
            confucianism, paganism, and Odin worship have no following in the US. I suggest repeating that you’re loyal to the vision of

            1.The Founding Fathers
            2.Abraham Lincoln
            3.Martin Luther King

            King, Lincoln and Washington have all the state holidays, so we know they’re saints. King is the only difficult figure. However, if selectively quoted, he can be made a centrist figure, who supported law and order. He kept claiming to be nonviolent, and people believed him.

            Here are the ideologies I’d use

            1.Sedevacantism (as you put it “Charles Martel Christianity”) – just turn the churches over to a Sedevacantist bishop, and demonize the current Pope with stuff older Popes said. Modern Catholics won’t care anyway – so what if the Sacraments are illicit?
            2.Old Baptists – push evangelical Christians toward the approach used by older Baptists (the ones in the antebellum South)
            3.Reformers – push conservative Protestants into a selective narrative of the reformers, and run the hierarchical Protestant churches

            The biggest problem is the “spiritual, but not religious” crowd. It’s harder to hijack their religion, because they have no real institutions to coerce.

  5. tg moderator says:

    There is a tendency for reactionaries to obsess over the structure of govt. (must be hierarchical), and forget all other factors. In the real world a highly intelligent and productive workforce can produce a great civilization in spite of socialist inefficiencies. Think of Japan before 1992 or so, or better yet Sweden. As Steve Sailer often points out Sweden was one of the most socialist countries in Europe, yet it was a pretty nice place to live when it was full of Swedish people instead of violent immigrants. I wonder if today’s incident will wake the Canadians up? Nope. Dumb question.

    • jim says:

      Japanese are not breeding. Swedes are not breeding. (The supposedly high swedish reproduction rate is brown skinned Muslims on welfare. White fertility in Sweden is down to near Japanese levels.)

      Superior people need conditions under which the best of them reproduce.

      • thinkingabout it says:

        is that really true? I saw fertility stats for sweden and I was shocked that such a feminist socialist hellhole was having such high fertility. If it’s the muslims, then it all makes sense.

        • Dr. Faust says:

          A search for muslim fertility rates in europe turns up dozens of videos and stories about the Islamization of Europe and Sweden in particular. Native fertility rates are in the toilet.

        • Fertility rates fluctuate. Japan was one of the most populous nations on Earth in the 16th century when the Brits first heard of it, far bigger than England (26 million vs. 4.5 million). The population of Japan was a steady 30 million until the mid 19th century when political turmoil ended traditional fertility control and an expansionist imperial state actively encouraged fertility it peaked at 127 million a couple of years ago. Japan is crowded though, and now the population is shrinking back to something more manageable and enjoyable for the Japanese themselves.

          The Swedish case is completely different. The fertility of Sweden followed that of other protestant countries until emigration kicked in, mid 19th century to 1914, and Sweden lost of a quarter of its population to the US and Canada. After that fertility decreased to a slight above replacement level. Then mass immigration happened and the generous Swedish welfare system which was geared towards making it as easy as possible for Swedish women to have children had the unwanted effect of opening up for a massive population boom that suppressed ethnic Swedish population even further. It is illegal according to Swedish law to register the ethnicity of native born Swedes so we have no way of determining the relative fertility of ethnic Swedes compared to that of second generation immigrants but anecdotal evidence, studies of second hand evidence (child naming records to find typical non-ethnic Swedish names etc.) make strong support for the claim that the majority of births in Sweden today are to non-ethnic Swedish women.

          One of the main reasons Swedish ethnic fertility rates keep going down is becaue of a. Emigration of young Swedish women, b. unemployment keeping more women at a fertile age out of the workforce and thus keeping them from starting families, c. a lack of faith in the temporarily diverse future of Sweden (Sweden will of course sooner or later become homogenous again, but it will not be the descendants of today’s ethnic Swedes).

          • Red says:

            Being out of the workforce stops family formation? I think you need to recheck your ideas. Female empowerment killed fertility levels as demonstrated in the recent end of the patriarchy in Indian. Check Indian fertility rates since American TV become a big thing.

  6. Latecomer says:

    The white race in America is d.o.o.m.e.d.
    The catchall term “white” is itself a desperate attempt to save something, anything.
    The instant European immigrants landed here, and subsequently amalgamated, assimilated, etc., they effectively forfeited their heritage. Any attempt to hold onto hold onto it is mere kitsch, even if certain values continue to be passed on with (always diminishing) success. To resort to calling yourself white, rather than say Polish or Spanish, is to cede the battleground, anticipating loss.
    Contemporary use of the term “white” is then understood as a sedative, rather than a temporary banner behind which different whites can rally before resuming ancient tribal conflicts.
    America always meant exile, always meant this, we just refused to believe it due to the veil of global supremacy.

  7. Latecomer says:

    But with the question of bio-genetic enhancement on the horizon, doesn’t eugenic fertility become more a question of how access/denial to enhancement is meted out? It may be safe to say that whites will be the most instrumental in developing these technologies, but that’s no guarantee that they’ll give preference to their own race, especially given the current political state. Maybe you’re right though in the sense that seeing a positive trend up to that point would incentivize access privilege along racial lines. Tough to predict.

    • jim says:

      Genetic enhancement is quite a ways off, and the way the wind blows, we will be in a dark age before we get there.

      In principle, using known technology, we could very shortly be creating very smart people, far smarter than any existing human, and creating them in very large numbers, just as using the technology used to bomb London, we knew in 1950 how to reach the moon. But progress has been slowing ever since around 1875, due in part to an ever dumber ruling elite.

  8. vxxc2014 says:

    Construction workers have jobs, and when they don’t have them want them more than anything. Construction workers produce. 2 qualities – productivity and self-support – that should at least put them in the running for voting.

    They produce and they have jobs, unlike many neo-reactionaries who want Gamer and Blogger to be considered productive occupations.

    IQ – hasn’t rule of the smart taught us anything about IQ? It should be on a list of flags disqualifying one for office, including the office of voter. Which should of course be treated as an office. Also a flag for potential white collar criminal tendencies, sexual deviancy, psychopathic disorders; in other words a person to watch closely.

    We can’t have voters were worried about, that they’ll always be some sort of Parliament is worry enough.

    Have you heard of the Fenice? Walked into any old Church? would you really deny the hands that could make that a voice and choice in how they are governed? Could anyone here carve one plank of the Fenice? I’d be afraid to touch it, almost sacrilegious. Hands that make such things that in some cases last thousands of years – the Pyramids come to mind or the Hagia Sophia – deserve to be heard however humbly.

    • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

      Should a construction voter have the same voting power as a CEO of 50-employee corporation? The CEO probably pays 20x more in taxes.

      Maybe the modern equivalent of land requirements in a person’s tax bill. Minimum of $5,000 in federal taxes to be able to vote.

      Also, voting is stupid in general.

      Suppose instead of electing congressmen, we simply had people vote on the legislation proposed in Congress. All hell would break lose. People wouldn’t know what they’re voting on.

      Workable political systems depend on removing actual decision-making power from 99% of the population, who are, by necessity, not informed enough to actually make decisions. The most influence the masses can have, is to set an overall framework for government (minarchist, social democratic, maoist, et cetera), and let somebody else make most of the decisions.

  9. scientism says:

    I think the focus on an identity is a Leftist holdover. Lineage would be more palatable and would fit your family-centric model. It’s obvious that families that have been in a place for generations have a greater claim to it, just as its obvious to anyone but a Leftist that immigrant families have to work harder to establish themselves (it’s even obvious to successful immigrant families). If we’re going back to a traditional family model, then we’ve already secured an argument against mass immigration of labour. Do we need the additional proviso of racial purity? Stop importing low-skilled workers, end the welfare state, reverse the emancipation of women, respect lineage and inheritance (what we “inherit” – genes, wealth, status – is not “luck”), yes. But it’s a father’s decision who his daughter marries, and who’s to say intermarriage wouldn’t make strategic sense in some circumstances? Among elites, for example? We’ve been doing that for thousands of years; in the age of jet planes, it may involve accepting grandchildren with Asiatic features.

    • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

      Family and race overlap.

      In Ireland, everybody was a distant cousin to everybody, because they were all part of a few clans. But few people were distant cousins to any Germans.

      Immediate Family > Extended Family > Clan > Ethnicity > Race

      William Wallace Family > Alan Wallace Family > Clan Wallace > Scottish > White

      • scientism says:

        Intermarriage is likely going to happen is cosmopolitan areas. In the past, that was on borders and trade routes. Nowadays, it’s in cities with international airports. Finance, trade, science and technology are necessarily cosmopolitan, and trying to police those areas of society would take an economic and diplomatic toll. Nobody is ever clear on how they’d implement racial purity policy-wise anyway. I’d say: end mass immigration (including the poor from “white” countries) but just accept that, in some areas, people from distant lands will mix socially and want to marry sometimes. It wouldn’t be at a high rate and you could charge a hefty fee for visas as a disincentive to stop marriages of convenience.

        • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

          I think you’re missing an important element. Modern Cosmopolitan areas increase the ability to segregate.

          In a rural area, your childhood friends are the nearby kids. In a city, they’re the kids most like you at school. Cities have all sorts of subcultures that rural areas don’t have, because there are so much more choices in friends.

          In the past 100 years, we’ve seen a large increase in the correlation of spouse’s IQs. People are marrying other people from the same urban subculture.

          Cities are extremely well-segregated. Conservatives will marry conservatives. Goths will marry goths. Hipsters will marry hipsters. The end result of this process will be an extremely genetically diverse society. Even if the initial population was homogenous, and you permitted no immigration.

          To the extent that these subcultures and their related personality traits are genetic, we’ll get extreme forms of it. Super-hipsters, super-goths, super-conservatives.

          Of course, we’ll probably only see the genes of the high-fertility subcultures survive.

          Assuming we can avoid the dark age Jim is predicting, 500 years from now the world won’t have any of the ethnic groups we currently have. They’ll all be somewhat mixed. But there will be a bunch of people with fantastic self-discipline, and another bunch with super-high IQs. Et cetera.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            …Assuming we can avoid the dark age Jim is predicting, 500 years from now the world won’t have any of the ethnic groups we currently have. They’ll all be somewhat mixed…

            No, Asia will still be full of Asians and Africa full of Africans. Only white people in white countries are being blended away. It’s White Genocide.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            It’s not like China will colonize Africa or anything.

            Or that White people will move to the few places that welcome them, like Singapore, China and Oman.

          • Nyan Sandwich says:

            >500 years from now, assuming no dark age.

            We’ll be genetic supermen living on Mars. Let’s focus on that “no dark age” thing.

        • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

          Cosmopolitan areas will lose ethnic homogeneity, in exchange for subcultural homogeneity.

  10. spandrell says:

    Human history only knows of two sorts of identities: ethnic or religious. Can’t go with neither, gotta choose one.

    Historically religion has worked better to cement large scale groups, but HBD tells us we can’t just ignore ethnicity. But ethnicity alone doesn’t work for big groups.

    You know the conclusion.

    • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

      Why not both?

      It only becomes a problem if they conflict. And if you have a pro-ethnic religion (which most Traditional religions are) that won’t happen much.

      • spandrell says:

        Traditional religions are pro-ethnic? huh?

        20% of the Russian elite were converted Tatars.

        European Christians for centuries have travelled around the world to convert peoples of all races.

        Arabs converted the Turks to Islam only to get their asses kicked for the rest of history.

        All axial age religions are universalist. All of them.

        • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

          Wanting to convert outsiders does not equal wanting to mix with outsiders.

          (Jim is telling Hong Kong to try a more authoritarian rule, does that mean he wants to mix with the Chinese?)

          The real question is whether the religion systematically breaks down ethnic barriers, or systematically reinforces them. Roman paganism broke down ethnic barriers, because it used worship of the Roman gods for imperial rule. Judaism and most forms of Hinduism reinforced ethnic barriers.

          With the possible exception of Islam, Monotheist religions don’t seem to be any more or less pro-ethnic than Polytheistic ones. Present Western Christianity has given itself over to Progressivism, of course, and is not really Christianity.

          • Just sayin' says:

            This sort of “nuanced” position was more viable when the other ethnic groups were far away. Or at least, the ones that it was really bad to mix with were far away.

            We all saw how well that “nuance” held up in Latin America. And HBD tells us that what happened there was pretty much a disaster.

            Nowadays, people of other ethnic groups are all around us. And many of them are Christians. And many of them are really, really dysgenic to mix with.

            When your daughter brings home a good, Christian Homo Erectus and want to marry him, the Christian man is in a bit of a pickle. He has all the things you claim to value, but he’s going to ruin your genetic line.

            People need a clear message, not a nuanced one.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            To quote Orthodox canon law on marriage:

            >38. Maidens who without the consent and advice of their father run after men are guilty of fornication. But if the parents can be reconciled, the matter would seem to be susceptible of remediation. But they are not to be restored to communion directly; they must, on the contrary, be sentenced to three years.

            Traditional Christianity recognizes two paths to holiness: marriage and monasticism. The “single lifestyle”, which you implies when you said “brings home a [man]” does not exist in Christianity, only in heretical sects and lax believers.

            It’s also worth pointing out that racial religions have brought demographic suicide too. Nazi Germany failed to fix their demographic problems (i.e. birth-rate), and due to military policy, turned the country over to Communists and Liberal Democrats.

            If you had a viable racial religion, it would be an interesting discussion. But you don’t. The closest would be Mormonism, which gave up the racial element in the 1970s.

            All religions are getting pulled into Progressivism, at varying speeds. And the worship of Thor would become Progressive, too, if it had a significant following.

            In fact, I’d expect Thor-worship to be particularly vulnerable to Progressivism, because it has few clear teachings. Maybe some form of Hinduism? In the US, Hindus are quite Progressive.

            • jim says:

              38. Maidens who without the consent and advice of their father run after men are guilty of fornication. But if the parents can be reconciled, the matter would seem to be susceptible of remediation.

              “Guilty of fornication” is a bad law. The matter should be remediable by shotgun marriage whether the parents like it or not. It is the natural order of things that women should leave the authority of their parents to come under the authority of their husbands. What needs to be prevented is them leaving the authority of their parents to come under no one’s authority.

              Augustan law favored the authority of the father over the authority of the husband, disempowering the husband. This had pretty much the same outcomes as if he had gone full feminist. In practice, fathers could not, or would not, restrain their adult daughters living in someone else’s household, nor prevent their horny fertile age daughters from getting nailed.

              The only way to handle the problem, the way that historically works, the way that the European upper class did it in times of well enforced marriage and successful patriarchy, is that when they start to howl for sex, shortly after menarche, sometimes shortly after andrenarche, the parents organize small dances with parentally selected suitors, events where they are socially required to touch and be touched in a sexy way. The suitor and the girl then, in order to get at each other in an even more intimate fashion, engage – meaning they commit to the parents of the girl to marry if they have sex, or commit to marry if the girl gets pregnant. Parents then let nature take its course.

              Eloping also works provided it has elements of abduction, provided that the man that the girl elopes with has the support of his family and male relatives, who support the groom because he intends marriage, which family and male relatives are capable of enforcing marriage upon the bride.

              The state and society need to ensure the authority of the husband, for attempting to prolong the authority of the father has never succeeded. Teenage girls have always been as they are.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            Also, you seem to miss the point of religion. It’s goal is not to prevent demographic problems, any more than it’s goal is to prevent bad economic/business decisions.

            You’re trying to turn a religion into a full life-manual. Which it isn’t. And can’t be.

            If it prohibits “mixing of Whites with non-Whites”, how does it define “White”? If the definition is pretty flexible (i.e. can include Persians, if the believer wants), you’re fucked. What’s the point of that racial religion? It only keeps out the worst genes. If the definition is inflexible (i.e. only Germans), the religion will not be practical to follow in a lot of situations (i.e. the US, where almost nobody is pure German, but lots of people are Northern European).

            You can’t have rigid moral codes, for things that tend to be quite fluid and relative. Like ethnicity and race.

            Which is why the Nazi quasi-religion had insane racial policies, like making the top Jewish scientists flee Germany. And killing the “inferior” Poles, while encouraging the dumbest Germans to breed.

            • jim says:

              You’re trying to turn a religion into a full life-manual. Which it isn’t. And can’t be.

              Then what good is it? The function of religion is to provide divine authority when authority tells stupid people to do what smart people would do.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            Nazism was leftist on everything but race. When it did that, it produced weird policy. A German child with an IQ of 80 got better educational support than a Polish child with an IQ of 120. Yet which one is likely to improve the Reich?

            Modern racial religions tend to operate the same way. This includes stuff like the Nation of Islam.

            They draw some imaginary line between the in-group and out-group, and rarely recognize non-racial differences. So a “White” man with an IQ of 80 should make babies, but an Oriental man with an IQ of 120 should not.

            And where does the line between “White” and “non-White” exist? Based on what I’ve seen on /pol/ and Stormfront, everybody has their own different definition. Italians? Serbs? Greeks? Russians? Spanish? Turks? Persians?

            What about a guy who is 90% Spanish, and 10% Native American?

            A rational approach will recognize that a White female with an IQ of 80, marrying a Negro with an IQ of 100, isn’t such a bad thing. Probably better for her to marry a White male with an IQ of 80. But even with the Black husband, the White race lost some highly sub-optimal genes, and the Black race gained.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            >“Guilty of fornication” is a bad law. The matter should be remediable by shotgun marriage whether the parents like it or not.
            >Eloping also works
            So if someone convinces a woman to marry him, he is entitled to her? You talk about opposing female choice, then give her the choice in marriage. Lots of young women want to marry Justin Bieber.

            >Augustan law favored the authority of the father over the authority of the husband, disempowering the husband.
            Agreed. But any woman in a Christian marriage, is told to submit to her husband’s authority (and nothing about the Father’s authority). And if she follows canon law, is effectively under the control of her husband. She cannot divorce him, and he can, if nothing else, beat her to establish authority.

            >”Whoever keeps an adulteress is foolish and impious” (Prov. 18:22, according to the Septuagint version, but not in the A.V. or R.V.). Custom, on the other hand, commands that men who are guilty of adultery or of acts of fornication must be kept by their wives; so that as regards a woman who is cohabiting with a man who has been left can be accounted an adulteress. For the fault here lies in the woman who divorced her husband, according to whatever reason she had for undoing the marriage. For whether it be that when beaten she could not bear the blows, but ought rather to have exercised patience, or to obtain a divorce from the man with whom she at the time was cohabiting, or whether it be that she could not afford to lose the money, neither is this any excuse worthy considering. But if it were on account of his living in a state of fornication, we have no such observance in ecclesiastical usage, but neither is the wife of a faithless husband commanded to separate from him, but, on the contrary, she has to stay with him owing to the fact that the issue of the matter is unknown. “For what knowest thou, Ο wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?” (I Cor. 7:16). So that a woman who deserts her husband becomes an adulteress in case she comes to another man.

            >attempting to prolong the authority of the father has never succeeded
            Prior to marriage, the father’s authority. After marriage, the husband’s authority. Is the choice to initiate marriage up to the father, or whichever suitor can charm the daughter? Preferably, the father will incorporate her wants into his decision. But few teenage girls can reliably choose a husband.

            >Then what good is it? The function of religion is to provide divine authority when authority tells stupid people to do what smart people would do.
            It can’t do much more than provide a general framework for complex decisions. It can’t be a life-manual, just a manual on certain universal things like sex.

            Religion can tell you when sex is moral. It can’t tell you how to find a wife, except maybe some general principles that everyone knows. Finding a wife will vary by your culture, class, IQ, desired wife, et cetera.

            Identitarian religion is trying to build a detailed moral framework, and can’t really do it. The principle “marrying/fucking those genetically similar to you is better” is an excellent principle. But it’s relative and general. And there are a bunch of caveats.

            The principle “Whites can only marry/fuck Whites” is a terrible principle. It’s either too subjective, and permits quasi-Whites to enter the gene pool. Or it’s too specific, and excludes a bunch of reasonable marriages.

            If you can find some universally-applicable, specific rule on which racial marriages are permitted, I’d love to hear it.

            • jim says:

              So if someone convinces a woman to marry him, he is entitled to her?

              I also favor getting out of the way of volcanic eruptions. Blocking female choice is like flood control. Sometimes you just try to channel the waters to where the flood is not quite so destructive.

              You talk about opposing female choice, then give her the choice in marriage. Lots of young women want to marry Justin Bieber.

              It should be illegal for her to fuck Justin Bieber, and illegal for Justin Bieber to fuck her. But if they piously announce that they were engaged to be married, and now of course they are getting married, then legal, provided they do in fact get married.

              However the next girl that fucks Justin Bieber cannot say that, since he is already married. So the next girl goes to jail for fornication and gets her identity card stamped “Slut” in big red letters for the benefit of every future employer, suitor, etc, and upon getting out of jail gets corporal punishment from her father or her husband, while Justin Bieber has to pay an arm and leg to her father or husband, and if he cannot settle financially with the father or husband, he goes to jail also.

              >attempting to prolong the authority of the father has never succeeded.

              Prior to marriage, the father’s authority. After marriage, the husband’s authority. Is the choice to initiate marriage up to the father, or whichever suitor can charm the daughter?

              Ideally, the father locks up his daughter at andrenarche, denying her all access to all males that are not close relatives, and then when she starts howling at the moon and backing up bent over into the doorknob, introduces her to a selected suitor, and then has them do some sexy dancing together. He then extracts a promise from both of them to marry if they go at it, and shortly thereafter they marry.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            >Blocking female choice is like flood control. Sometimes you just try to channel the waters to where the flood is not quite so destructive.
            And a wise father will use this reasoning. But should the ultimate power of decision remain with the Father, or daughter?

            And females, especially young females, have fickle emotions. So controlling them is necessary, because if there is no ultimate Paternal authority, hell breaks loose. But you seem to be advocating that. If she knows she can elope with somebody, and Daddy can’t come take her back, half the girls will elope whenever she feels Daddy is unfair to her.

            >However the next girl that fucks Justin Bieber cannot say that, since he is already married.
            Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you have polygamy, your approach breaks down.

            • jim says:

              >Blocking female choice is like flood control. Sometimes you just try to channel the waters to where the flood is not quite so destructive.

              And a wise father will use this reasoning. But should the ultimate power of decision remain with the Father, or daughter?

              If a fertile age female is under her father’s control, she is a volcano that is about to erupt, if she has not erupted already. If she is under her husband’s control, far less disruptive to society.

              The longer a woman is under the control of her father, and not under the control of her husband, the more she is going to fuck around. So:

              Firstly, society needs to get girls fucking around married and make them stay married. Society or the state can no more give ultimate power of decision to the father, than it can prevent a volcano from erupting.

              Secondly, society needs to get fertile age girls married as fast as possible, because if not they are going to fuck around. If Dad locks them up they will gnaw through the door. A father that does not take action to get his daughters married as soon as they start getting frisky is acting anti socially, is behaving badly, needs to be pressured to get a move on.

              What should happen is that as soon as his daughter reaches fertile age, he should marry her off to a suitable young man who has the capacity to support her and will shortly have the capacity to support her and a child. If that does not happen, something needs to be done urgently. You cannot expect fertile age girls to not fuck.

              Ideally they should marry and fuck someone selected and approved by their father, but if he does not select and approve a suitable young man in a timely fashion, they are going to start fucking regardless come hell or high water, and all that the state and society can do is get her under the authority of suitable husband as fast as possible, because uncontrolled female sexuality is socially disruptive.

              If she knows she can elope with somebody, and Daddy can’t come take her back, half the girls will elope whenever she feels Daddy is unfair to her.

              Sure, but then she is not allowed to leave her husband because she feels husband is unfair to her. So, female is still under male authority, and, more importantly, her sexual desires are being gratified, reducing her propensity to destroy surrounding society. Fertile age females under the control of their fathers are dangerous, because not getting nailed on a regular basis. Fertile age females under the control of their husbands are considerably less dangerous, because they are getting regular sexual gratification.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            http://blog.jim.com/politics/neoreaction-and-identitarianism/#comment-764501

            Hahahaha! And then you want “Jim” to explain a good law on racial marriages? You’re arguing in bad faith “Adolph,” you are anti-white to the core. You’re revolting. I hope you don’t consider yourself NRx, because you haven’t the the slightest idea about “Identitarianism” or racial identity… This could be a good place for someone who has at least an inkling of what it might be about, but you aren’t even through the door on the ground level.

            “Jim” said it pretty well in the blog-post. Re-read and then go out to other pro-white places and splash around in the comment section. You’ll either sink or swim.

            A.J.P.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”

            I think you might be nibbling around the concepts of codified law and common law.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            What, pray tell, in that post is incorrect? Nazism WAS leftist on everything but race. Modern racial religions do draw arbitrary lines, and make simplistic moral codes, that could never work in real life.

            Most importantly, modern racial religions are like Nazism, in that they’re generally egalitarian or egalitarian-leaning for the in-group. Which is why many of them are national socialists. Because they’re leftists, except on race.

          • B says:

            You know, the reason I never really identified as a neoreactionary is because right from the beginning I saw that as a popular movement, it would go to the lowest common denominator and the retards would first join up, then start having votes on who should and shouldn’t be allowed in the treehouse. That and the Holocaust denial pretty much signify an inflection point towards mass enstupification.

            To the specific points being made here, I feel compelled to point out that Jim’s system a) didn’t look quite the way he portrays it, b) while not being 2014 degeneracy, still didn’t work. As witnessed by the spread of syphilis in the time period, and the plethora of officially acknowledged bastards in the aristocracy (suggesting that there were lots of unacknowledged bastards.)

            Meanwhile, we have a much stricter code, with no physical contact between unmarried men and women, no mixed dancing, etc. I have not noticed any flagrant promiscuity in our community, although as Maimonides points out, there has never been and will never be a community completely free of adultery. I mean, the Torah is very explicit about misbehavior, detailing child sacrifice by kings and the gang rape at Givah-but there is only one instance of adultery and one of incest in this period (both at the royal court, by the way, and both punished horribly.)

            If you look at what our sages said about this area of life, they said that there is a small limb in a man which gets hungrier the more you feed it and less hungry when you starve it. Which all suggests to me that having your pubescent kids going to mixed gender dances is not the smartest social policy.

            • jim says:

              Meanwhile, we have a much stricter code, with no physical contact between unmarried men and women, no mixed dancing,

              Similarly, among us, is illegal for females below a certain age to have sex with fertile age men, and lots of people seem to believe the law is mostly obeyed. 🙂

              Victorianism went horribly wrong in that Victorians came to believe that females behaved in a way that it was glaringly obvious that they were not in fact behaving, and ignored evidence to the contrary, much as today’s progressives ignore evidence of sexual and racial inequality, and the self destructiveness of sexual deviations.

              Granted Israeli Jews in general, and orthodox Jews in particular, have maintained fertility, while the rest of the white and arab population has not. I attribute this however to the fact that Jews get more slack from progressives than Muslims get slack from progressives, and Muslims get more slack from progressives than Christians get slack from progressives – the chronic complaint that Jews are allowed to have a racist theocratic state and no one else is, though of course in reality it is merely a question of how fast the different groups are being assimilated.

              But the proposition that your females are as well behaved as you suggest sounds rather like Victorianism, yesterday’s progressivism, which will inevitably mutate into today’s progressivism. After all, if females are so naturally virtuous, and the problem is men, well then, we don’t need any controls over women, do we?

              The victorian left used sexual morality to attack royalty, monarchy, and aristocracy, proposing the abolition of the double standard, applying to King George the sexual morality appropriate for a female commoner.

              As part of this attack on monarchy and aristocracy, they attributed improbable virtue to women, leading them to dismantle the constraints and punishments that protected female virtue. The result was, of course, utterly disastrous, which disaster the Victorians completely denied.

              So I see the Victorian age as the collapse of restraints on bad conduct by females, leading directly, immediately, and obviously to appalling bad conduct by Victorian females, most infamously Queen Caroline.

          • B says:

            Nazism, incidentally, was leftist on race as well. It’s just that racial progressivism of the time was eugenics, sterilization, etc. Progress having progressed since then, now the progressive racial policy involves glorifying white females mating with black males (while white males mating with asian females are icky betas with a fetish, and of course asian males mating with white females are unspeakably icky.)

            If we set anything as a touchstone of the right, it would be either the Torah (which forbids sterilization of even livestock, and allows Jews to marry converts,) or the medieval European period, where converted Jews, Muslims, Hungarian barbarians and anything you can imagine married within castes. Meaning, half of Russia’s nobility came from Central Asians and various steppe tribes. The idea of a pure race as a self-identifier, and the projection of tribal policy onto a nation-state is a 19th century populist one. We don’t see, for instance, the English trying to keep themselves free of unclean French, German and Italian blood, or the Normans and Vikings refusing to intermarry with conquered nobility. One of the complaints of the Spanish against conversos was that they were not intermarrying!

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            In America, I don’t think the eugenics craze was racial. It just picked up the racial element because it was developed in a racist society. Given who it was coupled with, it’s much more likely a branch of academic feminism. Or a socialist faction.

            I have no knowledge of the German eugenics movement.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            Also, I just want to point out that Israel’s current illegitimacy rate is comparable to the US illegitimacy rate prior to 1950. And also comparable to the pre-1800 illegitimacy rates I’ve seen for France and Britain.

            Given the prevalence of Western values in Israel, that’s pretty incredible.

            The Amish dating process leaves women unmarried until they are 18-20 years old. From the statistics I’ve seen, they seem to be successful, too.

            Amish dating means no male is ever alone with a female. Group activities are the only type of date. Marriage is decided by both families, not just the potential spouses.

            Jim’s skepticism of the female capacity for chastity may be unwarranted.

            • jim says:

              Amish dating means no male is ever alone with a female. Group activities are the only type of date. Marriage is decided by both families, not just the potential spouses.

              Jim’s skepticism of the female capacity for chastity may be unwarranted.

              If no male is ever alone with a female, then the presumption is that if they got half a chance they would immediately fuck like weasels in heat. Seems to me that the Amish estimate of the female capacity for chastity strikingly resembles my own.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            Everybody thinks that a 15 year old girl, if alone with an attractive 15 year old boy, may sleep with him. And will definitely sleep with some boy, if given enough time alone with multiple boys.

            Even liberals think that. The only people who don’t, are the parts of Christianity that oppose both monasticism and Patriarchy.

            But you seem to think that both women and men will “gnaw through concrete” to get sex. That doesn’t seem to be the case, because a 20-year-old Amish girl has been fertile for about 8 years, on average. And yet they don’t “gnaw through concrete”, and get pregnant.

    • jim says:

      Diversity is a problem, and the less diversity the better, but cannot unmix the omelet. Therefore, need a synthetic tribe.

  11. B says:

    > is illegal for females below a certain age to have sex with fertile age men, and lots of people seem to believe the law is mostly obeyed. 🙂

    I understand it is hard to step out of your frame and imagine that a society could actually live by somewhat different mores. As I said, Maimonides pointed out that in every Jewish there is a group of people that covertly defies those mores. The difference is not that one group is pure and the other isn’t. The difference is in those mores and the fact that the Jews actually take them seriously, honoring them even in the breach. Meaning that adultery is considered to be a shameful and wicked thing even by those committing it, and illegitimacy is completely beyond the pale.

    Victorianism was a reaction to what came before, which was a sexual free-for-all and total degeneracy, resulting in widespread syphilis, bastardy in the upper classes and mass child abandonment in the lower.

    >Granted Israeli Jews in general, and orthodox Jews in particular, have maintained fertility, while the rest of the white and arab population has not. I attribute this however to the fact that Jews get more slack from progressives than Muslims get slack from progressives

    We just recently had an Arab run his car into a crowd of Jews, injuring eight and killing a three month old baby. A cop shot him as he was running away. There were two headlines I saw from the Western press: “Palestinian shot by Israeli police in Jerusalem,” and “car accident injures 8, kills 1.” ISIS just gangraped and murdered tens of thousands of people without any sort of serious punishment, while the tragedy of Jews buying homes from Arabs in neighborhoods which the Arabs had ethnically cleansed of Jews in the 30s is bewailed at all levels. Please spare me the horseshit about how we get more slack from progs than Muslims do.

    >So I see the Victorian age as the collapse of restraints on bad conduct by females, leading directly, immediately, and obviously to appalling bad conduct by Victorian females, most infamously Queen Caroline.

    I do not live in Victorian England next door to King George and Queen Caroline. I live in the religious Zionist part of Israeli society, where modesty is the norm, and flaunting sexual dissolution is considered a shameful thing. Again, in private, some people deviate from the common values, but they acknowledge those values’ primacy publicly. Sorry we don’t conform to the way things should be according to your theory.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      There is media bias towards Jewish people in the Middle East, especially in Palestine. If there weren’t, there would be more outrage about how the Jewish population there is able to accumulate weapons that are disallowed to the Arabs.

      Right?

      So, onto your next point. I agree somewhat because separation of the sexes is pretty well Right wing, after all you certainly separate in synagogue similarly to the way that the Amish do, or medieval European Christians did. To end the separation of the sexes in various venues would be moving onto the next step leftward. Reading the news from Jewish Palestine, the ultra-orthodox Jewish also try to organise events that wouldn’t normally be segregated into segregated ones.

      But, I don’t really see the point in engaging with you “B,” from a Neoreactionist perspective. Obviously, “Jim” could be honing his rhetorical skills or something along those lines. But, beside that, the ultra-orthodox Jews are completely different from the inseparable Techno-Commercialist side of Neo-Reaction. And, that is the fastest growing, and most fertile demographic in your country. The thing with the Hassidics is that they, or you, are really not inclined toward technological advances. Without the technological society around them, you are a Reactionary society, yes, but that is something very different from Neoreaction. And, so Neoreaction has to take up the task of finding a balance between extremes: technologically-disinclined but fertile populations and technological but not demographically shrinking population.

      Or perhaps “Jim” is having some fun prodding you about the concept that the Jewish population in Palestine could be becoming a less traditional and catastrophically modern one. I don’t know as I’m not privy to his thoughts, and personally am not invested in getting those reasons from him.

      A.J.P.

      • B says:

        “Disallowed”? Do chimps lack muskets because a neocon conspiracy denies this to them?

        Thank you for pointing out that the “Hassidics” are disinclined towards technological advance, “Alan J. Perrick.” Next time I visit the Technion, Ariel University’s physics or mechatronics departments, or the electro-optical engineering facility at Machon Lev, I will stop every kid, TA and professor I see with a knit kippah and say, “excuse me, dear “Hassidic”, are you lost on the way to the synagogue?” Perhaps I will go over next door to my religious neighbor with the master’s in EE (working on his physics doctorate,) his wife with the MS in neuroscience and their six kids and say, “pardon me, dear “Hassidics,” some dickhead on the web named “Alan J. Perrick,” who is, apparently, the official oracle of the “Neoreactionist perspective,” says you are not really inclined toward technological advances, and what’s further, you are completely different from the inseparable “Techno-Commercialist side of the Neo-Reaction. Something must be done!”

        I’m also confused as to whether we are growing, being technologically disinclined but fertile, or shrinking and becoming less traditional and catastrophically modern.

        For a White Person, you are really bad at thinking coherently and expressing yourself clearly, “Alan J. Perrick.”

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          Despite all of that appropriated Christian technology you’re using, you’d still like to make the case that your Hassidics are just as apt to its use? Don’t get too far away from reality, “B.”

          Also, you’re not showing a whole heck of a lot of understanding about the Neoreactionist project which is what most of us are interested in this place. Needs to be pointed out, in my opinion, whether you like to hear it or not.

          A.J.P.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            >appropriated Christian technology you’re using
            It’s not like the Jews were (and are) at the forefront of most scientific fields.

          • B says:

            Are you accusing me of deviationism and leftward leanings, Comrade? I’ll have you know that I am an Old Bolshevik and had read the complete works of Moldbug in 2007, while you were still on Stormfront.

            Appropriated Christian technology? Were Einstein, Feynman, Bohr, Schawlow and Gould (Gordon, not Stephen Jay) Southern Baptists? Was Hyman Rickover, the father of the US nuclear submarine fleet, a Pentecostal? Yeah, idiot, tell me more about Christian technology.

          • B says:

            I’ll tell my neighbor’s wife that neuroscience would not exist in its current form without those two Episcopalians, Eric Kandel and Bernard Katz, too.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            What’s the difference between the Hassidic Jewish and Reform Jewish?

            I don’t think it is at all controversial to point out that if Christians were to begin following medieval canon law again, then much of the aptitude with technology would be erased. Maimonedes has been mentioned in this discussion, so will you really tell me that I’m not aiming to hit the correct target? Medieval religion is medieval religion and while it would undoubtedly boost fertility, what would happen to Techno-Commercialism?

            So pat yourself on the back for making pro-Jewish comments “A” & “B,” but then join the discussion when you’re ready to address my points.

            By the way, “Jim”‘s suggestion of regency Anglicanism sounds quite reasonable, yet that is approximately 500 years younger than Maimonedes’ commentary and interpretations that you’re bringing up. So the goal is to split the difference. Anyone else catch my meaning? At risk of pendantry, I would say that the contemporary Islamic State could be overbourne by any top ten military, were that military to act in an organised manner (eg. China or Russia were they not enjoying I.S. distracting the West for the time being)

            Rx is Rx and NRx, Nrx.

            Wait there’s a Jewish individual yelling at me? I must be doing something right. Oh, and I think Stormfront radio is great, here’s the link http://renseradioarchives.com/stormfront/ Here’s another link to anyone who actually believes that Jewish can be allies http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2006/08/04/why-we-cant-ally-with-jews/

            A.J.P.

          • B says:

            >What’s the difference between the Hassidic Jewish and Reform Jewish?

            You don’t even know how to spell “Hasidic”, let alone that there are many different kinds of religious Jews aside from the Hasidim. Maybe ease up on the sweeping judgments until you have some grasp of the subject matter.

            >I don’t think it is at all controversial to point out that if Christians were to begin following medieval canon law again, then much of the aptitude with technology would be erased.

            When they let the tards in, NRx was doomed. The whole POINT of Neoreaction is that medieval worldview+modern high-tech>>>modern worldview+modern high tech.

            >Maimonedes has been mentioned in this discussion, so will you really tell me that I’m not aiming to hit the correct target?

            It’s spelled “Maimonides.” Without him, by the way, neither Newton nor Leibniz would have accomplished what they did. Not that I expect you to have read anything beyond William Pierce, and that is a stretch. Maimonides was the first thinker I know who laid out a comprehensive vision of how religion could be reconciled to rationalism and science. But he did this in long sentences with abstract concepts, so I doubt you could get through more than a page or two.

            >Medieval religion is medieval religion and while it would undoubtedly boost fertility, what would happen to Techno-Commercialism

            A very progressive point of view, Comrade.

            >So pat yourself on the back for making pro-Jewish comments “A” & “B,” but then join the discussion when you’re ready to address my points.

            What points? Joooz baaad, tech goood, Joooz not can tech good?

            >By the way, “Jim”‘s suggestion of regency Anglicanism sounds quite reasonable, yet that is approximately 500 years younger than Maimonedes’ commentary and interpretations that you’re bringing up.

            Again-it’s Maimonides. My spellchecker knows the difference. Why do you feel qualified to comment if you do not?

            As for the difference between the two-Anglicanism has been tried, and led us to where we are now. Maimonides’ philosophy has never been implemented by a society.

            >At risk of pendantry, I would say that the contemporary Islamic State could be overbourne by any top ten military, were that military to act in an organised manner (eg. China or Russia were they not enjoying I.S. distracting the West for the time being)

            It’s “pedantry.” From the word “pedant.” A “pendant” is a necklace.

            Why do you feel qualified to offer your opinion on global matters when you neither can spell nor use spellchecker? These are basic high school-level correspondence skills. Even at American high schools. Back to the pigsty, Perrick.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            L.O.L… Any-one else have something to add beside the facile mess of empty rhetoric that “B” just spewed?

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Found this new article at an NRx website that suggests that too much focus on Theonomy has been detrimental to the Neoreactionist project. http://henrydampier.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/is-neoreaction-traditionalist/

            A.J.P.

    • jim says:

      > is illegal for females below a certain age to have sex with fertile age men, and lots of people seem to believe the law is mostly obeyed. 🙂

      I understand it is hard to step out of your frame and imagine that a society could actually live by somewhat different mores.

      I can easily imagine a society that lives by different mores, having myself moved between very different societies, and seen very great changes. Now if you told me your women were extremely well behaved because they are kept in line by various well known and often familiar methods, I would totally believe it. It is when you tell me that they are extremely well behaved and that they are kept in line by ever heightened vigilance against late bronze age worshipers of the Golden Goat that I am inclined to doubt it.

      Meaning that adultery is considered to be a shameful and wicked thing even by those committing it, and illegitimacy is completely beyond the pale.

      Good enforcement against illegitimacy will discourage a lot of female bad behavior, but with abortion readily available, and no questions asked about whose child it is, it only goes so far.

      Suppose you had a system where abortion was apt to involve the husband or biological father, apt to involve potentially embarrassing questions and tests. Then an effective prohibition against illegitimacy would result in good female behavior. But we don’t, and you don’t, because you are under Cathedral authority.

      When a woman divorces her husband and takes his young children away from him, those children are about as damaged as illegitimate children, though interestingly early widowhood does not cause similar damage as illegitimacy. Orthodox Jewish communities have pretty vigorous enforcement against that also, and that enforcement works. Women are not allowed to leave their husbands and continue to be a normal part of the community, with the result that it is very difficult for woman to leave her husband except by his consent – but such enforcement is not ever heightened vigilance against worshippers of the Golden Goat, rather it is exactly the kind of male supremacism that you will not admit to and criticize me for advocating. You find clever legalistic rationales to cast out such male supremacist traditions from orthodox Judaism.

      Orthodox Jews are not nearly as successful in maintaining female chastity as you claim, instead approximating 1950s America (which is pretty good, but I would hope for better) and to the extent that they are successful, they do it the familiar old fashioned way, which has nothing to do with banning cheeseburgers.

      Victorianism was a reaction to what came before, which was a sexual free-for-all and total degeneracy, resulting in widespread syphilis, bastardy in the upper classes and mass child abandonment in the lower.

      You are accepting the progressives account of themselves. It was Victorianism that was sexual immorality and degeneracy, not the regency period. Victorianism was the beginning of the collapse of the family that now afflicts us, as holier than thou Victorians proceeded to attack the monarchy and aristocracy, and shot down the family as collateral damage. Victorianism was the beginning of today’s destruction of the family, a side effect of weaponizing sexual morality into an instrument for use by priests for use against aristocrats, thereby abandoning its use as an instrument to ensure that children have fathers.

      We just recently had an Arab run his car into a crowd of Jews, injuring eight and killing a three month old baby. A cop shot him as he was running away. There were two headlines I saw from the Western press: “Palestinian shot by Israeli police in Jerusalem,” and “car accident injures 8, kills 1.” ISIS just gangraped and murdered tens of thousands of people without any sort of serious punishment, while the tragedy of Jews buying homes from Arabs in neighborhoods which the Arabs had ethnically cleansed of Jews in the 30s is bewailed at all levels. Please spare me the horseshit about how we get more slack from progs than Muslims do.

      You are allowed more slack to oppress women that Muslims get.

      You catch hell because Israel is an apartheid state – Jews rule over Arabs, which looks mighty like whites ruling over non whites, even though a lot of Palestinians Arabs under Israeli rule are kind of light skinned, and lot of Jews somewhat brownish skinned. Police in the west, therefore, are fine with Arabs murdering Jews, not so fine with Arabs keeping their daughters in line.

      Sorry we don’t conform to the way things should be according to your theory

      I rather think you do conform to my theory. Victorianism is a synonym or hyponym for hypocrisy – you are less successful at restraining women than you like to pretend, and to the extent that you are successful, you do it by the usual methods.

      • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

        I’m wondering if Moldbug’s inverted pendulum might apply here.

        Raise a woman in a culture where women obey, and it means little exertion to keep her in line.

        Raise a woman in a culture where women often disobey, and it means incredible exertion to prevent her from further disobedience.

        That could explain why B doesn’t think his culture is oppressing women to keep them in line. They really aren’t. Much.

        Not to mention the obvious – Jews have higher IQs, and clannish. So they tend to behave without severe methods.

        • B says:

          Most people are conformists, women more so. It’s a question of what they are conforming to.

          “Hypocrisy” is a very Victorian concept. In reality, humans being flawed, they will not keep to any ideals perfectly. The only way to avoid hypocrisy is to worship degeneracy, which people will stoop to quite quickly.

          >Women are not allowed to leave their husbands

          You have no idea what you’re talking about. No fault divorce has been the case at least since the Talmudic era for women and since long before that for men. Plenty of divorces occur in our community, unfortunately.

          >Orthodox Jews are not nearly as successful in maintaining female chastity as you claim, instead approximating 1950s America

          Again, you have no clue. You’re taking a statistic for all of Israel, which has all kinds of people, including a lot of non-religious ones.

          >You are accepting the progressives account of themselves.

          I am accepting the account of the Restorationists of themselves. For instance: http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/dildo.html

          I don’t know about Victorian collapse of the family, but I do know that being infested with syphilis isn’t very good for family formation, and hence the Brits had to import a royal family from overseas, for instance.

          >You are allowed more slack to oppress women that Muslims get.

          I don’t even know what to say. We stone women? We don’t allow them to drive? We have honor killings? Again, if reality doesn’t conform to your theory, one of them has to change.

          • jim says:

            >>Women are not allowed to leave their husbands

            >You have no idea what you’re talking about. No fault divorce has been the case at least since the Talmudic era for women and since long before that for men.

            Feminists tell a different story. Orthodox women who leave their husbands without their husband’s permission are “agunah”. Feminists complain, vociferously, that this makes them outcasts, similar to having illegitimate children. Google Orthodox Divorce agunah

            And, in fact, there does seem to be a hell of a lot of stress over “agunah” status, so I think the feminists are correct that women are not socially permitted divorce except by the husband’s consent, nor permitted divorce according to Jewish law except by the husband’s consent – that men can divorce women, but women cannot in fact divorce men. They can only very nicely ask their husband to divorce them. A rabbinic court can order a husband to divorce his wife, but it seldom does, and if it does, he will not necessarily comply. In Jewish law, only men can divorce. Women can ask their husband for divorce. Further, a woman cannot separate, in that if she does she suffers disgrace that makes it difficult or impossible to remain a part of the orthodox community. That is what your disobedient women say – that they cop a mighty rough time for their disobedience.

            You say they don’t cop a rough time, they say they cop such a rough time as to make it almost impossible to continue as orthodox Jews except they submit to their husbands.

          • B says:

            Women who leave whose husband does not give a get (a bill of divorce) are agunot. This is not permission to leave-it is consent to divorce.

            Women leave all the time, and the vast, vast majority of the time their husbands give them a get once the divorce details are settled. A woman is not an agunah until the court has ruled the husband should give a wife a get and he refuses. I think that there are about two dozen agunot worldwide right now.

            I am not aware of any particular disgrace associated with being a woman in the process of divorce, while there is very much disgrace associated with being a man who, out of spite, refuses to give a get after being told to do so by a rabbinical court. For instance, Maimonides says such a man is to be lashed until he gives it. Frequently, they are put in herem, a ban. Etc.

            But what do I know? I’m not a feminist, after all.

            • jim says:

              >Women leave all the time, and the vast, vast majority of the time their husbands give them a get once the divorce details are settled.

              I expect that after negotiation, the vast majority of women who want to leave their husbands are given their get by their husbands. But this means that in negotiation, the husband has the upper hand over the wife.

            • jim says:

              Women leave all the time, and the vast, vast majority of the time their husbands give them a get once the divorce details are settled.

              If vast majority, vast majority obtain permission to leave.

              Implying they need permission.

          • jim says:

            > I am accepting the account of the Restorationists of themselves. For instance: http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/dildo.html

            The restorationists said that women masturbate. The Victorians said that women have no inclination to masturbate. Which group is likely to have been more competent in controlling women?

            > >You are allowed more slack to oppress women that Muslims get.

            > I don’t even know what to say. We stone women? We don’t allow them to drive? We have honor killings? Again, if reality doesn’t conform to your theory, one of them has to change.

            Any Muslim society that punishes adulterers and women who leave their husbands gets drones shooting them up. In Saudi Arabia, women going to university outnumber men going to university two to one, and get taught feminism. In Israel, women going to university only outnumber men by four to three.

            The reason you hear so much about Muslims oppressing women is not that Muslims are oppressing women – even Islamic State is trying to polish its feminist credentials. It is because the Cathedral is on the warpath about Islam oppressing women, and not on the warpath about Judaism oppressing women

          • B says:

            I am shocked that feminists’ claims about my society conflict with my personal observations. I will try to observe more properly.

            The cazzo poem shows a degenerate society proud and giggling at its degeneracy.

            >Any Muslim society that punishes adulterers and women who leave their husbands gets drones shooting them up.

            No drones over Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. And ever single Muslim society has honor killings on a regular basis for women even remotely suspected of dishonoring their husbands or fathers. Except for very mild tsk-tsking, no consequences, and no real condemnation. Clitorectomy is not a Jewish but a Muslim practice, but you don’t see the NYT campaigning against the 90% rates in North Africa. They are busy with the agunot. From that, you deduce that the progs take it easy on us and go hard on the Muslims. Right…

            • jim says:

              > The cazzo poem shows a degenerate society proud and giggling at its degeneracy.

              The cazzo poem shows men ridiculing the lustful nature of women, which is a necessary step in keeping them under control.

              The pious Victorian pretense that women are angels was a complete disaster, spectacularly illustrated by the misconduct of Queen Caroline, who delighted in very publicly proving them wrong, while everyone averted their eyes and continued the pretense.

              > No drones over Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia.

              That is because their universities resemble Sodom and Gomorrah even more than Harvard does. And considerably more than Israeli universities do.

              > And ever single Muslim society has honor killings on a regular basis for women even remotely suspected of dishonoring their husbands or fathers.

              And the Muslim authorities very piously say to the Cathedral “Oh, that is very illegal, and we are trying to stamp it out”, but somehow fail to succeed in stamping it out. If the authorities prevent honor killings by giving misbehaving girls a public whipping, then they get drones.

              As Boko Haram rightly complains, everywhere in the Muslim world, the education system teaches feminism, contraception, and how to put a condom on a banana. Everywhere in the Muslim world, the state is pushing feminism on a recalcitrant and resistant Muslim society, and states that do not do this, get drones. Israel, and the Orthodox, get a pass. Your nine year old daughters don’t get taught to put the condom on the banana.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            >I don’t even know what to say. We stone women? We don’t allow them to drive? We have honor killings?
            What happens to racists in the US?

            They’re likely to be fired, or at least not promoted if their racism is public. If they’re being racist at the moment, you can beat them up (at least if you’re non-White). It’s effectively illegal to say anything racist on TV. And so on…

            Discrimination is often covert. And I’m guessing that Jews don’t want to be open about their anti-feminism.

          • B says:

            We are not anti-feminist, any more than someone living in a clean apartment is anti-cockroach. We have a value system which is self-sufficient and does not exist in opposition to feminism or any other strand of progressivism, but stands on its own two feet.

            The soft power stuff you are describing is constantly being applied to us, with less and less success, as decried by Martin Indyk: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/indyk-bashes-israel-obama-on-yom-kippur/

            We don’t respond as well as we used to when the US cracks the whip, apparently.

            • jim says:

              > We don’t respond as well as we used to when the US cracks the whip, apparently.

              Your reluctance to admit to stuff that Jews in general do, and Orthodox Jews in particular do, suggests that soft power is working quite well on you.

              If orthodox women almost always get their get when they leave their husband, then orthodox women almost always leave their husband by their husband’s permission – meaning that in practice orthodox women are almost never allowed to leave their husbands in the ordinary sense as it is understood by the rest of the world. (Husband encounters an order telling him to stay far away from his house, followed by an order to keep paying the debt on it.)

              The Whitehouse puts a drunken antisemitic asshole in charge of the major part of Israeli American relations, which asshole regularly, in varying states of sobriety, demands concessions that would surely lead to the death of every Jew in Israel. Israel declines to make those suicidal concessions – and is sternly reprimanded by Obama.

              When the Israeli government calls Indyk a drunken murderous asshole, then I will be impressed.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            Has Jim ever specifically outlined the methods of controlling women?

            1.Violence – husband/father beats wife/daughter
            1.a) Community ignores domestic violence used to control women
            2.Violence – general community (i.e. random violence against women in slutty clothes)
            2.a) Community ignores anti-slut violence
            3.Religious sanctions (in traditional Christianity it’s cutting off from communion, I’m not sure about Judaism)
            4.Religious teachings
            5.Media influence (media that promotes your views)
            6.Economic impairment – women who behave badly are put in a bad economic situation
            7.Social sanctions (i.e. slutty clothing aggressively condemned)

            Those are just off the top of my head. I’m guessing the Hasidic Jews use a lot of 7, 6, 5, 4 and 3. With moderate practice of 1, 1.a, 2, and 2.a.

            The US, of course, only moderately practices 4. Nothing else.

            • jim says:

              Women, fertile age women, should have the legal status of children, more exactly, the legal status children had before about 1970, when children were effectively nationalized by the state.

              This means that they should be subject to corporal punishment by legitimate authority for legitimate cause using methods unlikely to cause lasting injury.

              Sluts are entitled to legal protection, but should have to surmount a considerably higher standard of evidence than good women. At present we have the rather interesting state of affairs that “rapes” of women who are half drunk and looking for a dicking outnumber rapes by burglars breaking in through the bedroom window and muggers dragging joggers into the bushes by several thousand to one. This seriously strains credulity. While a half drunk woman cruising for a dicking can be raped as any other woman, and is entitled to protection against such acts, it seems unlikely that they are vastly more subject to rape type rapes than women engaged in more respectable behavior. Therefore, since it is clear that there are an enormous number of false rape accusations, vastly outnumbering legitimate rape allegations, there should be a legal presumption that a slut is lying about rape and sexual violence, unless she has the bloodstains and bruises to prove it.

              Rape accusations by a women of dubious character should be treated like spam, like irritating noise, because there is so much noise drowning out any signal, that paying much attention to the noise is bound to result in massive injustice.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            >it is clear that there are an enormous number of false rape accusations, vastly outnumbering legitimate rape allegations
            Most of them are legitimate. In most states, pressuring a drunk slut into sex is rape.

            It’s a bit like theft law defining a woman who buys something while drunk, as a victim of theft.

  12. B says:

    >In America, I don’t think the eugenics craze was racial. It just picked up the racial element because it was developed in a racist society.

    I don’t think the word racist is appropriate here. The same Harvard elite that thought the Jukes should be sterilized had no problem letting blacks die of syphilis for science or lobotomizing the dumb Kennedy sister. In more or less the same way, the Germans who had no problem starving, shooting and gassing the Jews also thought it would be a good idea to exterminate the Poles eventually and had no problem gassing retarded Germans (an idea the 4Chan NRxtards should immediately emphasize with.) In other words, they weren’t racist in the modern usage of the word. They were progs who wished to improve the state of humanity to some sort of perfection. Unlike today’s progs, who wish to do this through “education,” medication, judicial and economic policies and other kinds of soft power policies, they wished to do it by putting people on a spectrum and getting physically rid of the ones on the wrong side of a certain line, or at least stopping them from reproducing.

    >Given who it was coupled with, it’s much more likely a branch of academic feminism. Or a socialist faction.

    Yes.

    >I have no knowledge of the German eugenics movement.

    Same shit, but done by pig-faced peasants and proles rather than dour-faced Puritans.

    >Also, I just want to point out that Israel’s current illegitimacy rate is comparable to the US illegitimacy rate prior to 1950. And also comparable to the pre-1800 illegitimacy rates I’ve seen for France and Britain.

    We have a significant portion of the population which is honestly religious, which is constantly growing and increasingly setting the moral tone. It’s a slow and quiet process, and difficult to discern via the news, which are full of prog agitprop and the Tel Aviv gay parade. But, for instance, you can turn on the secular pop radio station and hear the DJ casually refer to the weekly Torah portion, or see Tel Aviv seafood restaurants going kosher, which was unthinkable 30 years ago. Or Colonel Ofer Winter offering this speech to his troops, who are in very large part non-religious, and them being cool with it: http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-commander-calls-on-troops-to-fight-blasphemous-gazans/

    >The Amish dating process leaves women unmarried until they are 18-20 years old. From the statistics I’ve seen, they seem to be successful, too.

    Jim will tell you that this is impossible because they are all seducing their uncles from age 8 onwards.

    >Amish dating means no male is ever alone with a female.

    We have a similar rule-they took theirs from us. Of course, we make some subtle distinctions, like, for instance, you can be alone together in a public place.

    >Jim’s skepticism of the female capacity for chastity may be unwarranted.

    Jim, with all due respect, is traumatized by the 20th/21st century and what I assume to be some very unfortunate consequences for his friends, acquaintances and family. Therefore, he takes the Cathedral system of morality and inverts everything. If in the Cathedral women are masters, in his system they must be chattel. If in the Cathedral they are pure, in his system they are complete corrupt whores and incorrigible or capable of moral choice. His system exists only in opposition to the Cathedral, just as the Cathedral exists only in opposition to some mythical racist, sexist past, and he can’t imagine a value system which exists not in opposition to something else but stands on its own, or where people wholeheartedly believe in its values because those values are good, and not as a Platonic means of social control. In other words, he’s a man robbed of earnestness, as are we all to some degree. I remember when I first met some Torah Jews, I constantly though, “there is no way that these people, who are intelligent and have seen some stuff in their lives, can honestly believe this Storybook Headings shit. They are putting on a show for me, or for their kids.” It took me a long time to understand that earnestness is a very real and possible thing. Had I not met and lived with them (all over the US and in Israel, and very different ones,) I would have died believing much the same things as Jim or Roissy, because there was nothing around me to suggest that any other level of existence is possible.

    • B says:

      The last paragraph is, essentially, about redemption. There is no chance for earnestness and freedom from the cage of worship of power, pleasure, wealth, sex, food, etc., without redemption. Without this redemption, you are an eternal object of your desires and those who can manipulate you using them-see Roissy.

      There is no redemption without return and repentance, teshuvah in Hebrew. But to repent, you have to have a paradoxical state of things-you have to have, on one hand, absolute free will to overcome your desires which led you to sin. Your desires being natural, to repent you have to transcend nature. To be anything more than an eloquent bonobo, you must become supernatural, a subject rather than an object.

      But that is not enough, because even if you succeed in that very difficult task through sheer Socratic willpower, that just makes you a Nietzschean ubermensch, and you will not achieve repentance thus-you will just go from a cage of baser desires to a sterile stoic cage, a la Marcus Aurelius. To achieve repentance, you must become subordinate to something greater than you-to G-d, and to a G-d who is absolute and not just a reflection of your personal desires. In other words, to become His object. This is even harder than becoming a subject, because every time you go up a level, your evil inclination also goes up and becomes stronger. It is even more difficult for an ubermensch to overcome himself than for a normal person. These are largely not my thoughts, but those of Rav Soloveichik (apparently, according to Michael Merdinger here: http://bit.ly/1FM5xiz).

      In other words, repentance and redemption depend on a double miracle. Fortunately, we have holidays (Rosh Hashannah and Yom Kippur) where G-d makes such a miracle available to us.

      But NRx, even in its original, pure, stoic form as created by Moldbug (not to mention its more earthy form as expounded by his apostle Jim, its Epicurean form as expounded by the heretic Roissy and its degenerate form as expounded by pig-faced 4chan neckbeard nazis) offers no possibility of repentance and return. This is its strength, making it accessible to today’s intelligent Western youth, and also its catastrophic failure point and downfall. With all respect to Moldbug, who is a genius and a morally righteous man, he is a tragic Hero of our age, a sort of Oedipus of Generation Ebola (if nobody has called the millennials that yet, I’m coining it.)

    • jim says:

      >>The Amish dating process leaves women unmarried until they are 18-20 years old. From the statistics I’ve seen, they seem to be successful, too.

      >Jim will tell you that this is impossible because they are all seducing their uncles from age 8 onwards.

      They are never left alone with their uncles, which implies that if left alone, would be seducing them.

      • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

        Well, I meant they were never left alone with people their own age. I’m not sure about their uncles, although Amish life generally is gender-segregated and group activities are typically with the whole family.

        • jim says:

          You are telling me that the Amish devote a whole lot of effort, energy and resources into making sure that girls do not have sex.

          Now reflect that every generation a lot of Amish teenagers cease to be Amish, which means that Amish are highly selected for ability and willingness to comply with the Amish way of life. Amish differ from non Amish by several standard deviations.

          Now reflect that when they lose teenage girls, it is probably sex.

          So, a compliant population, a lot of effort into maintaining compliance, and yet compliance is considerably less than total. I suppose most of them do not gnaw through concrete to have sex – but quite a few of them do. If you were starting with a population that has not been selected, quite a lot of them would.

      • B says:

        I suspect that when there’s a will, there’s a way.

        We have the fence around seclusion as well. Any society with mores will build fences and institutions to help people avoid transgressing. Those fences are proof of mores, not proof of their ineffectuality.

        • jim says:

          Victorianism consisted of loudly announcing mores, while dismantling fences. The outcome inclines me to believe that actual fences work substantially better than loudly announced mores.

          • B says:

            Our actual fences actually work. As evidenced by the fact that our country, despite being half-composed of Western secular Jews (http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/howrelisr.htm) has illegitimacy rates like the US did 70 years ago, and that more and more of those secular Jews are becoming observant (those figures above were unimaginable 60 years ago to the secular leftists running the place.)

            • jim says:

              Yes, Israel is doing well, in the sense of not being screwed over as fast as the west.

              A lot of the Nazi complaints are “How come they get to have theocracy and an apartheid state, and we don’t?

              Indeed the article you link to contains a line distinctly reminiscent of that famous anti Semitic compliant. The article you cite says:

              “In the whole history of the Zionist enterprise there has been no indigenous movement to reform Judaism or Jewish religion, this on the part of a people who are prepared to have reform movements for everything.”

              I can hear certain regular commenters saying “well how about that. Funny thing that”.

              I don’t disagree that Israel is doing well, or at least heading towards catastrophe at a markedly slower rate than the US. I just disagree that the reason for this is ever heightened vigilance against late bronze age worshipers of the Golden Goat.

              The argument is that you say Israel and Judaism is quite progressive, and is doing fine because of ever heightened vigilance against worshipers of the Gold Goat, and I say that Israel is doing fine because the Cathedral cuts you some slack and allows you to keep order the old fashioned way – that you are allowed, to a limited extent, to not be progressive.

          • B says:

            I told you, our fences are not ever-expanding, except insofar as it comes to new tech.

            We don’t get slack. We have resilience. Get the difference? Slack is not when a murderer shot by police gets written up as a poor man involved in a traffic accident and murdered by racist cops. Or when the baby he kills is listed as the victim of a traffic accident. Or when a 17 year old yoof throwing firebombs at soldiers is made good, then written up as a poor child shot dead while picking flowers for his sick mother by the roadside. Develop some balls as a community, maybe you’ll get some “slack” too while the Cathedral tries to figure out what to do with you.

            • jim says:

              Slack is not when a murderer shot by police gets written up as a poor man involved in a traffic accident and murdered by racist cops

              Compare the treatment Israel gets with the treatment that South Africa got, Rhodesia got, and any community in America trying to maintain safe conditions gets.

              When some elements of the Roman Catholic priesthood declined to go along with progressivism on sexual matters, it was invariably discovered that this priest somehow had some connection with some other priest that that had some connection with some other priest that supposedly sexually molested someone forty years ago, which molestation was not however mentioned for forty years. Orthodox rabbis have not received that treatment.

              What Orthodox Rabbi got the Phil Robertson treatment?

              Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, and Reconstructionist Judaism fell abruptly into line on gay marriage. Orthodox Judaism has, however, even in the US, been allowed an unprincipled exception. Their is a faction among progressives that wants to apply the child molestation weapon to force orthodox rabbis into line, and they are trying, not very successfully, to apply it, particularly against the Brooklyn Haredis, but it has not received state, judicial, and media backing, unlike the campaign on Roman Catholics.

              If you ask an adult about her interaction as a child with an authority figure forty years ago, it is easy sexualize her memories. Grab another child, rinse and repeat, hey, corroboration, multiple independent witnesses to sexual misconduct. And, of course, for such a heinous crime, it would be absurd to worry about the statute of limitations, or to recollect why we have such a silly thing as a statute of limitations.

              Develop some balls as a community, maybe you’ll get some “slack” too

              Tell it to George Zimmerman.

              Look at all these people facing charges for sexual molestation that occurred so long ago that there is no possibility of reliable evidence or a fair trial. Notice a distinct absence of Jews. Notice also that no one asks why these charges were not brought in a more timely manner when a fair trial would have been possible.

              So yeah. You are getting slack to oppress your women and rule Arabs.

              And if you piously say you are not oppressing women and not ruling Arabs, you may well find yourself losing that slack.

          • B says:

            I linked to the article because it had a convenient statistical table. The fact that its author is blissfully unaware of Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, the Women of the Wall, Martin Indyk etc. is not my problem.

            By the way, there’s that Cathedral cutting us slack again. Note the Carnegie Mellon prof’s name:
            http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/186579#.VEyF-_nF98E

          • B says:

            >Compare the treatment Israel gets with the treatment that South Africa got, Rhodesia got, and any community in America trying to maintain safe conditions gets.

            BDS is a movement explicitly aimed at giving us the SA treatment.

            >What Orthodox Rabbi got the Phil Robertson treatment?

            I don’t know, Rav Meir Kahane of blessed memory? Or his late son? Hey, remember that time in the 90s that the Cathedral bussed blacks into white neighborhoods in a major American city while the cops stood by and did nothing? Oh, right, that was a Jewish neighborhood.

            >Tell it to George Zimmerman.

            Tell it to Zev Braude, or my ex-father in law, or any one of a large number of Israelis put on trial or in prison for shooting terrorists. Check out Honenu.org for some examples. Or check out how the residents of Yitzhar get brutalized by Cathedral cops, get kicked out of their homes and banned from their town by Cathedral forces with no judicial procedure whatsoever, get tazered in front of their kids by SWAT teams, have their yeshiva taken over by the Border Police and turned into a police base. Or how towns in Samaria get their only road blocked by our Cathedral supreme court based on some Arab claiming it runs across some land that used to belong to him. Or how in a major college town, my rabbi friend gets Cathedral tools spray painting hate grafitti in front of his house without the cops doing anything or the papers flipping out (one week it was “fuck Zionists,” the next it was “go back to Israel 🙂

            In short-we’ve been dealing with levels of Cathedral harassment that would make you guys crap your pants, and making headway. Stop whining about double standards. I have yet to see NRx display any ballsack whatsoever, except for MM.

            • jim says:

              >> Compare the treatment Israel gets with the treatment that South Africa got, Rhodesia got, and any community in America trying to maintain safe conditions gets.

              > BDS is a movement explicitly aimed at giving us the SA treatment.

              And not succeeding.

              Let us take a look at the Big Important Official Investigation Into Child Molestation. All of them work the same way and interchangeably, so they might as well all be one Big Important Official Investigation.

              Take a real and recent incident of child molestation, to which the community reacted swiftly and appropriately. Allege similar incidents in the vague and distant past, which now can never be proven nor disproven. Investigate why Evil Community failed to control Evil Child Molesters in that dim and distant past. Evil Community of insufficiently progressive Roman Catholic Priests is targeted. It repents, confesses its sins, and promises to be twice as progressive. (Notice that while obviously bogus rape complainants get their names protected, those accused of failing to prove rapes that no one can prove get their names plastered all over the place.)

              Next, after they run out of insufficiently progressive Roman Catholic Priests, they turn their attention to insufficiently progressive rabbis, who also failed to stop incidents of child molestation that may or may not have happened and can now never be proven nor disproven. The Publicity machine stops, and Big Important Official Investigation Into Child Molestation then gets closed down.

              And that the Big Important Official Investigation Into Child Molestation then gets closed down is the major reason why some categories of Jew still have reasonable fertility rates.

          • B says:

            No objections to any of my other points, then.

            There has been quite a bit of hysteria raised about child molestation in the Orthodox community, based on some real incidents. But I remember a VICE article about how you can go into just about any mikveh and see kids just getting raped left and right.

            I’m not really here to play victim olympics with you. I didn’t even point out how in the 1950s the socialist govt of Israel (GOI, or ZOG or what have you) took little kids away from observant immigrants from Middle Eastern countries, told their parents they were dead and
            placed them in foster care with good socialist atheists. Show me some shit like that happening to American whites. My larger point is, quit crying and show some resilience. But, no, until they pass laws making women slaves and cancelling democracy, what can you do? Indeed.

            • jim says:

              I’m not really here to play victim olympics with you.

              I am not in the victim Olympics. I am comparing Judaism with Christianity, viewing both belief systems as potentially useful fictions.

              The question is, are Jews more resilient to Cathedral pressure, or is cathedral pressure substantially less on Jews than on Christians? None of the bad stuff the Cathedral does to Israel in regard to the Palestinians remotely compares to what it did to Rhodesia in regard to blacks, and the molestation tactic for bringing Christians into line on sexual matters, just is not applied to Jews. Regularly as clockwork, some part of the Cathedral has a big go at applying it to Jews, and then the rest of the Cathedral squelches them good and hard.

            • jim says:

              There has been quite a bit of hysteria raised about child molestation in the Orthodox community, based on some real incidents.

              Yes, standard operating procedure, take a real and provable incident: But one’s real target has no connection to any such incident. So in addition to the real incident one alleges incidents from so long ago that no one can honestly prove whether they happened or not, then blames one’s real target for the inability to prove anything. One’s target publicly confesses guilt of unspecified and undefined crimes, repents, and agrees to marry sodomites.

          • B says:

            >None of the bad stuff the Cathedral does to Israel in regard to the Palestinians remotely compares to what it did to Rhodesia in regard to blacks, and the molestation tactic for bringing Christians into line on sexual matters, just is not applied to Jews. Regularly as clockwork, some part of the Cathedral has a big go at applying it to Jews, and then the rest of the Cathedral squelches them good and hard.

            Your target audience, the US middle class, does not live in Rhodesia. Just as today’s Israel differs from 1970s Rhodesia (a more valid comparison would be 1960s/70s Israel to 1970s Rhodesia,) the typical Jim’s Blog reader differs from the typical Israeli in the level of Cathedral pressure he is subject to. So let’s not move the goalposts-the comparison is between 2014 religious Israelis and 2014 Western NRxtards. And in that comparison, we see that your target audience is relatively free from pressure. And I suspect that were pressure of the sort routinely applied to us to be applied to it, it would fade away. I mean, of course, getting tasered in front of your kids, getting called in by the secret police for friendly chats, seeing your neighbors get murdered with their kids and the cops dismissing it as just a traffic accident, having your house taken away and destroyed, having restraining orders put on you keeping you from coming within 50 kilometers of your farm around harvest time, coming in for work interviews and getting turned down because you obviously follow an ideology the interviewer is opposed to, seeing children killed waiting for the train and having the PM’s advisor announce on facebook that it’s the parents’ fault for being religious Zionist Jews going to the Wall. You guys have no idea what pressure is, and what resilience is.

            And your attitude that religion is only a useful fiction precludes any chance for you to find resilience in it-if the ideologue of a movement thinks of religion as a useful fiction, then certainly his followers will not sacrifice things of value for that religion, or that movement. Which is why Christianity has gone from the driving force of American national existence to a joke.

            • jim says:

              Your target audience, the US middle class, does not live in Rhodesia. Just as today’s Israel differs from 1970s Rhodesia (a more valid comparison would be 1960s/70s Israel to 1970s Rhodesia,

              My target audience, the US middle class, is not allowed to get away with the stuff the Rhodesians did and the Israelis do. Many in my target audience get the wondrous benefits of diversity, which means they are forced to interact with blacks, and the body language of this interactions is that the blacks are lords and the whites are serfs, that whites are strangers in this land. Hence the perennial complaint: “Why are the Jews allowed to get away with this stuff and we are not?”

              Of course in truth, the Jews are not allowed to get away with this stuff. The Cathedral is slowly bringing you into compliance, merely more slowly than rest of us, which will be the death of you, and your reluctance to acknowledge the measures you take to keep women in line shows that the Cathedral masters you.

              And your attitude that religion is only a useful fiction precludes any chance for you to find resilience in it.

              That Orthodox Jews, in substantial part, will not fight, and that those who will fight pretend that Jews are in compliance on women indicates to me that you are not in fact getting a lot of resilience. Hence my suggestion that you engage in less vigilance against bronze age worshippers of the golden goat, and more vigilance against feminists.

              A Judaism that forthrightly said that Israel was commanded by God to be what progressives would call an apartheid state, in that non Jews could not be citizens, they should be ruled by a Jewish government, and their residence conditional on good behavior, a Judaism that forthrightly said that feminism was rebellion against God and man, a Judaism that proposed to take the temple back without making Arabs located in the area citizens, that would be religiously based resilience.

              What you have is not so much resilience as Cathedral tolerance – limited and rapidly diminishing Cathedral tolerance.

          • B says:

            >My target audience, the US middle class, is not allowed to get away with the stuff the Rhodesians did and the Israelis do.

            They don’t try. They keep their heads down, hope Katie from HR doesn’t get upset at them, and vent on 4chan (and Stormfront.)

            >Many in my target audience get the wondrous benefits of diversity, which means they are forced to interact with blacks, and the body language of this interactions is that the blacks are lords and the whites are serfs, that whites are strangers in this land.

            Boo hoo. Start your own business, build your own niche at work so you’re allowed to get away with shit no one else is, don’t be a bitch. If you can’t handle the HR department and the Facebook police, how are you going to run a country? I mean, come on.

            >Hence the perennial complaint: “Why are the Jews allowed to get away with this stuff and we are not?”

            Because y’all some bitchez, playa. I mean, really. Ante something up beyond complaints online.

            >The Cathedral is slowly bringing you into compliance, merely more slowly than rest of us, which will be the death of you, and your reluctance to acknowledge the measures you take to keep women in line shows that the Cathedral masters you.

            Any day now, said the Greeks. Any day now, said the Romans. And the Christians and the Arabs.

            >That Orthodox Jews, in substantial part, will not fight

            Have you, uh, read Colonel Winter’s speech? What do you think he is, a Hari Krishna?

            >Hence my suggestion that you engage in less vigilance against bronze age worshippers of the golden goat, and more vigilance against feminists.

            We’d love to see your presentation once you get some kind of track record beyond sweeping statements made on the Internet.

            >A Judaism that forthrightly said that Israel was commanded by God to be what progressives would call an apartheid state, in that non Jews could not be citizens, they should be ruled by a Jewish government, and their residence conditional on good behavior, a Judaism that forthrightly said that feminism was rebellion against God and man, a Judaism that proposed to take the temple back without making Arabs located in the area citizens, that would be religiously based resilience.

            Eventually. But what we have now is closer to that than what was 100, 50 and 20 years ago.

            >What you have is not so much resilience as Cathedral tolerance – limited and rapidly diminishing Cathedral tolerance.

            The Cathedral satraps cry that we have stopped listening when they crack the whip. And that’s with Netanyahu, who’s 80% one of them himself. Wait til you see what happens in 20 years, when the guys whom Bennett is too much of a leftist for take power.

            • jim says:

              >My target audience, the US middle class, is not allowed to get away with the stuff the Rhodesians did and the Israelis do.

              They don’t try. They keep their heads down, hope Katie from HR doesn’t get upset at them, and vent on 4chan (and Stormfront.)

              Lots of people do try. If they don’t act like servile second class citizens before diversities, they are likely to be physically attacked. If physically attacked, likely to be fired. You really do not have that level of Cathedral repression in Israel. Or even in America. When American blacks make an explicitly racist physical attack on American Jews, it gets treated as a racist physical attack on Jews. When they make an explicitly racist physical attack on whites of anglo saxon ancestry, gets treated legally as a non racial attack (all those involved are deemed to be “youths”), gets treated socially and for employment purposes as a racist attack by whites viciously striking black boots with white faces.

              It simply obvious that repression against Jews is far less severe than repression against whites of anglo saxon or german ancestry – or mixed race people like George Zimmerman who find themselves retroactively demoted to anglo saxon white.

              Start your own business, build your own niche at work so you’re allowed to get away with shit no one else is, don’t be a bitch.

              If your business is sufficiently small, works. At, however a certain size, which starts are around ten or so, (varying considerably by state and city) you have to have “diversity”. At a somewhat larger size, in most localities, you have to have a thought control apparatus (normal size silicon valley tech is exempted from this, but the largest silicon valley companies come under pressure from Washington, though they are, or recently were, exempted from state and local pressures to have a thought control system). It tends to be the thought control apparatus that results in servile body language towards women and minorities within the business, hence moderate sized silicon valley businesses do not suffer from servile body language in their internal affairs. However, in the street, white male servile body language is enforced by state backed physical violence, anarcho tyranny, where crimes by members of certain groups are routinely overlooked.

              Any day now, said the Greeks. Any day now, said the Romans. And the Christians and the Arabs.

              Back then, Jews had the advantage of superior hygeine and family values. The Christians matched Jews and bettered Jews for family values, but still had dreadful hygeine, right up to 1866. After 1866, matched Jews for hygiene. But by that time, Jews were no longer subject to any real repression.

              Now, some Jews have the advantage in family values – which advantage is being targeted by the Cathedral, simultaneous with repression intended to inculcate the doctrine that progressivism is the truest form of Judaism. Clearly, we are seeing a whole lot of conversos to the doctrine that progressivism is the truest form of Judaism, so your remaining strength is family values – which you don’t seem very keen to defend.

              The Cathedral satraps cry that we have stopped listening when they crack the whip.

              Says the man who rationalizes that Jewish custom and tradition is compatible with female emancipation.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            I have a couple of experiences that might illuminate this. I grew up as an evangelical Protestant, and later left it for Orthodoxy.

            If I’m right, the answer is a synthesis of your two viewpoints.

            1) In evangelical Christianity, most of the common people believe the Bible, but are murky on what it says. If I talked about the sort of stuff Jim talks about, I’d repeatedly hear “that’s not what the Bible says”, and then when I showed them the passage, they’d be surprised.

            The explicit liberalism tend to come from the intellectual class. People affiliated with academia, media, et cetera. Some people (especially Baptists) have responded to this, by being quite anti-academic, and hostile to anything that smells of theological liberalism. Often accompanied by a confederate flag and voting Republican.

            As you move closer and closer to academia, “Fundamentalist Protestantism” becomes “Evangelical Protestantism”, then just “Christianity”, and finally “Progressive Christianity”.

            2) In Orthodox circles, there is a clear retreat from academia and mass culture. This tends to center around monasteries, ethnic subcultures, old Traditions, and non-American countries (especially Russia). A lot of them seem to use the Greek or Russian language or as a way to avoid the Cathedral.

            There are only two Orthodox universities in the US, and the Catholic church is only 15 times large than us. Catholicism has reluctantly mixed itself with the Cathedral, while Orthodoxy hides in Alaskan monasteries. Fundamentalists hide in rural areas, the American South, and other areas somewhat isolated from the Cathedral.

            Mainline Protestants freely mix themselves with the Cathedral. In fact, if Moldbug is correct, they are the Cathedral.

            3) Reform and Conservative Jews freely mix with Cathedral institutions. Do Orthodox Jews? I am not sure.

            It may be, that independence from the Cathedral comes at a price. One must be isolated from academia, media, et cetera. The Amish fully accomplish this. Hasidic Jews mostly do. Fundamentalist Protestants partially. Catholics accomplish a bit, but mostly give in to the Cathedral.

            In New York City, avoiding the Cathedral is very limiting on most high-IQ people. It’s less limiting in Singapore. And really easy in Beijing.

            4) This is why it’s easier to persecute the Catholic church than Orthodox Rabbis. The Catholic church has a bunch of people inside it, who will aid in the persecution. They oppose priestly celibacy, along with the rest of Roman Catholic teaching on sex. If the Pope responded to these accusations of pedophilia, by calling them baseless, and condemning the false accusers, these tactics wouldn’t work.

            But the Pope cannot do that. Because he’d lose the support of many Catholics, who are convinced that Papal authority disappears when the Pope acts badly. And the media would loudly condemn the Pope if he responded appropriately to accusations of pedophilia.

            For Orthodox rabbis, each community that gets attacked, will respond with hostility toward the attackers. And since they are not very mixed with the Cathedral, there are few in the Orthodox communities who will help put pressure on the Orthodox rabbis. The rabbis do not need to worry about very many their members disappearing because the media condemns them. The Pope does.

          • B says:

            >If they don’t act like servile second class citizens before diversities, they are likely to be physically attacked. If physically attacked, likely to be fired.
            >You really do not have that level of Cathedral repression in Israel. Or even in America.

            I grew up in the lower-middle class parts of Brooklyn. In general, not looking like a target+staying out of majority black areas is enough to assure very low odds of being attacked by diversities. Certainly, your odds of being physically attacked while going about your daily business are much lower than ours. Yet you cringe and whimper, and lower your gaze. Incidentally, the last time I was living/studying in the states, I lived in a 50-50 area. I used to have to walk 5 miles or so to synagogue on Saturday morning. I noticed that when you walk through a pack of diversities without cringing or lowering your gaze, they make way.

            >When American blacks make an explicitly racist physical attack on American Jews, it gets treated as a racist physical attack on Jews.

            Ray Kelly has a hard time telling: so confusing!
            http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/alleged-assaults-rock-crown-heights-article-1.1514604

            >It simply obvious that repression against Jews is far less severe than repression against whites of anglo saxon or german ancestry – or mixed race people like George Zimmerman who find themselves retroactively demoted to anglo saxon white.

            We’ll see what happens when a Jew shoots one of them trying to rob him. My prediction-same as with Zimmerman.

            >If your business is sufficiently small, works. At, however a certain size, which starts are around ten or so, (varying considerably by state and city) you have to have “diversity”.

            Yeah, well, I too want a unicorn. Your target audience prioritizes “working” for a large corporation over being in an environment free of diversity hires and the Medusa-like gaze of Katie from HR, then sobs about the diversity hires and Katie. Boo hoo, man.

            > It tends to be the thought control apparatus that results in servile body language towards women and minorities within the business, hence moderate sized silicon valley businesses do not suffer from servile body language in their internal affairs.

            Translation: bitchez.

            >However, in the street, white male servile body language is enforced by state backed physical violence, anarcho tyranny, where crimes by members of certain groups are routinely overlooked.

            Again, translation: bitchez. If your body language says, clearly, the city may throw me in jail after I shoot you, but you’ll be in the ground, you will not get fucked with. Not to mention that the vast majority of your target audience lives in areas where they don’t encounter violent minorities in the “street,” and in general have a lifestyle of home-car-job-car-shopping-car-home. What, are they walking through the ghetto on their daily constitutional?

            >Back then, Jews had the advantage of superior hygeine and family values.

            We didn’t beat the Greeks via family values or hygiene. We beat them because, despite the seductiveness of their worldview, we had truth on our side and enough of us were willing to die for it, or live for it while forgoing material advantages of assimilation.

            >The Christians matched Jews and bettered Jews for family values,

            As evidenced by the hordes of bastards and syphilitics rampant in their aristocracy.

            >Says the man who rationalizes that Jewish custom and tradition is compatible with female emancipation.

            Says the man whose view on Jewish custom and tradition is informed by a bit more than selective readings of the KJV and feminist reform Jewish websites.

            • jim says:

              > > It simply obvious that repression against Jews is far less severe than repression against whites of anglo saxon or german ancestry – or mixed race people like George Zimmerman who find themselves retroactively demoted to anglo saxon white.

              > We’ll see what happens when a Jew shoots one of them trying to rob him. My prediction-same as with Zimmerman.

              Google George Zimmerman: You get one hundred images of Martin Trayvon photoshopped to look nine years old, girly, and seven eighths white, and the occasional image of George Zimmerman photoshopped to look like a subhuman white thug.

              Google Eliyahu Werdesheim: You get one hundred images of a nice fair haired Jewish boy, and the occasional image of a sullen, menacing black thug.

              George Zimmerman was obviously innocent, was correctly found innocent, despite the judge doing everything he could to prevent justice, in the face of hilarious testimony by prosecution witnesses

              Eliyahu Werdesheim was obviously guilty, was correctly found guilty – and was sentenced to probation, no fine, and no time.

          • B says:

            >George Zimmerman was obviously innocent, was correctly found innocent, despite the judge doing everything he could to prevent justice, in the face of hilarious testimony by prosecution witnesses

            >Eliyahu Werdesheim was obviously guilty, was correctly found guilty – and was sentenced to probation, no fine, and no time.

            “The precise details of who made the first move in the altercation were not clear at trial. But White ruled at the end of the case that Werdesheim and his brother followed the teenager, scaring him and causing him to pick up a wooden board with nails in it.

            Werdesheim pinned Ausby to the ground and hit him in the head with a walkie-talkie, Judge Pamela J. White found. ”

            I don’t understand. Zimmerman, a mestizo neighborhood watchman who killed a thuglet trying to bash his head into the concrete with no witnesses, was found innocent. Werdesheim, a Jewish neighborhood watchman who bonked a thuglet swinging a board with nails at his head in broad daylight, got three years’ probation and diversity rehab training. From this we learn that…the Jews get away with murder while whites don’t?

            Incidentally, the notable thing here is that the Jews of Baltimore are able to maintain their community where everyone else has run away and is posting angrily on 4Chan, similar to the Jews of Crown Heights and Williamsburg and the Italians of Bay Ridge and Bensonhurst. Again, balls and cohesion take the day.

            • jim says:

              If a white guy is subject to a racist attack by blacks, he gets punished.

              If a Jew makes a racist attack on a black, not punished.

              If the press had gone around photoshopping Eliyahu Werdesheim’s victim as a poor pitiful nine year old eurofemme, I bet his community would have gotten the message, swiftly denounced Eliyahu, and found no end of photos of him suitable for photoshopping into a nazi thug.

              Note that whenever the Cathedral thinks about applying the child molestation weapon to Jews, rather than Christians and Muslims, we don’t see any pushback, rather people prepare to do the perp walk, where those accused of preventing unprovable charges from being proven confess to unspecified sins, and repent of insufficient leftism. Jewish community prepares to go into total grovel mode, but yet, mysteriously, gets spared again – so far anyway.

              I am seeing absolutely zero pushback by Jews against the Cathedral. Rather, I see the Cathedral granting Jews tolarance it does not grant whites – and that tolerance rapidly diminishing.

              If there was pushback by Jews, you would have told me how Jews keep women under control, and are commanded by God to do so, instead of telling me that Jewish Orthodoxy was totally feminism compatible.

              When you tell me Jewish Orthodoxy is totally feminism compatible, you are signaling the Cathedral that Jews are willing to roll over and die on command – which pious submissiveness is survival behavior appropriate to exiles, but not survival behavior appropriate to a people with their own land.

          • B says:

            Other differences in the case; unlike Zimmerman, who had been a bit of a loser in his youth, Werdesheim was a model citizen, and didn’t have any prior mugshots to photoshop. He even looks like a model citizen in his lone mugshot, the sneaky Jew! Unlike in Zimmerman’s case, where the “victim” was dead, Werdesheim’s “victim” took the stand…and then proceeded to cry, refuse to testify and stated that he didn’t want to press charges. Unlike Zimmerman’s “community” (bitchez, who turned on him,) Werdesheim’s community actually stood together behind him.

            Again, before crying about how the Jews get away with murder, maybe try a bit of balls and cohesion.

          • B says:

            Hey, when white Johns Hopkins student John Pontolillo killed black criminal Donald Rice with a SAMURAI SWORD and wasn’t charged, arrested or anything, were the Joooz behind that too?

            • jim says:

              John Pontolillo was being burgled in his own home and was attacked by the burglar. If that is your poster boy for non Jewish whites getting away with it, you are mighty hard up for poster boys.

              Pontolillo was innocent. Werdesheim was guilty, yet received no punishment. If Werdesheim’s name had been Pontolillo, he would be doing several years hard time.

          • B says:

            >John Pontolillo was being burgled in his own home and was attacked by the burglar.

            He went outside and confronted the burglar. NTTAWWT.

            >Pontolillo was innocent. Werdesheim was guilty, yet received no punishment.

            Werdesheim was innocent. He was defending himself from a dude trying to hit him in the head with a board full of nails. He used a minimum amount of force, as evidenced by the fact that the “victim” was not seriously injured and didn’t want to press charges.

            >If Werdesheim’s name had been Pontolillo, he would be doing several years hard time.

            More likely, either he would have gotten the same 3 years’ probation, or the whole thing would have been dropped as per victim’s request. Werdesheim only got prosecuted as the representative of a community successfully resisting the Detroitization of Baltimore by the Cathedral’s clients. Were he not such a golden boy and model citizen, they would not have let him get off with probation, or voided it upon appeal.

            Incidentally, that community’s watchmen are actually competent, physically and mentally, to physically confront unarmed petty criminals without having to shoot them (or hack them up with samurai swords.) Valuable practical lesson there.

            • jim says:

              He went outside and confronted the burglar. NTTAWWT.

              Not unless you count John Pontolillo’s garage as “outside.” In contrast, Werdesheim’s victim had every right to be where he was and do what he was doing.

              Werdesheim was innocent. He was defending himself from a dude trying to hit him in the head with a board full of nails

              At the time the black was attacked, he had put down the board. He was trying to get away the whole time, and Werdesheim was pursuing the whole time.

              This is conspicuously different from the Zimmerman case, where Trayvon mugged Zimmerman and was on top of Zimmerman beating him when Zimmerman shot him, and the Pontolillo case where the black guy was in Pontolillo’s garage and disinclined to leave.

              More likely, either he would have gotten the same 3 years’ probation,

              The proposition that the law treats Jews in black on white conflcits equally with non Jewish whites in black on white conflicts is so obviously crazy I cannot believe you are arguing in good faith. While it is obvious that Jews are legally inferior to blacks, they are legally superior to whites.

              It is the standard and well known victim hierarchy. Jews are victims. They are less victims than homosexuals, blacks, etc, let alone Palestinians, and are about equally victims with women, but they still have the invaluable victim status that makes them legally superior to non victims. And gay whales trump everyone. Everyone knows this. It shows up all the time in routine everyday enforcement. It is absurd to deny it.

              For a Jew to deny legal supremacy over a white gentile in America is as ridiculous as woman denying legal supremacy over a man.

              If Judaism was actually showing “resilience”, the Cathedral would have rapidly demoted Jews right out of the victim hierarachy, in the same way that Zimmerman got to be an honorary white.

  13. Robert says:

    Most of what you guys are saying is correct. I have a teenage daughter, and by all proper accounts, she should be getting married as soon as possible. The real dilemma for me is finding the right man. I act as a flood control channel, but you can only hold it back for so long, especially when you are getting no outside (communal) support. Most of the boys around her cannot support her, or plan on going away to college. I told her that I would be okay if, when she gets married, they lived with me. Most people think I’m crazy when I say I want my daughter to get married asap. I love this discussion, but what we really need is some real life communities. If there are any men reading this between the ages of 18 and 23 who are American, Christian, white, and could support a wife email me. Robert_engr@yahoo.com.

    • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

      I’m laughing.

      There are some bad places to find your daughter a husband. Then there’s Jim’s blog.

      Somebody should set up a neoreactionary dating site. Women can’t sign up. Only their Fathers.

      • Robert says:

        Believe me I’ve thought about it.

        • jim says:

          Neoreactionaries are attempting to create a social group with somewhat Nazi sounding of name “Phalanx”, one of whose functions will be to provide social support for patriarchy.

          • Adolf the Poorly-Named Children's Book Character says:

            You realize that the Spanish Fascist party was called the “Falange”, which is Spanish for “Phalanx”, right?

            • jim says:

              Why it never occurred to me. I’m shocked, shocked. Our Phalanx is non political movement aimed purely at self improvement.

          • nyan sandwich says:

            When I made Phalanx, was not aware of Falange. Am now aware, but merely chuckling.

            If using a fascist reference causes the steam escaping the ears of the progs to come out at 300 C instead of 250 C, so what? The fascists had cool aesthetics.

            Phalanx isn’t fascist, Spanish, nor a politcal party, though, and I won’t let a few historical “bad guys” define what I’m going to do.

    • Ansible says:

      You’re probably going to have to look for men older than that.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        “Ansible”

        L.O.L…. Exactly. Daddy hasn’t given a reason why she’s marriage material either. I mean it’s true that he reads “Jim” and that the apple sometimes doesn’t fall far from the tree, but we’re getting to hypothetical conjecture without further description on his part…

        Best regards,

        A.J.P.

    • nyan sandwich says:

      You’re crazy asking on here, bro. Then again, maybe you’re not crazy. In bizarro world, respectable men find respectable husbands for their respectable daughters on blogs populated by anonymous political extremists.

      (I’m interested, but laughing too hard, 25, and merely pro-Christian atheist.)

    • Cavalier says:

      No offense, but this is one of the funniest things I’ve ever read. I’d love to hear the follow-up. Two years have passed, what events have come to pass, what is Robert’s daughter’s status?

  14. Wyrd says:

    “I told her that I would be okay if, when she gets married, they lived with me.”

    Be careful she doesn’t bring home a Meathead.

  15. […] defense of hardcore patriarchy? (This, however, seems […]

  16. RJ Moore II says:

    Personally, I see Ethno-Nationalism/Caste Systems/Eugenics as a means to an end, not an end in itself, and that differentiates me quite a bit from parochial identarians. I give zero shits out of infinity about lumpenproles, white, brown or neon. I highly prize the Faustian spirit of the Aryanids and especially Europeans, and would never see it traded in for the clannishness of the Jew or Korean as so many dead-end racialists would be. For me, to use a literary example, Conan is the justification of Cimmeria. I feel that identarians and nationalists tend to reverse that valuation, something I find just as disgusting as the idea that I should be robbed to support negroid breeding projects. White trash and black trash are all trash to me.

  17. […] there is no way a doctrine that was not aggressively liberal would be formulated. Example number one and number two […]

Leave a Reply