The Enlightenment debunked

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy gives us the official version of the enlightenment:

  • “Reason is man’s central capacity.”
  • “Beliefs are to be accepted only on the basis of reason, not on the authority of priests, sacred texts, or tradition.”
  • “All men (including, on the view of many, women) are equal in respect of their rationality, and should thus be granted equality before the law and individual liberty.”
  • “Man is by nature good. (Kant endorsed the Christian view of a “radical evil” in human nature, but held that it is possible to overcome it.)”
  • “Both an individual and humanity as a whole can progress to perfection.”
  • “Tolerance is to be extended to other creeds, and ways of life.”
  • “The Enlightenment devalues local “prejudices’ and customs, which owe their development to historical peculiarities rather than to the exercise of reason. What matters to the Enlightenment is not whether one is French or German, but that one is an individual man, united in brotherhood with all other men by the rationality one shares with them.”

The first two propositions superficially sound like a commitment to the scientific method – but somehow they have left out evidence, experiment, and observation. After dismissing religion, the Enlightenment demands adherence to three blatantly false religious beliefs, which beliefs contradict reason, experiment and observation far more blatantly than young earth creationism does.

  • All men are not equal, nor women equal to men, nor groups and categories of men equal to each other.
  • Nor is man by nature good. In the cold and morally neutral terminology of the dark enlightenment, the natural outcome is defect-defect, and avoiding this outcome, getting to cooperate-cooperate, becomes more and more difficult as the number of people that you have to deal with increases. It takes social institutions, and to deal with these ever larger scales, these institutions have to be ever more finely honed and precisely made, and are ever more vulnerable to entropy and error.
  • The “progress to perfection.” line is that our nature is entirely the result of environment. Just raise the self esteem of women and blacks, and everything will be lovely. This has been tried, and the outcome is far from lovely, but they just keep trying harder. The grotesquely inflated self esteem of blacks leads to blacks committing acts of violence against whites, and the grotesquely inflated self esteem of women leads to disastrous choices. They divorce the father of their children expecting to marry a six foot six athletic billionaire, or they marry late, or they do not marry at all.

The extension of tolerance is notoriously selective, and necessarily selective, for if tolerance is mandatory, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech is forbidden, which is not very tolerant at all. Tolerance is not extended to the “intolerant” meaning not extended to those who prefer to cooperate with people who are cooperative, and who prefer to refrain from cooperating with those who defect. Hence the financial crisis. Official minorities and single women, and in particular minority single women, and in particular blacks, and in particular black single women, generally do not repay mortgages. Any criterion that leads to banks extending loans to people that are inclined to repay, leads to banks discriminating against minorities, single women, and especially blacks. Which is forbidden. And so the 2007-2008 financial crisis. So the enlightened tolerate Muslims blowing people up and raping infidel women, but do not tolerate whites hanging out with people who are inclined to pay their debts. That is one creed and one way of life that they are not inclined to extend tolerance to. Forbidding an ever increasing range of speech and association is necessarily intolerant. We should stick to suppressing dangerous lies and heresies that aggressively pursue political power (such as The Enlightenment). Any suppression of freedom of speech, association, and assembly that goes beyond this is excessive and damaging.  Official tolerance is inherently and necessarily dangerously intolerant.

Civilization is the advance of technical and scientific knowledge, and most importantly, social organization. Most of all it is the capability to maintain cooperate/cooperate relationships in very large groups. You will notice that the enlightenment is a root and branch attack on civilization, and Rousseau explicitly framed it as an attack on civilization and intent to destroy civilization.

The devaluation of local prejudices and customs is the dismantling of Chesterton’s fence, the abandonment of the slowly and painfully accumulated habits, customs, laws and institutions that make civilization possible, the devaluation and abandonment of the roots of Western Civilization.  Our Cathedrals are empty and abandoned.

210 Responses to “The Enlightenment debunked”

  1. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    There are several factors that can reliably lead to intellectual malpractice.

    The first and most obvious concerns that age old essential questions: who’s ox is to be gored? Untermenschen naturally have great incentive for subversive philosophies that would result in higher advancement or enrichment for themselves than might be otherwise possible. They are essentially the slower runners looking for ‘shortcuts’ around the swifter runners instead of being consigned to oblivion as god intended, which so often means somehow suckering the swift runners into agreeing to this farce in some way.

    Which then leads us to the second and less obvious factor, which is signal hacking in status competition; *pseudosanctimonia*. Signal hacking is a largely memetic operation, and hence does *not* necessarily result in the improvement of ones own interests (and indeed, they can often run *counter* to a groups interests). Within this space called discourse, the selection method is popularity, and so they must adapt to the lowest common denominators.

    At its root false holiness involves autists confusing *proxies* for virtue that often exist as terms in discourse, with the greater ‘good itself’. They then zero in on and inflate these proxies, upon which they can proclaim they are ‘holier than thou’, and claim moral superiority (and thus higher social status and a band aid over the existential void in their empty souls). Which in turn leads other to engage in similat bouts of inflation, and in isolation they will reflect off of each other in the echo chamber more and more untill all adaptive nuance is cast away, and only the ‘proxy’ remains in its most simplistic and banal form.

    There any many things such signaling singularities can theoretically revolve around (consider for instance the [d]evolution of ‘bushido’ amongst the samurai during times of peace), but in practice the most memetically adaptive ones tend to, naturally, appear the most ecumenical while simultaneously appealing to ones conceits (like the first type). Various doctrines of ‘universal succor’ have often been the ‘path of least resistance’ for those wishing to appear holy with a minimum of cognitive horsepower required, and thus by far have been the greatest sources of evil throughout human history.

    The third and most subtle factor of all is rather something on a more meta level: beings are most prone to philosophizing about topics in which they have the most difficulty.

    Recall if you will Heidegger’s phenominological analysis of tool use; when a tool is in good working order, it tends to pass out of mind as a concrete ‘thing’, and more as an extension of yourself, operating in smooth unconscious unity. When a tool starts to malfunction this ‘extension’ becomes rudely interrupted, and it once again becomes a concrete ‘thing’ in the consciousness, to divine its malfunction.

    So consider then the irony inherent in the scenario, where the ‘thing’ in question involves thinking itself, and one presumes to ameliorate it by… thinking? Hahah!

    Natural adepts naturally pay little mind to wheels that do not squeak, and thus naturally feel little motivation to spill ink or blow air on the subject. To even think of the thing in question as an ‘issue’ instead of just one unremarkable backdrop of life out of many others rarely intrudes in their consciousness or consumes their waking hours in neuroticism. And so philosophies of things which are adaptive tend to appear mostly after they’ve already gotten lost.

    The halls of humanities and philosophy in general are haunted by beings who are also uniquely unqalified to pronounce upon them. That certainly puts the history of academics in an interesting light, does it not?

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “Untermenschen naturally have great incentive for subversive philosophies that would result in higher advancement or enrichment for themselves than might be otherwise possible.”

      I’m betting this is the biggest contributor. “Everyone is (politically) equal” takes away the usage of using political power as a reward to pro-social behavior and so is a belief most likely to be attractive to those who lose out in the game. This is probably the start of the cycle.

      “At its root false holiness involves autists confusing *proxies* for virtue that often exist as terms in discourse, with the greater ‘good itself’.”

      Nitpick- I assume you mean tendency and not actual autisitcs who have significant difficulty in social interactions and so are unlikely to be convincing to others.

      I think anonymous conservative’s explanation (liberalism involves damage to parts of the brain that detect danger) is better since it is cyclical- things get good so there is less selection for the ability so…

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        The term autism has been and is used to describe at least two or three different clusters of pathology. My use of ‘autism’ here is basically Internet Autism.

        Id est, that set of egregiously annoying behaviors that reliably sours any conversation joined by or community beset with such spergmatics, which through the magic of neologism demanded a term be supplied to Name it, and so arrived autism in its hour.

        Formulaic kantianism, a tendency to approach all things in terms of some reductive categorical imperative upon which matters may be weighed, relevant to the discussion here, is a hallmark of this set.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          To bring it all home; the internet forum is the natural home of the internet autist. But internet autists did not simply spring from the ether at the turn of the century; such tendencies, such *people*, have always been among us.

          The question then is, if there was no internet, where then did the internet autist go to hear himself talk?

          Why, to the actual, literal forums, lyceums, and academies of course…

          • Cavalier says:

            Sure, if you want to refer to thr dedication to, and practice of, memetic hackery and general mindfuckery as “autism”.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              Meme magic in the most sophisticated intellectual discourses on the net, anonymous mongolian fingerpainting boards, have already imbued the term with just such wondrous new descriptive powers.

              I had a feeling it might’ve rustled jimmies when deploying it, but i don’t consider it a drawback if it hits close to home; rather, that’s the whole point.

              To *pathologize* the agents; to more rightly cast their actions as not *merely* contingent expressions of will, that anyone might adopt and be justified in adopting within a given incentive structure, but rather a terminal expression of some crucial *deficiency*; ill fruit born from an ill tree.

              The distinction of course is that it refers more to a general condition, than the precice behavior in question arising from the condition. In this ill be the first to agree that further [url=https://archive.li/n93EW]white magic[/url] would be germane.

              ‘Cuck’ is a perfect example; both describing a certain set of undesirable behavior, and digging a shiv deep into the soul of the one being described, making them feel really bad about themselves. Bullying saves lives (and civilizations).

              Jim might call it ‘Phariseeism’, which i suppose is workable if nothing better comes around.

    • Kevin C. says:

      “At its root false holiness involves autists confusing *proxies* for virtue that often exist as terms in discourse, with the greater ‘good itself’.”

      Goodhart’s Law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”

    • You focus on autists, who are plenty in internet debates and can be easily annoying, but the actually influential people are not autists. The best symbol I can find is Trudeau, the absolutely extroverted guy with excellent social skills, all surface no depth, who is a feminist simply because feminism happens to fashionable.

      It is actually them, the non-autistic extroverts who use false proxies for virtue, because that is how fashion works, like in clothing: a brand that got popular amongst those who actually have good taste because the designer has good taste too becomes a proxy for good taste and others who lack it simply buy everything from the brand to pretend they have it. It is a neurotypical extrovert thing.

      I think the actual mistake of the autist is to assume depth exists in all this when there is none. So he tries to keep the whole thing consistent, the only base for which is mostly egalitarianism, and tortures himself because he called someone retarded and that is ableist. Autism expresses itself in looking for false depth, consistency, theory where there is none, just fashion.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Heidegger once elucidated that the thing which most distinguishes dasein and other beings, is its world formation capacity. Ie, its capacity for imagination.

        In this schema, autists and normies are both conditional solipsists; that is, that they lack in imagination, lack *genius*, in its original sense, which is creation.

        The difference between an autist and a normie though, is capacity for *calculative* aptitude. And it is this unbalanced chimaera of calculative aptitude combined with imaginative poverty that reliably (and more or less invariably) produces the most dysfunctional ideas known to man, the most apparently rigorous (overwrought) and reductively simple ideas, ere they turn their attentions to trying to ‘solve’ problems in more transcendent contexts somewhat beyond what can be easily tested in a lab; such as how to run a civilization.

        Autists are kinda radioactive isotopes: useful if properly contained and deployed in certain contexts, but apt to start causing mutation and necrosis if you get them all over people.

  2. Mister Grumpus says:

    This one takes me back. Back to how it felt the first time I read this blog, when the claims felt horribly and confusingly wrong… and also made logical sense.

    New Guys:
    It’s a form of torture. For a while. But eventually your eyes and ears adjust and the world becomes visible. You feel more lonely, but also less crazy.

    • Ted Nuisance says:

      hahahahahahaaaa – exactly my experience!

    • J says:

      I remember a post by heartist (minion of Satan) more or less baffling the hell out of me.
      “What an asshole, and absolutely wro… ”
      “He must be mistaken because … Well, he just is… I guess.”

      I didn’t find him again until years later, I eventually came around. “Ohhhhh, this game shit kinda works. Hm…”

      You just gotta see some shit.

  3. Cavalier says:

    >Any criterion that leads to banks extending loans to people that are inclined to repay etc. etc.

    This is kind of a dishonest argument. Nobody intends to repay their debts, not the government, not the banks, not the central banks, not the corporations. It’s the world’s greatest shell game, it’s history’s grandest game of music chairs, and the people stuck with the bill when the music stops are suckers. I imagine we all know who “the people” are.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Analogous to saying noone intends to pay taxes, premiums, wages, prices or any other form of rent either.

      Evidently true, on a certain level. Much like psychological egoism.

      Much like psychological egoism, rendering itself largely useless as tool of analysis by reducing the term from the colloquial exosemantics it was originally associated with to tautological matterlessness; the very source of its invincible unassailability as a rhetorical posture in debate.

      If one were to object to the phrasing (much like how the abortive post-protestant ‘new atheists’, basically came down to playing semantic games to avoid calling any one thing the term god or divine or elselike), one would inevitably end up conjuring yet another set of terms to describe the exact same phenomena; in this case, the design space of what peoples are more or less prone to paying debts (in response this or that method of coercion).

      • Cavalier says:

        No, there’s a critical difference in that taxes, wages, prices, and rents are not debts and can be paid according to the proximate laws of nature. Premiums are also mostly not debts, and those in charge of them have to balance their spreadsheets, so to speak.

        In contrast, these debts are not intended to be paid back, and even if they were, they cannot be repaid. Debts creation by fractional reserve banking, for instance, cannot be repaid. With constant inflation, it isn’t too much to say that every obligation denominated in dollars is subtly corrupt, as the value of the dollar is ever decreasing, every agreement entered into by everyone is subtly corrupt. In fact, the dollar itself is a debt, and its continued existence is predicated on the continual and continuous expansion of the total debt pool.

        When the banks failed, and it was revealed that they owed many times more than they owned, the government and the central banks bailed them out. Everyone important was outfitted with gold-trimmed parachutes and dropped over a chain of tropical islands. The banks got the money from the governments and the central banks, and the governments and central banks got the money from the honest, upstanding, law-abiding suckers… whereupon they immediately proceeded to multiplying the number of implicit dollars in order to paper over the gaping hull breach.

        Don’t worry, banks are no longer lending to useless minorities, so the price of housing is back to normal. The situation is normal and under control.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          Preaching to the choir here; that lending at interest is at its root an alchemical act, creating *de novo* obligation with no prior referent, the conjuration of a value where none existed before, thus facilitating the extraction of capital from the debtor to the one who holds debt. That even one who holds nothing else, does nothing else, gives nothing else, may accumulate through no other power but this power.

          As i have often said here and elsewhere, if the king is not the banker, then it is the banker who is king. We have, in fact, always and already been living under autocracy; the only question is whether it is explicit, or occulted.

          All of which is largely orthogonal to the thrust of the criticism above, which is that such facts notwithstanding, is never the less still unresponsive to the questions of, say, a claims adjustor tasked with predicting default rates; that it is plainly obvious different thedes differ in their propensity to honor debts, obligations, and agreements; that whites tend especially to reliably honor their word and repay perceived debts; conservative whites most especially.

          The problem i wished to highlight was more or less the use of ‘charged’ language in the initial post, as if it were simply a matter of will that all share, which can confuse or misrepresent the situation; even if everyone absolutely *didn’t* want to default on their obligations and absolutely *did* want to repay them in full, it would eventually happen in some form anyways. As the saying goes, its Inherent In The System.

          Basically its ascribing a sort of inappropriate intentionality to the whole business, much like how liberals ascribe intentionality behind googles sucking at civilization.

          • Cavalier says:

            I don’t think my statements ascribe inappropriate intentionality. Whites created the system. Whites run the system. Whites profit from the system. Whites get bailed out by (bail themselves out with) the system. If whites were by default as honorable as you seem to think, at least with regards to corrupt money, status, and power, none of the bad things happening in the world would be happening.

            My gut instinct regarding interest is that it actually is not inherently an alchemical act. Even in an ideal world with a perfectly hard currency — suppose a currency based on the calorie — interest is possible so long as the sum of the principal and the interest over the loan’s term match the net increase of energy utilization (availability/potential?) in the local system. I believe this covers expeditionary ventures (piracy, colonialism, war of conquest) and industrial-type from-farmed-solar-rays-to-coal-and-oil growth equally. Then again, I’m no expert, so caveat emptor.

            • Cavalier says:

              * so long as the interest over the loan’s term matches the net increase

              * so long as the sum of the principal and the interest over the loan’s term match the final net energy utilization

              I think that fixes the logical error there.

            • peppermint says:

              If the interest matches the debtor’s profit? So basically, no loans, just offering your business up to the bank for the bank to own?

              Someone’s going to offer a loan with a reasonable amount of interest to cover the risk and profit a little.

              • Cavalier says:

                The creditor would use the interest to cover risk and profit some, while the debtor would use the principal in order to, in a sense, “pull down money (energy) from the future into the present”. The money-now for the debtor lets him grow his business, or whatever, more quickly by dumping lots of money into investment nao which lets him “juice” his company, fast-forwarding its growth. The money-later for the creditor lets him profit in the future by finding a reliable, capable debtor and letting him do his thing.

                The problem is if, upon the conclusion, the fulfillment of the debt, the books don’t balance, so to speak. The transaction needs to close, and the problem is that it doesn’t, because the design of the currency is inherently corrupt. The corruption of the system piles up most visibly as national debt, but also takes the form of invisible “shadow dollars” “backing” the real dollars. The 2007-2008 crisis was essentially some of these “shadow dollars” “collapsing” into the real ones, causing the so-called “credit crunch”.

    • lalit says:

      Off Topic, my man, but I tried your suggestion for http://endmyopia.org/ in a January post of Jim’s regarding vaccination and your suggestion Godamned works. My power is down from -2.25 to -1.75 in the right eye and from -2.0 to -1.0 in the left. So this works. Yeeha!

      As promised, I am ready to formally convert to this new religion whose God is Gnon and the Avatar is Kek. I am ready to live and die for Kek. While Kek may smirk at those to insult him, I will brook no criticism of Kek. All critics of Kek will be summarily beheaded following every refinement of Torture.

      Now please indicate, what formalities I must undergo for a formal conversion?

      PS: I’m serious!

  4. Rreactionaryfuture says:

    “That one is an individual man, united in brotherhood with all other men by the rationality one shares with them.”

    Notice you have no problem with this, even though this is central? The whole of society being the amalgam of individuals whose cooperation must be explained. You even make this same point in the post as an attempt to refute the Enlightenment. You are deeply pwned. How does a baby engage in rational cooperation? Who qualifies as a rational agent, and can this be defined robustly? And so on. The answer is the resultant mental breakdown parading as serious thought that we call philosophy. A giant web of sophistry.

    You are selling Burkean ignorance.

    • Alf says:

      Good to see you’re still peddling silly platitudes.

    • It is true that the Middle Ages didn’t really have much of a concept of individuality, but the Greco-Roman Era did. Also notice how the whole Enlightenment thing is rooted in researching and trying to reinvent that era, poorly. Our job is actually try to reinvent that better because it is sort of obvious that living like Cicero is something imaginable in the modern world but living like William the Conqueror not. It is not really clear yet on which side lies individuality, i.e. on the side of the botched reinvention or the actually useful side.

      • BTW I use this nickname to draw attention to the fact that individual means “indivisible” and that is bullshit, we have not one united will but many conflicting will-fragments. Basically we all have an internal parliiament, we all are a house divided. Individuality, in the sense of seein a person as a united thing, not a cacophonic debating house, is wrong. Individualism, in the sense of persons being somewhat isolated and separated, has more merit, at least for intelligent people. Less intelligent people are herd-men, but with enough IQ one is almost painfully alone – check Nietzsche on this.

        • peppermint says:

          The Geth from Mass Effect are a parliament of a thousand voices or whatever. Individuals, defined as descendants of the first animal, have a will, which was an important enough advance that a significant fraction of biomass is animals. Most of the rest of the multi-cellular life absorbs sunlight directly.

          Individuals are also defined as the smallest functional units of civilization. Since we want political authority to be as concentrated as possible, we place it in the hands of an individual, called the king.

    • Michael Rothblatt says:

      RetardoFnargl, oh RetardoFnargl, what would we do without your idiocy? You see it’s quite obvious that individuals possess agency. Take yourself for example. Even though you are an utter imbecile, you still possess individual agency. Otherwise you wouldn’t be a “reactionary,” but an SJW galore, and a loyal subject of the Cathedral. You see, by every breath you draw you are disproving what you preach.

      • Anonymous says:

        He’s patently wrong about there not being “rational agents”, or that “rational agents” do not mold the character of social institutions. It’s not so much that politics is downstream of culture, as that politics *is* culture. It’s the unintended consequence of biology.

        But neurology disproved the existence of souls, ergo there’s no such thing as “free will”, thus the only issue that has ever mattered in mass-politics is human neurological and biological non-uniformity. Each brain is different, and acts differently! This is due to concrete reality, not muh retarded metaphysics.

        What you (falsely) believe your own or someone else’s “free will” to be is irrelevant. You do exactly as the electrical pulses in your brain tell you to do, and these electrical pulses are determined by sundry factors including your genes and physical state, and *not* including any “incorporeal soul” which is no more real than Allah’s angel whispering in your mom’s pregnant womb what you’re gonna do after you’re born.

        You can’t prove or disprove anything regarding the whispering of Allah’s angel into your mom’s pregnant womb, and likewise you can’t prove or disprove anything regarding the “incorporeal soul” which ostensibly influences the electrical pulses in your brain, since metaphysics is indeed retarded and GOD WORKS THROUGH FLESH AND MATTER.

        If you disagree with me, you must let feral niggers balls-deep-rape your kike-wife in all her orifices and especially the cunt while she’s ovulating, and raise the ensuing offspring as full Jews, since through “free will” their “incorporeal soul” can become just as Jewish as Michael Rothblatt himself. If you don’t let feral niggers poz the shit out of your wife’s neghole, and raise the offspring as perfectly legitimate Rothblatts, you have to admit that “souls” don’t exist and neurology > muh free will.

        • Michael Rothblatt says:

          Platonic souls don’t exist. Doesn’t mean that there’s no free will. For certain, and admittedly very limited values of “free,” of course, but still a lot more than dumb determinists allow for.

          P.S. Fuck you.

          • Anonymous says:

            No. The “very limited” so-called “free” part in “free will” is not free at all, since it’s determined entirely by the nature of the electrical pulses in the brain, which nature is not beholden to any independent “third party” entity.

            If no independent third party entity influences your brain’s electrical activity, then your “free will” is absolutely 100% an illusion, by definition. You have no “freedom”.

            Besides, it’s memetically expedient to counter-signal “free will”. It’s an excellent myth, regardless of muh truth-value. If full-determinism is accepted then there’s no question that women belong in kitchens and kikes belong in ovens. Determinism offers a total RE-ORIENTATION of the political landscape, a “paradigm shift” if you “will” (heheh), since that way soul-theory can be abandoned and essentialism is embraced.

            Why is essentialism rejected by the Cathedral? Because niggers supposedly have “enough free will” to become your legitimate progeny, a Rothblatt’s Rothblatt. No free will, no argument. The whole scam goes “poof” like a house of cards blown by a hurricane. If essentialism is right, then no amount of edukkkashion can turn niggers into Aryans or menstruating bitches into competent CEOs.

            We want to abolish schools for *several* reasons, one issue is infantilization, which we’ve discussed at length elsewhere; another is that it’s a huge con, since no school has made a human out of a nigger. It’s either you’re a human, or you’re not. Being supervised by pedophiles for 12 years won’t change your inner, inherent, essential nature. By going full-determinist, society can skip over the whole trial-and-gruesome-error part involved in attempting to humanize coons. It’s not possible, and the only solution to the dysgenics/genetic load problem is to take MoonMan lyrics as policy instruction.

            If determinism is correct then the very foundations of the POW — puritan occupied world — are shattered to smithereens. No more dyke-feminism, no more Prussian School System, no more (((social engineering))), no more niggers. All gone up in smoking flames. You say: “muh truth-value.” But the truth-value of a myth is impertinent. The white race is literally dying. Do you split-hairs about truth-values, or do you embrace determinism and pull the trigger on every nigger?

            Forget about “free will”. It’s a bad myth. Bad myths should be replaced with good myths. Determinism is a good myth. I want determinism.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              Post of the Day.

            • Michael Rothblatt says:

              Nonsense. Neuroplasticity is a proven fact. Brain changes its structure throughout the life.

              • Anonymous says:

                Irrelevant. You’re still absolutely 100% dependent on the electric activity in your brain for having a “will” – there’s no independent force “above” that, anymore than there’s an angel of Allah whispering into pregnant wombs the fate of the fruit residing therein.

                Usually when you point out how it’s all electrical activity in the brain, the soul-cucks play smartass and argue “b-b-b-but the incorporeal soul controls the brain pulses, somehow”. Yeah, nice try Saul/soul – Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego. You just fear the Eternal Void so you made up a myth which evidently results in egalitarianism.

                Just by resorting to muh plasticity you prove my very point: for your “soul” to “make a move”, your brain needs to “make a move” – fact. How does your brain make a move? By natural electric processes that have nothing to do with demonic energy fields. Where’s your demonic energy field? Oh, right. You don’t have one. GTFO.

              • Anonymous says:

                >Brain changes its structure throughout the life.

                Do you have a plan to genetically engineer niggers into being human? No, you’ve got no such plan. So give up. Schools demonstrably do not “transform” niggers into humans. They don’t transform anyone into anything. The puritans are fond of schools for the same reason they are averse to child employment aka “child labor” – they’re trying to control ya. The same thing applies to sexuality. Puritans are control-addicts.

                “Oh noes! What a scary world! Must control everything that happens, or I may encounter surprises. Oh oh oh, I’m too delicate and fragile for unpredictablities. Gimme a couch, cuz I gonna faint.” – every puritan ever.

                If determinism is real, the entire puritan world order crumbles. You can’t control people with your oppressive institutions, since human nature doesn’t respond to your control-freaked social engineering. If the world is so scary, you should lock yourself in your own home (also: lock yourself in a chastity-belt) and die there – MEEKLY. Else, accept determinism, put niggers underground without a sound, gas the kikes including the tykes, and be free and merry. Not only am I funnier than you are, I’m also funner. That’s why I’m #winning.

                Puritans have killed your TFR starting at the 1880. Your testosterone and sperm count have plummeted not because of kike pornography which began 20 years ago, but because of puritan world-domination which began 120 years ago. I say, follow Guy Fieri and just pop ’em in the oven. You can reproduce with great fecundity and still have fun – you just need to kill the puritan inside and kill the puritan outside. We’ve had enough of Buzz Killington. Buzz Killington is childless, you don’t have to be.

                “Muh soul” was never there in the first place. Find better metaphysics, bro. Like, something that’s more congruent with biological realism.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  You cannot turn nigger into a genious by schooling, but you can certainly turn a genious into a nigger by making him watch porn. It turns out porn is great at rewiring and shrinking your brain.

                • Anonymous says:

                  I see you have autism of the “non-weaponized” variety… lame.

            • Alf says:

              Debating the existence of free will is like debating the existence of God.

              • Anonymous says:

                Why don’t you tell that to the side that argues *for* the existence of souls? If the soul-cucks can make their case, I should make mine. And my case is better than theirs, because determinism is more right-wing (in the Moldbuggian definition of “conducive to order”) than demonic energy fields.

                • Alf says:

                  Souls as in metaphysical undetectable energy fields are silly. Womantalk, and once elevated to mantalk purely used for leftist strategies.

                  Free will I’m not so sure. If I really have no free will, why try at all? Might as well be a nihilist. Then again, thinking I’d have the choice to be a nihilist in a world with no free will is stupid.

                  Huh.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >If I really have no free will, why try at all? Might as well be a nihilist.

                  I’ve heard the exact same argument the last time someone had defended “free will” to my ears. I don’t get it. How does “no free will” lead to “may as well not get up the couch and everything is pointless”? I do all the stuff that I do not because I have “free will” which tells me to do it, but because I have non-free, neurologically-determined “will” which commands me.

                  Values or lack thereof, nihilism or its absence: these things have none to do with the notion “free will”. For instance, if you’re hungry, and you have a functioning brain, your brain devises strategies — which may appear in the form of “verbal thoughts” — to get food. There’s no freedom of the will in here, yet you’re still gonna eat, rather than “give up”. Why would you give up? Giving up is just one route of out many, and not the evolutionarily optimal, in most cases. Your brain chooses your path for you, and may even produce “thoughts” to rationalize it; and for it to choose “giving up”, something very wrong must be going on.

                  Right now my non-free brain tells me to write this post, and your non-free brain tells you to read it. Various impetuses influence our “decision making”, but ultimately it’s the neurology which “decides” what we’re going to do. Our brains are complex, so we have the illusion of freedom which comes with having consciousness, but “behind the scenes” of our consciousness, determining the exact shape of our consciousness, there is the decidedly non-free electrical activity.

                  Your thoughts aren’t free, but their content can take the form of many things other than nihilism.

                • Alf says:

                  I think I’m convinced. In absence of evidence in favour of free will it is saner to act as if there is no free will. The brain can change but it can only change within the limits of its biological make-up.

                • peppermint says:

                  Free will is only a problem for greco-jewish monotheism. Prior to Plato and ((Jesus)), the Greeks told stories like Oedipus about predestination and free will.

                  Free will has been given a different meaning by modern biology, however, with the blank slate overthrown and an appreciation of peer pressure. What was once a snarky objection to the diety is now the best way to talk about women’s relationship to political questions.

                  We must, of course, not cuck out like Faramir in the Two Towers movie and absolve our enemies because they lacked the individual understanding of their actions. McCarthy was stopped from harming individual leftist lawyers. It is epochal that, for the first time in living memory, a leftist has just had her life ruined for going too far. We must never stop until they offer us a reasonable detente like being allowed to live out their lives in silence while the future belongs to us.

  5. Alf says:

    “Reason is man’s central capacity”, such a vile lie.

    The enlightenment was a direct attack on civilisation by staging a tragedy of the commons. Weaponised leftism, playing directly into man’s ego: “if I am as rational as every other man, why should I listen to any other man?” Boom there went patriarchy, hierarchy and all sense of male-to-male cooperation.

    Nowadays whenever I engage in debate my expectation is that my fellow debaters will be egotistical, narcissistic, waiting for their turn to speak and in fact not listen to anything I say. No doubt it is human nature to value power over truth, but surely it must’ve been better in the days when man did not believe himself to be smarter than God.

    • Well, right, Kant explicitly wrote “why do we listen to doctors to make a diet for us, why don’t we make our own diets” and so on.

      But the real problem is far more conflicting interests than lack of expertise.

      • Alf says:

        >But the real problem is far more conflicting interests than lack of expertise.

        That’s what I’m saying.

        Lack of cooperation leads to lack of expertise. In order to fix both you need to fix lack of cooperation.

  6. glosoli says:

    ‘Civilization is the advance of technical and scientific knowledge, and most importantly, social organization. Most of all it is the capability to maintain cooperate/cooperate relationships in very large groups.’

    Nah, none of that. Civilisation is simply being able to live without human sacrifice and widespread brutal slavery, child rape, and pure evil.

    Most of the time homo sapiens have existed on the plant has been a devilisation, not a civilisation.

    Only faith in God can briefly produce moments of civilisation here, all too quickly swamped by the evil that roams the earth.

    • jim says:

      Bunkum

      As soon as I saw the words “child rape” I knew you were a progressive and an enemy of civilization.

      Rather, one of the essential ingredients of civilization is not preventing “child rape” but keeping young females from misconduct before marriage. The problem is not lecherous men fucking innocent young girls, it is lecherous young girls seducing innocent men. If we are worried about “child rape” then we are not worried about restraining and controlling female sexuality, whereupon we get the destruction of marriage, the destruction of the family, and a population of feral bastards who are incapable of maintaining and operating the social complexities of civilization.

      • Cavalier says:

        >The problem is not lecherous men fucking innocent young girls

        Sure it is. It’s a violation of the property right of the father, in the case of an intact family, or a violation of the property right of the state acting in loco parentis, in the case of a broken family.

        If you want lecherous young girls to stop seducing innocent men, you need to institute policies designed to select such undesirable behavior out of the population. It seems to me that a big reason whites are so excellent is because of superior individual sexual inhibition, and that doesn’t come about just by genetic drift.

        • jim says:

          > > The problem is not lecherous men fucking innocent young girls

          > Sure it is. It’s a violation of the property right of the father

          By law, fathers are not allowed to control their daughters, and in any case, due to social pressure and the welfare state, fathers are not much inclined to do so. We keep seeing these ads about “domestic violence”. Do not see any ads asking “do you know where your children are?”

          (And if we did see such ads, the answer would very likely be that your hot daughter is probably at a midnight beach party on Arlie beach).

          If you put your stuff out on the curb, and somebody collects it, not yours any more.

          For fathers to have a property right, fathers have to exert their property right, and the state has to back them in the exercise of that property right.

          • Cavalier says:

            Ideal world.

            As of now, there’s extremely strong selection for innate female good behavior among the cohort of well-behaved females. It has often been observed that as vices proliferate and are promoted rather than suppressed and that such promotion is ever more infiltrative and pernicious, those who dodge the bullets are doing so increasingly on the strength of their genes rather than their memes. Granted, that’s a small cohort, with massive attrition on the population-wide level. The question is whether or not it matters, and I’m decreasingly inclined to think so.

            If you follow your curb logic to its conclusion, you wind up with zero commonweal and zero trust. “Exert their property right”, posh! there isn’t even a standard of exertion inherent in your definition. You’ll end up chaining your women to the dungeon wall and causing grotesque Vitamin D deficiency because should they go outside they might be poached by Chechen raiders. Is that an absurd conclusion? Maybe. But that’s what you get from positive feedback spirals: men having to take what should be organic state functions in their own hands, never letting their children outside to play unsupervised, never letting their wives go to the grocery store, and enlisting your inbred Moslem sons (and nephews?) to escort your daughters everywhere they go… all glaring neon signs of the weakness of your property right rather than its strength.

            And again, we return to why the state should care without sufficient incentive — or sufficiently persuasive reason (wink wink) — to do so, a problem to which I just simply do not see a good solution. Granted, you appeal on the grounds of nationalism, but that’s just the same sort of least common denominator stuff that got us here in the first place.

            • Cavalier says:

              * you could appeal

            • jim says:

              As of now, there’s extremely strong selection for innate female good behavior among the cohort of well-behaved females.

              If a woman is indeed innately good, how does her husband know this in advance?
              There would only be strong selection for innately good behavior if husbands could accurately detect the propensity to innately bad behavior. Harvard girls are not spawning bastards, because they are not spawning at all.

              Most reproduction is by women irresponsibly spawning bastards on welfare and child support, so it looks to me that there is extremely strong selection for innate female bad behavior. Marriage as it used to be understood is illegal, so most reproduction is by single and irresponsible women.

              If you follow your curb logic to its conclusion, you wind up with zero commonweal and zero trust. “Exert their property right”, posh! there isn’t even a standard of exertion inherent in your definition. You’ll end up chaining your women to the dungeon wall and causing grotesque Vitamin D deficiency because should they go outside they might be poached by Chechen raiders.

              In the eighteenth century respectable girls were kept “in” until it was time for them to marry. Nothing less works. If they are not kept in, then they should be poached by Chechen raiders, because their own choices are likely to be even worse.

              They were seldom chained to the dungeon wall, but could not wander off except under supervision.

              • Cavalier says:

                >how does her husband know this in advance?

                Intuition, account of personal behavior, observable behavior of females in family, and family history of female behavior. Much as some families are inclined to produce people centered around, say 120 IQ, some families are inclined to produce women disinclined to divorce, and every divorce that does happen represents a “boiling off event” c-c-c-c-c-combo breaker from the pool of people with no family history of divorce, with obvious consequences for the average trait value in that cohort.

                Selection on the group level is, I think, much less interesting than specific local selective effects operating in specific “niches”.

                >In the eighteenth century respectable girls were kept “in” until it was time for them to marry.

                There are a few facets to this: 1) it’s individually rational in that it caters to the least common denominator (but natural selection doesn’t care); 2) every girl married as early as reasonably possible, and as higher status girls were higher status, they married earlier — for example, the daughters of plantation owners in Louisiana married, if I recall correctly, often as early as 11-13, one feature (among others) characteristic of marriage patterns of primitive, pre-Hajnal whites prior to the second millennium and nonwhites and inbred whites such as Russians, Ukrainians, and Sicilians.

                • jim says:

                  > > how does her husband know this in advance?

                  > Intuition, account of personal behavior, observable behavior of females in family, and family history of female behavior.

                  Really would not have helped in those divorces that I am most familiar with. In a prisoner’s dilemma game with few iterations the rational strategy is to defect. Incentives matter.

                  You are buying Murray’s bullshit. The woman in his “Belmont” are indeed better behaved, which is how they got to be in “Belmont” and stay there, but the women from his “Belmont” are considerably worse behaved and you should not marry them.

                  Following the strategy you describe will result in you marrying a woman from “Belmont”, which is a bad idea.

                • Alrenous says:

                  The problem with this approach is women aren’t character-driven, they are situation-driven. (So-called ‘rational.’ And is indeed rational assuming their only goal is many surviving children, abortion is public, and birth control pills don’t exist.)

                  You don’t learn a woman’s character from observing her past. You learn her situation. If you then choose to change her situation by marrying her, then you do not know how she will respond to the new situation.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >You are buying Murray’s bullshit.

                  It isn’t bullshit, in my experience, and I haven’t seen any evidence for it being bullshit. In contrast, I can poke holes in your assertions on this topic with my eyes blindfolded and my hands tied behind my back.

                  >In a prisoner’s dilemma game with few iterations the rational strategy is to defect. Incentives matter.

                  Humans are not rational, or did I misread the OP?

                  >Following the strategy you describe will result in you marrying a woman from “Belmont”, which is a bad idea.

                  It would seem that my choice is beteeen Belmont, Fishtown, and an ever-winnowing middle. The ever-winnowing middle is increasingly an endangered species, and quite frankly not all that impressive anyway; Fishtown is a wasteland; at least Belmont has strong multigenerational selection (with stabilized traits) for many important things, like IQ, genetic load, good health, and diligence — though to be perfectly honest I’m not really thrilled about the extreme diligence, hoop-jumping, and blind loyalty to faceless institutions characteristic of this class.

                • jim says:

                  Humans are rational when their own self interest is at stake.

                  I was raised in the equivalent of Murray’s “Belmont”, and all my female family, and most of my female family’s friends are in or from “Belmont” and I conclude that marrying any of that lot is a really bad idea. Born in “Belmont” is born to an intact family descended from a long line of intact families, but women born in “Belmont” are not forming intact families with children. “Belmont” is only reproducing in the male line.

                  When Murray fails to break down “Belmont” by sex and parental socioeconomic status, when he fails to break out women born in “Belmont” from women marrying into “Belmont”, that should tell you that if he did so, he would have gotten into even deeper shit than he did by examining blacks.

                  As the fact that there was an iron curtain should have told you that something terrible was happening behind the iron curtain, and the fact that it was impossible to get data on mortgage defaults by race should have told you that financial crisis was an affirmative action crisis, the similar difficulty in obtaining data on the marital behavior of females born to high socioeconomic status, or attaining high socioeconomic status in their own right rather than by marriage, should tell you that if the data was attainable, it would show something horrifying.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >The problem with this approach is women aren’t character-driven, they are situation-driven.

                  If women are situation-driven as water which conforms to its container, women are imperfectly fluid, some much more imperfectly fluid than others, and as everything is heritable, and some things are easily observed as having staying power within families, as this is, well, you can see my point.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >I was raised in the equivalent of Murray’s “Belmont”

                  I didn’t know that Belmont existed in the 1950s.

                  >Born in “Belmont” is born to an intact family descended from a long line of intact families,

                  Great.

                  >but women born in “Belmont” are not forming intact families with children.

                  Just smarter dogs.

                  >“Belmont” is only reproducing in the male line.

                  “Belmont” is a very rough abstraction. When I look at all women with middle- to high-middle-end professional careers, for example doctors, lawyers, (big) hospital administrators, and suchlike, what I see for the most part is either women with children — plural — or without, and at least in my corner of the world it’s a ratio of at minimum 2 of the former to 1 of the latter. Their TFR might be at 1.3 (it’s actually somewhat higher), but those who reproduce are at replacement, and none whom I know have divorced their husbands.

                  >When Murray fails to break down “Belmont” by sex and parental socioeconomic status, when he fails to break out women born in “Belmont” from women marrying into “Belmont”,

                  On the contrary, he speaks at length about assortative mating.

                  >Iron Curtain…something horrifying

                  Jim, what’s your bubble score?

                • jim says:

                  When I look at all women with middle- to high-middle-end professional careers, for example doctors, lawyers, (big) hospital administrators, and suchlike, what I see for the most part is either women with children — plural — or without, and at least in my corner of the world it’s a ratio of at minimum 2 of the former to 1 of the latter. Their TFR might be at 1.3 (it’s actually somewhat higher), but those who reproduce are at replacement, and none whom I know have divorced their husbands.

                  That just is not what I am seeing – What I see is that their divorce rate is high, and their marriage rate is low. Especially lawyers. Doctors, yes, female doctors tend to drop out of medicine and form families, but female executives are worse than truck stop strippers, and female lawyers are worse than female executives. And born in Belmont, born high socioeconomic status, are as bad as lawyers even if they are only schoolteachers and suchlike.

                  > > When Murray fails to break down “Belmont” by sex and parental socioeconomic status, when he fails to break out women born in “Belmont” from women marrying into “Belmont”,

                  > On the contrary, he speaks at length about assortative mating.

                  Assortative mating is peripheral to the issue. The issue is do daughters born in “Belmont” marry, have children, stay married, and raise their children. This issue he avoids, which silence is louder than thunder.

                  Assortative mating is collapsing, and has been collapsing since 1875, because the daughters of “Belmont” are not marrying, and if they do marry, are not staying married. Murray’s supposed evidence for assortative mating stands beside his claim, rather than standing behind it. He is slippery and evasive.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Life is too short and dopamine too precious.

              • >If a woman is indeed innately good, how does her husband know this in advance?

                I actually made a list of strong green flags before I proposed. Like she volunteered to help her mom with Xmas cooking, or she told me to get only a cheap silver engagement ring because we need the money for furniture. Any woman who is okay with diamond rings is a huge red flag for me, she thinks it is entirely normal to waste the man’s money and he will just make more and get in debt for the home-making, instead of understanding that the first virtue of a housewife is frugality. On the more sexual side, going out to party with girlfriends and insisting I don’t come would have been a huge red flag, or being friends with ex boyfriends. I actually had to insist her to get some girl friends and spend time with them (as women like to talk about a lot of stuff that bores men and they will talk about them to their men if there are no women around to listen, I suppose it is mutual, I need to stop boring her with the kind of technical details that tend to fascinate me). Actually I was afraid she would be a bit too clingy which would be a different kind of red flag but still something pretty normal for women to be.

                • peppermint says:

                  Diamond rings are great status symbols, homosexual. You just hate rich people because you’re a Christian.

                • Turtle says:

                  “first virtue of a housewife is frugality’

                  Ha ha. Eve was frugal with the forbidden fruit- why waste poison?
                  I would prefer obedience to frugality if I only got to pick one virtue for a wife. I think most men would prefer loyalty. I had to think about this question for a quarter-minute, indicating it’s difficult to admit we want to be obeyed, unless we already are obeyed. Frugality has limits- we can only save so much, while some expenses are inevitable (not luxuries). So frugality is not so directly important. It’s humility which allows us to go without luxury when fasting, not that luxury is bad at other times, according to St. John Chrysostom.

                • peppermint says:

                  frugality is less of an countersignal virtue than modesty, humility, and self-punishment, but it’s still not an actual virtue. real virtues are pride in one’s race, envy leading to being better than the fellow man, lust seeking marriage, wrath at the kikes and professors…

                • Turtle says:

                  >> frugality is less of an countersignal virtue than modesty, humility, and self-punishment, but it’s still not an actual virtue.
                  Frugality is a worldly virtue, like being rich or smart. There is no scarcity after the apocalypse.

                  >> real virtues are pride in one’s race, envy leading to being better than the fellow man, lust seeking marriage, wrath at the kikes and professors…

                  Pride in Adam, who fell, or Christ’s saved race of saints?

                  Is the inferior fellow man hell-bound? I do like zeal/jealousy, as a faithful focus on God’s will.

                  Lust leads to divorce, as in infidelity, often porn or fantasizing without even cheating properly – imaginary “demon lovers.”

                  God does wrath for us, as the Holy Judge. As a boy, I wanted to be a professor, but gradually repented, perhaps because I realized professors/ teachers hurt me by lying. Back then, I was an angry gnostic. Maybe I was too busy thinking to actually do anything. That’s a lovelessness problem- love is the work of life. You often seem to say we need intense emotion and a dazzling identity to spur ourselves into meaningful action, but isn’t love the greatest motive?

          • Grampy_bone says:

            This is correct.

            One thing I have heard repeatedly from men is that “You can’t tell women what to do.” I always wonder, have you ever tried?

            The current cultural wisdom states that women are uncontrollable, and any attempts to control them will immediately backfire and send them into drugs and stripping and dating convicts. Therefore all you can do as a man is sit back and trust the superior morality of women to make the right decisions.

            Yet any moron can see women behave very badly when unsupervised. Take away rules and boundaries and you get a free-for-all where they all try to out-whore each other by jumping on scuzzy thug dicks. So apparently the outcome of giving women no rules is the same as giving them rules; might as well give them some rules and see which ones follow them.

            Meanwhile the Muslims know the truth. Tell women what to do and they submit. Hell they will even defend their own submission and bring others into the harem. This is a terrible dark truth which feminists and other progressives conspire to hide at all costs.

            • peppermint says:

              What is this woman saying?

              http://imgur.com/a/g4e0z

              She is saying, come slap me and tell me what to do.

              And all the women posting bdsm porn on Tumblr aren’t lying when they post feminist stuff on Facebook.

              The only people who have ever been gaslit into believing in female equality are boomer and genxer men. Millennial men say it out loud, but also know about bdsm and rappers and pimp slaps.

              • Cavalier says:

                I’m not averse to slapping a woman, but I don’t want a woman I have to slap.

                • jim says:

                  If you are prepared to slap a woman should the necessity arise, you will find that most women never need to be slapped. A stern word will reduce her to tears.

                  If you are not prepared to slap a woman should the necessity arise, all women will proceed to forcefully demonstrate that they need to be beaten with a stick.

                • Turtle says:

                  My experience confirms that a stern word is sometimes not enough, but does have more effect than men who don’t want to slap women admit. I don’t think reducing a woman to tears is always useful. They might just be saying, “leave me alone, meanie.” And they still need to be punished in that case.

                  I also believe wanting perfect women without God’s grace is idolatry, and coincides with a lack of veneration for Christ’s saintly Mother, the Ever-Virgin Mary.

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  I agree with you here Cavalier.

                  and Jim if i am required to reduce a woman to tears or threaten to have to do it, marriage with her isn’t going to be worth a damn . No one has, especially me has time for that kind of shit or needs to be that dominant to get by. Nothing in modern marriage or hell the modern world is worth the trouble and I don’t want a doormat wife.

                  I want a wife who will be loyal , feminine and still strong enough that if I drop dead, the family will carry on or if needed kill the the Neo-Comanche sons of botches who got me. Not someone that can be cowed with a word.

                • Turtle says:

                  Maybe you don’t want a self who doesn’t control women perfectly. If you were super-alpha, what Jim calls a sultan, you would still have trouble with women in this fallen world.

                  Consider that Christ had trouble with women, from the Samaritan by the well to his own Mother. You seem to not want a world where there is conflict or violence. I agree that pain and other consequences of sin are unpleasant, but we disagree on what’s possible in this world, and why human life went wrong in the first place.

                  Bishops, if authentic, do hit their subordinates when their conscience (the Holy Spirit) calls them to do this. Punishment is not about bdsm or some women being submissive enough, while others are unruly. Punishment is the essence of hell- an expression of God’s love of unrepentant sinners, a just rebuke, a deserved negative reward/consequence.

                  You’re dreaming of heaven on earth, a wonder-wife, an easy marriage. All of that is possible only if there is a perfect, merciful, All-Mighty God.

                  But I fear you prefer hell, because you rely on the heaven you imagine you deserve, not the real Lord’s Sky Kingdom (better translation from the Greek than ‘heaven’). If you met someone who works miracles or has other spirtual gifts, I think you would continue in unbelief. It’s not about the evidence or disproving doubt for atheists.

                  Atheism is just a choice, like being a bachelor or suicide. And you’re giving away your power of responsibility by blaming women for needing to be hit. I know I’ve sinned by not hitting women. I have felt God’s anger because of this.

                  Playing nice is as bad as wrongly hitting someone, because it denies them the loving correction they need. I’m saying you’re a nice guy-white knight, and it’s repulsive, both morally and sexually (to women). So maybe you lacked sisters growing up, and think women are angelic. But Jacob wrestled with God, so violence is only limited by God, not your niceness!

                  Either women go unpunished when they hurt you, or you do punish them. Not defending yourself allows their violence to continue. You’re not innocent; you make my confessed mistake.

                • peppermint says:

                  》Nothing in modern marriage or hell the modern world is worth the trouble and I don’t want a doormat wife.

                  Pathetic.

                  》I want a wife who will be loyal, feminine and still strong enough that if I drop dead, the family will carry on or if needed kill the the Neo-Comanche sons of botches who got me.

                  》Not someone that can be cowed with a word.

                  You can have only one of those. If you choose the second, she will try to find a neo-comanche to cow her with a word.

                  Have you considered what she wants? When you date women, do you still put your ideological notion first? Let me clue you in on a little secret you could find on porn sites if you paid attention. Women want to be dominated, they want to be tied up, they want you to make fun of them, and yes, they want to be literally raped as in forced when they’re struggling.

              • Turtle says:

                Millennial men are more likely to envy women so much they mutilate themselves to imitate women’s bodies. This is not a manly thing to do.
                Millennials also marry less, so far, and have fewer children. Poverty is no excuse.

                Millenial men don’t need to know about bdsm or pimping to be strong husbands. By definition, they just need to be strong married men.

                Remember Jim’s funny conclusion that because bdsm involves consent, he hasn’t done it? A mil. might say Jim “forced consent,” because we like paradoxes. But to say feminism out loud, while not believing it, is just lying.

              • I think obedience as a female virtue becomes important in these hyper-sexualized contexts. That woman on the picture is a bitch in heat. I think it is correct that when people are driven by strongly sexual emotions then men should command and women obey, not only because otherwise women will do stupid things but also because it puts an incredibly hot BDSM subtext to the whole thing. Nothing makes women more lustful than domination.

                In our particular case it would not work though, as my marriage is not sexuality based but more like two people with quite low libidos mostly focusing on trying to build a life and family together. This is why frugality is the virtue I find the most important, while loyalty in this case is the basic necessary assumption everything else is built upon.

                Putting it differently I would make a shitty commander, having the kind of absent minded professor type adult ADHD, so I needed a woman who can function like an adult without much supervision. This was not easy, about 95% of women I dated were basically big children.

                • Turtle says:

                  I don’t distinguish levels of sexualization. Libido is spontaneous and unpredictable, aside from habits, ovulation, and statistics. I am (ordinarily) always driven by lust, both powerlust and fucklust. Lust is not an emotion though, it is carnal (of the flesh).

                  To consider frugality, what if you were rich? Would frugality still matter? Most disagreement I expect with your high valuing of frugality is that it seems like a “I’m poor” signal.

                  I am similar to you in not enjoying sexuality much, and prefering comfort and cooperation. Sociality, not sexuality. But we’re apparently exceptional, and I get
                  myself friend-zoned on purpose, so maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the androgen blood testing I plan on doing soon will reveal a problem.

                  How would you seek or find adult (responsible, independent, loyal) women? And how do you supervise or guide your wife?

                  One teacher of mine said tennis clubs work well for matchmaking. That’s cute, and I like tennis. I’m not into ‘sapiosexuality,’ because smart people are not better. I don’t seek “Belmont” bourgois class membership either.

                  Where I live, the girls who don’t leave for da big city, lacking the ability and/or will to strive for career success and big stallions on the cock carousel, tend to become more familial by staying home, but they often rely on substances to control their mood and mind, probably because they believe they are missing out on the cock and career combo. I don’t want to blame them, but I am scared of them.

                  How did you date childish women without getting hurt or frustrated?

                • Dividualist says:

                  @Jim testosterone is not the only reason, antidepressants or alcohol are also known to mess with it. Consider also porn, it is a classic case of moving the threshold of stimulation too high, after wanking to all kinds of super fucked up choking porn basic vanilla becomes boring.

                  I probably have too much testosterone as I have a short fuse and easily angered into chimpouts, especially when driving. Yet…

                  A fourth factor could be something genetic, my father was an excellent example of an alpha with no sex drive, however contradictory it sounds. He had so much dominance he could silence grown people with a sharp look, without saying a word. Terrifying, not because he would ever lose it and rage like I do, but precisely because always so controlled that people thought he could be capable of anything if he decided to. Still he somehow always behaved as if sex was simply beneath him, a peasant’s pleasure…

              • A.B. Prosper says:

                I am more than familiar with women’s’ BDSM interests Peppermint having watched to my amusement many middle aged White women twittering over 50 Shades of Grey and having been around a few twists over the years .

                I am also aware that any woman need a man stronger than she is and stronger than any nearby rivals

                I’ve even met people who’ve essentially had to break very errant wives, she was Korean and him culturally so if it matters

                While her parents were supportive of his efforts, it left me wondering what the fucking point was. I suppose at least she made him lunch after.

                That said my attitude for dating these days is simple “what is in it for me?”

                Increasingly these days little or nothing and if I just want sex with a woman whose had tons of partners, I live close enough to legal prostitutes

                I certainly don’t need a woman to be happy, to be my shrink or to do kitchen work that I’ve done for myself for years . More importantly I’m too old to be lead by my cock.

                A potential woman needs to cook and mother any children and be loyal and pleasant while still be able to stand the inevitable collapse of society or at least throw offspring that can.

                Honestly I’m far too much of an Introvert to run herd on her all the time . I can step up if I have too and can be as unpleasant as any, more than most if I had too .

                Long and short modern women fail cost benefit analysis most of the time. Technology has mostly made the domestic functions other than parenting and cooking (I basically never eat out) obsolete and they aren’t worth the trouble

                Don’t get me wrong, I’m still looking for possibles at a manageable level of risk , even plan on going back to church in a few months (not a local one by far) but I can see its probably stupid

                • peppermint says:

                  Yeah, see, what you’re doing is countersignaling everything because you’re cool. Anglin has a plan to get you a bish but you’re too cool to do anything other than free code camps for niggers at the hipster coffeeshop

                • jim says:

                  More importantly I’m too old to be lead by my cock.

                  You need to raise your testosterone levels. Decline of testosterone with age is not normal and natural. It is common, but it is pathological, and commonly co morbid with age related obesity. Casanova and Beau Brummel were seducing fourteen year old virgins while on their deathbeds.

                • Turtle says:

                  @Prosper
                  I think you’re just a cynical MGTOW. There’s nothing smart about not loving and marrying a woman. If you met a “good one” who likes you, you would marry her> It is common, but it is pathological, and commonly co morbid with age related obesity.

                  I’m shocked. I don’t see why it happens with obesity, if obesity increases estrogen levels. I don’t know endocrinology though, and don’t need to. I think my levels are low, but I’ll check with blood work.

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  Andrew Anglin? Hah no. And Bish? That’s so cutting edge I had to luck it up. I was thinking you meant Bishonen there for a second Peppermint and had finally cracked

                  In any case the later ain’t my style.

                  and teach code, hell no. I help people who help me and mine and thus far its not been Googles

                  That said I do like an occasional hipster coffee shop though

                  Now as to my T level, I remember a few years ago when I was on an exercise binge, had the ;levels of a high school student. Very annoying actually

                  No fucking point since I wasn’t doing martial arts, worked a desk job and had no woman or game to get one. Didn’t even know what game was

                  I do have some game now so maybe if i see some women that are White, sane, clean, drug free, unmarried, no kids and not tattooed , might come in handy

                  maybe.

                  As far as Beau Brummel and Casanova, both were lowlifes who probably should have been gallows bait

                  And turtle, I am pretty cynical, I’ve been that way since I was a teenager. My “idealistic” phase was as a Limbaugh Republican and I’ve grown more cynical with age

                  Make some sense since thinking about it, I basically never seen a happy marriage and few successful ones. A lot of divorces, fuck ups and fuck overs. A few baby issues too. Thus far haven’t seen a life made better with marriage or children really

                  Still probably would marry the right woman , never come close though During my High T I nearly married a very inappropriate woman with nasty habit. I am lucky I didn’t catch something nasty

                  Now MGTOW isn’t a bad term or bad thing really if a man is risk adverse or can’t deal, so long as you keep it sane, its pretty smart. Plenty of other things to do that chase tail or reproduce for the good of the state /race/religion

                • Turtle says:

                  I find that cynicism is disappointed idealism, so you still have an idealist’s values, but things haven’t worked out, so you blame the world for its perceived flaws. I have seen many happy monastics, and a few happy married people. Orthodoxy allegedly ahs a much lower divorce rate than other denominations. I believe happy married people do not feel or act so different from when they were single, because their spouse does not try to change their behavior and identity. In my definition of happiness, happy people have successful behaviors and identities. I also do a ‘no true scotsman’ for marriage, where marital failure is caused by sin, not marriage itself being bad.

                  As for nasty habits, people can repent.

                  I believe that MGTOW is paranoid and cowardly. As presented here by Anonymous, the 16 y.o. kid who recorded his first sex ever and then suicided after the girl complained that he made porn of it probably got the idea that he needs to prove he’s not a rapist, and this is a manosphere meme. MGTOW can backfire, I think. We can’t win by being defensive. It’s not an effective strategy to mateguard imaginary wives, which is my interpretation of MGTOW, meaning that these men are not celibate, so they have imaginary girlfriends or do have actual sex, rather than no sexual activity. I don’t think MGTOW is a decent term in that bachelors don’t need to go their “own way,” because society can and does accept them overall. Plenty of men are single and well-liked. It’s not that hard. MGTOW often happens after a divorce, which means it’s trauma-based. When I considered it, I was heartbroken (not only with women). I still am, but I’m doing spiritual therapy to heal my heart, and it’s working.

                  I would be cautious in judging what makes a life better or worse. I believe our own actions are the singular factor in our lives, so marriage is neutral, because it is not an action, rather a gracious sacrament.

                  If what you do helps your married friends, then you are right that you don’t need to have your own family. But most unmarried people don’t like families, out of aversion and envy. That segregates us. This is why I’m not even close to my godparents’ families, which might be my fault, but isn’t right either way.

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  You guys gave me a lot to think about

                  The family issue is weird with me, a product of who knows what I simply don’t know many happy intact families or people with them

                  One, two maybe with the rest being single or divorced or never married

                  Its probably not reflective of general reality though and bears some thought.

                  On the whole, cynical idealist or not ‘m generally pretty content with maybe one regret yet to fix which is good, maybe two.

                  Regardless thanks for the advice everybody. Oh and Turtle, the extra effort is appreciated. That was a lot of your time.

          • Turtle says:

            I suppose you won’t like my response, Jim, but siblings and friends (and mothers) can help or harm too. Parents are only two people, not lone superhumans. Didn’t your extended family and “Belmont” neighbors support your parents in raising you and your sisters, besides endorsing their marriage?

            While the popular meme is that ho’s have daddy issues, from not meeting their dad after being born to the Duke porn girl (whose father was a military doctor, often far away from home), I think they have womanhood and faith issues.

            I also think the contemporary porn epidemic is fueled by the idea that there’s not enough sex in the world, not enough children, not enough romance and seduction, and so porn-viewing guys (and “romance-novel” reading women) want to compensate for the many ‘dead bedrooms.’ Compensation is irrational, but the ‘they’re just horny’ explanation does not suit me- I know human sex is more than material biology.

            For a personal example, my brothers tend to date Asians, which makes me appreciate all women more, but worry about miscegenation too. My parents expect us to stay ethnically endogamous, but there’s a strange idea that’s somehow harder to accomplish. The main limitation for people in spiritual communities, according to worldly metrics, is that most people are secular. But we meet and mate just fine when we want to and follow the rules (I’m studying the ecclesial rules now).

            Further, I am attracted to girls with younger siblings, even when their parents are divorced (which is common around here), but find other women emotionally/romantically boring. The differences are stark, from appearance (much rounder faces and bodies, perhaps from womb environment stuff) to vocal tonality (smoother variety in pitch and rate of speech). I don’t know why they’re so much more appealing to me other than the idea that they would be good, charitable wives and mothers.

            Also, first children are statistically much more successful than later ones, with hard data I’ve seen.

            My point is that it’s a outdated, ‘psychoanalysis’-era meme that parents determine people’s life outcomes. This is obviously a myth, if free will (ability to choose) is equal, though our talents might not be.

      • glosoli says:

        Jim, Jim, Jim, please untwist your knickers.

        You have your favourite topic (women) in mind, whereas I specifically mentioned child rape.

        I mean under 13 year old boys and girls, like the NY democrat guy was just arrested for. Like the Romans and Greeks used to enjoy. Like the child slaves Britain used to sell to Morocco.

        How the fuck you deduce I’m a progressive as a result of my comment is a mystery. Read what people write, rather project your own pet theories onto others.

        I’m further right than any of you lot here, as I’m with God, not requiring any rules other than those in the bible to ensure civilisation works.

        • jim says:

          You are putting sexual relations between men and young boys in the same category as sexual relations between men and young girls, though these are radically different phenomena with very different causes and consequences: Therefore progressive and anti christian.

          You are blaming men when sexual relations occur between men and girls, though normally this reflects badly behaved girls and single mother or two working parent family, which is to say, badly behaved daughters and badly behaved mothers. Slut mum, slut daughter. Both of them need a whipping.

          I’m further right than any of you lot here, as I’m with God, not requiring any rules other than those in the bible to ensure civilisation works.

          Not only are you an enemy of civilization, you are an enemy of Christianity.

          The bible does not prohibit rape, let alone child “rape”. It prohibits having sex and then not sticking around. It prohibits behavior that obfuscates paternity, or makes it difficult for men to act as fathers. It also prohibits homosexuality regardless of whether the sodomized male is a man or boy.

          There is nothing in the bible prohibiting sex with young girls. One can find, if one reads carefully, an implication that if a girl marries or becomes engaged well below puberty, she should live in a separate household from her husband until she starts to develop breasts and pubic hair, which would imply no sex before the first development of breasts and pubic hair, but this is not addressed explicitly, because “child rape” and “rape” is not morally different from an adult women seducing a man, and then wandering off to seduce another man, and in practice, it is hard to tell the difference between rape and seduction. Sex preceded language and contracts, and still does.

          There is nothing in the bible that prohibits capturing an eleven year old girl who has wandered off from her family and dragging her off to your lair for sexual purposes. What is prohibited is doing that and then letting her go again.

          • glosoli says:

            So you think taking an 11 year old girl off to your lair is not due to coveting or theft? I see that you interpret the bible to suit yourself, and your desire for control over young females.

            I have explained what I mean very clearly, you are free to argue with yourself on your favourite hobby horse, it is of little interest to me.

            • peppermint says:

              Yes, White sharia means we control the females, which they want. Including the 11 year olds who are going through puberty and need to be kept out of trouble instead of allowed to explore their sexuality with several 50 year old pakis.

              (Paki is a hateful slur, Pakistani is preferred, as opposed to every other stan)

            • jim says:

              It is only coveting or theft if she is someone else’s wife or betrothed. Check your old Testament on marriage by abduction.

              The old testament is absolutely clear that women are not supposed to make their own sexual choices.

              Your bible is not the bible as it was understood and interpreted to 1800 or so. You are not a Christian, you are a progressive, you are one of those people who confiscate the property of Christians if they fail to bake a gay wedding cake. Until 1800 or so the word “rape” primarily meant dating a girl without the permission of her father.

              • glosoli says:

                You have no idea who I am.

                I stand by my initial point: civilisations do not rape children (let’s specify pre-pubescent) as a matter of course. A child is by definition the property of his/her parents. A weird old man sees a 10 year old boy/girl, fancies it, and takes it away to rape, and (these days) films it to share with his buddies, or for profit. How very civilised.

                Please stop obsessing about controlling women, at least for long enough to read and comprehend my words, which are not about women, or 12 year girls, but about little kids.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >A weird old man sees a 10 year old boy/girl, fancies it, and takes it away to rape, and (these days) films it to share with his buddies

                  and yet 95% of “””child porn””” is this:

                  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-naperville-north-suicide-20170522-story.html

                  16 y/o “cjild porn”. result: a dead white male. you must be proud, aren’t you

                  this is WHITE GENOCIDE

                  “At 16, Corey didn’t know what he wanted to study — maybe business, maybe astronomy — but he liked the idea of attending a Big Ten school. He wanted a big, bustling campus with different kinds of people, a place that could match his energy and varied interests.

                  It does not appear any pornographic images were found on the teen’s phone, but it did contain a file with audio of the sexual encounter.

                  A junior at Naperville North High School, Corey Walgren had caused his parents little worry growing up. He was the oldest of three children, a lanky teen with strawberry-blond hair that leaned toward red and a background that would make a strong foundation for a college application: He routinely made the honor roll, earned a varsity letter in hockey his freshman year and worked part time busing tables at a local Italian restaurant.

                  He had a tight-knit group of friends and was the one who made sure everyone in their circle knew the weekend’s social plans. Though only an occasional fisherman as a child, he surprised his parents by joining the high school’s competitive fishing team his freshman year; he later persuaded several of his hockey teammates to do the same.

                  There was nothing that made him happier than his dog, a Chihuahua-dachshund mix he called Buppy, and McChicken sandwiches from McDonald’s dollar menu — in that order, friends say.

                  “He wasn’t afraid to branch out and be friends with everyone,” said Zach Rang, a hockey and fishing teammate. “He was a hilarious kid who always made sure that everyone felt included.”

                  Like many boys and girls in his neighborhood, Corey started playing hockey after the Chicago Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup in 2010. He quickly mastered skating, which led to a club team and a childhood filled with predawn practices and weekend tournaments. In a sport where most young players want to be forwards, he agreed to be a defenseman because he was one of the few who could skate well backward.

                  “He was the kid who did whatever you told him to do and never complained,” said Chris Hall, the parent who serves as president of the Naperville North Hockey Club. “He was a dependable kid from an involved family. You could count on him to be at every practice and every game.”

                  During his final season, Corey was the only player on the Naperville North team who didn’t earn a single penalty. It’s an unusual statistic for someone playing his rough-and-tumble position, and one made even more surprising given that Naperville North led the conference in penalties at one point.

                  “It says everything about Corey,” Hall said. “He wasn’t taking runs at people or throwing elbows. He played the game his way and was very good at it.””

                  “Corey was an excellent student. He was a good athlete and a popular young man; over 2000 people attended his funeral. He was fortunate to have involved, supportive parents and to have been raised in a loving, supportive home. He was a sweet, friendly, well-liked, high school junior who was planning with those parents which colleges to visit in order to narrow down his application choices. He had never been in any trouble at all. Just the weekend before, he had talked to his parents about his choice to have a sexual encounter, his first, at this point in his life, and he recognized that it was not the wisest of decisions.”

                  (who induced this FUCKING WHITE MALE to kill himself? puritans like you, glosoli. keep spreading the pedo-hysteria. keep doing it, puritan. keep killing white males)

                • glosoli says:

                  An entirely different topic to the one that I raised, so I have no comment, other than it’s a good demonstration of the evil of the state and the stupidity of humans.

        • Turtle says:

          >> I’m further right than any of you lot here, as I’m with God, not requiring any rules other than those in the bible to ensure civilisation works.

          Where’s the “thou shall be right-wing” in the Bible? Or “the Lord created rightism, and it was very good?” And what kind of sinner “knows he is with God,” rather than praying for God’s holy forgiveness? An unrepentant one.

          If you don’t confess you’re attracted to people of the wrong age, then this issue is not your business. Confess your own sins.

          And what would you do if a little child aroused you?

          • glosoli says:

            Based on my reading God is right-wing and satan is left wing.
            God is truth and tradition and family, satan is the opposite.

            When I say I am with God, I mean I am on His side, and not that I am perfect. I do not confess my sins to a man (no need), I pray for forgiveness directly to God and ask for his help in resisting sin. I don’t pray to fake Gods, like Mary, just to God.

            • Turtle says:

              Theism is an ideology or a religion, but not spiritual, because you do not worship the Holy Trinity, in particular not the Holy Spirit Who proceeds from God the Father. If God is tradition and family, but human societies and sinners are imperfect, then is God perfect despite that?
              I believe Christianity is the spirituality of God’s Church, His own Body.
              To be on God’s side is perfect- obedience summarizes all virtue and goodness among his servants.

              Saints are not gods, they are godly creatures. Prayer to the saint who is God’s Mother, Mary, is asking her to pray to Him- mediating. He is the Fountainhead.

      • Turtle says:

        I agree that children can misbehave, but your ‘onset of sin’ at age 9 for girls is odd. You’re implying that boys never misbehave. Sexual sin is not the only kind. I’ve felt like much younger girls were flirting with me, but I was not ‘seduced,’ because only grown women arouse me. I don’t see how girls can seduce men unless the girls are adolescents who look and act womanly.

        While Jim claims women are mature at 16, I think the age of majority must be lower, probably 13 for both sexes.

        Another issue is what to do when actual children sexually play with each other. My very young male relative has done this with me, to my surprise.

        When I did it myself, near his age, I was not told it is wrong, at least I don’t remember any shaming, but it still felt sinful to me personally, even in the childish moment. Maybe chastity is not a technical issue- controlling sexuality is besides the point that the sexuality of fallen human beings is not good, if mankind is currently corrupted. Adam and Eve did sex (and everything else) right *before* the fall, not after. Samson and Delilah, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Noah and his children- not right. It’s a simple difference.

        • Anony-maus says:

          My experience is that girls these days – accounting for modern diet and all – do seem to begin to show sexual interest in boys around age 12. Its not quite the same thing as maturity, though and I’m not going to argue for “let people rut because they want to.”

        • Anonymous says:

          Some women sexually mature at 12 and others at 15. The “age of consent” in Delaware used to be 7 at one point, and while there’s nothing wrong with that, I think that if we are to have an “age of consent” at all, it should be within the 10-12 range, 7 y/os are generally not horny in the adult-sense of horny, while 12 y/os definitely are: I’ve seen more than ample evidence — in real life and on the internet — that some, by no means all, 12 y/os are as horny as can be, and do indeed have “enthusiastically consensual” sex and even orgies with older partners.

          Ultimately, I’m a big fan of “voluntary communities”, so that people who think that the age of consent should be 12, and that “child porn” should be legal, ought to live in their own community, and people who think that it should be 18 and that all porn should be criminalized ought to live in their own community. inb4 “anon is a liberal libertine libertarian” – call it whatever you want to call it, it’s still more workable than being at each other’s throats all the time. Alas, puritans just won’t live and let live — they refuse to coexist peacefully and separately, just like the muslims — which is why they deserve the rope.

          This brings me to a realization regarding matadors and capes: there is no point whatsoever being angry at Feminists. I used to be incredibly mad at Feminists, but lately I have come to view them as a Cape used by the puritan Matador. There, I said it: puritans are the matador, feminists are the cape. All the anti-sex and anti-male legislation passed by feminists, where everything is now defined as “r-r-r-r-r-rape”, is really feminists doing the bid of the puritans.

          Think about it. All the memes spread by feminists are actually puritan memes. Violence against women? Check. Age of consent? Check. Women as angels and men as vile brutes? Check. All of it, in its entirety. This is not to say that I don’t support slaughtering feminists brutally and violently. I support that wholeheartedly. However, if you butcher the feminists, the puritans will resort to spreading their own memes themselves. On the other hand, if you gas the puritans, the entire memetic edifice upon which feminists are dependent will collapse in a millisecond.

          Killing feminists is not morally wrong, but it’s strategically pointless, because feminists are nothing but a stupid cape. Feminists are low-IQ, mentally-ill, incompetent bitch-cunts who can’t do anything without competent men instructing them on what to do and on how to do it. Meanwhile, it’s the puritans who are, and have always been — by “always” I mean “since about 1850” — the matador. Feminism is a puritan meme, and all the ideas spread by feminists are puritan ideas, in (unconvincing) disguise. The core tenets as well as the minutiae of dogma –> all are puritan-derived.

          White Sharia to topple feminism? Yeah, okay. We can work with that. But it’s much more vital to “strike at the root” of the issue, which is feminists dancing to the nefarious tune set by the puritans. Yes, I’m neglecting the kikes in my analysis here, but who killed Corey Walgren? Who committed WHITE GENOCIDE against this fucking white male? Can’t blame the kikes for this one; the blood of Corey Walgren is on the hands of the puritans. It is the puritans who murdered Corey Walgren and it is the puritans who should go the oven for the crime of WHITE GENOCIDE which they keep committing day after day against innocent fucking white males. The kikes also deserve the oven, of course, but this is not the issue and fundamentally the problem is bigger than the kikes.

          Feminism is a puritan meme and all feminists come up with is puritan-derived concepts. MRAs are good people and I support them, but I’m afraid they haven’t thought through on who’s really responsible for the triumphs of feminism. Who allowed the meme of First Wave Feminism to materialize? Puritans. If the puritans, at the height of their power before the kikery intensified, decided to eliminate feminism, feminism would have been eliminated. But au contraire, puritans are the beating heart and the thinking brain behind feminism, really, feminism is nothing but a tool of the puritans to achieve their own ends.

          It all makes sense now. I may be a slow learner, but when I finally “get” something, I damn well get it. It was the puritans all along.

        • jay says:

          Minimum age of marriage is 12 and a half to 13:
          http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/marriage_age.htm

          Prerequisite is puberty and menstruation around that age.

        • jay says:

          One can be old enough to marry without being old enough for war priestly duties and voting.

    • peppermint says:

      = Civilisation is simply being able to live without human sacrifice and widespread brutal slavery, child rape, and pure evil.

      Young women being given to niggers to be sexually abused and killed. Young men and women finally being permitted at 22 to 26 to not be supervised by an Educator, and having to pay tens of thousands of dollars over the next ten years. Nine year olds given sex hormone blockers to permanently mutilate them. The destruction of monuments and promotion of ugliness as art.

      Civilization is simply being able to live without you.

  7. peppermint says:

    》“Reason is man’s central capacity.”

    This is the essence of soul theory.

    》 “Beliefs are to be accepted only on the basis of reason, not on the authority of priests, sacred texts, or tradition.”

    Thus say the university trannies.

    》 “All men (including, on the view of many, women) are equal in respect of their rationality, and should thus be granted equality before the law and individual liberty.”

    This is the essential praxis of soul theory.

    》“Man is by nature good. (Kant endorsed the Christian view of a “radical evil” in human nature, but held that it is possible to overcome it.)”

    This is on its face meaningless, but actually is a suggestion that it is right to perform the duties of Matthew 25.

    》“Both an individual and humanity as a whole can progress to perfection.”

    This denies heredity. Heredity has been suppressed doctrinally by Christianity for longer than the past 150 years.

    》“Tolerance is to be extended to other creeds, and ways of life.”
    》“The Enlightenment devalues local “prejudices’ and customs, which owe their development to historical peculiarities rather than to the exercise of reason. What matters to the Enlightenment is not whether one is French or German, but that one is an individual man, united in brotherhood with all other men by the rationality one shares with them.”

    These points are the same to the Enlightened, and the Enlightened are holier than the Church because they see all creeds as leading towards salvation, which was prefaced by the Christian doctrines like invincible ignorance, classical men of virtue in limbo, natural marriage, perfect contrition.

    The source of “Christian conservatism” is people who disagree with utilitarianism grasping for a doctrine and finding Christianity that explicitly rejects the last point (which is why it was separated from the next to last), and the function of Christian conservatism is to force the second to last point and all other points into law. The only time at which Christian conservatism was even a thing was between the Enlightenment and the present day, and today all good Christians affirm that the true meaning of Christianity is to adopt three niggers as embryos.

    • jim says:

      > > “Reason is man’s central capacity.”

      > This is the essence of soul theory.

      “soul in the image of God” => “Capability to reason”.

      Therefore blacks are as capable as whites.

      • Turtle says:

        Not quite. The Holy Spirit, in Pentecost which is coming up, enters the Apostles, who then speak in tongues. Also, Christ Himself taught some of His disciples all of Christian theology., after His Resurrection. So Christians don’t follow this soul theory. We follow Christ.

        Next, when catechists (teachers) are not available, the Holy Spirit teaches us otherwise, in some instances sending angels as teachers. There is a famed case of this among the Aleuts, recorded by St. Innocent when he visited them and met the ‘shaman’ in question (actually he seems to be a saint, while shamans don’t clearly rely on God for their talents).

        A saint can be a “Fool-for-Christ,” which mostly means lacking success and sanity.
        But most interestingly to me, on this topic, the Aleut shaman/saint called the angels who taught him “white men.” He seems to not have known what an angel is, or that they were not sons of Adam. St. Innocent asked to meet them, and they agreed to see him. Then he, a priest back then, decided he is unworthy of this honor, and wrote to his bishop about these events instead. His bishop told him to meet the angels/ spirits, but the letter did not arrive from Russia on time, and the Aleut died.

        There are some Orthodox Christians known to be clairvoyant, but it’s a peculiar thing to witness. It really does prove that IQ is moot outside of worldly competition. Similarly, prayer of the heart is wordless, an act of pure worship and repentance.

        I don’t think we lose anything by claiming anyone can be saved. Angels still look like “white men.”

    • What do you mean by soul theory? I suspect the Cartesian ghost in the machine stuff, which oldschool Catholics pretty much considered a borderline heresy, and had a different, albeit weirder, definition of a soul.

      Ed Feser explained it thus: a soul or essence of a thing is simply what makes it what it is and in 99,99% of the cases it is entirely natural. The vast majority of the human soul is natural too, or in modern terms, is a brain function, memory, emotions, personality etc. and it all dies with the body. Since these stuff are pretty important for a human person, they taught the resurrection of the body, and tried not to think too much about what exactly happens between death and resurrection. However, as humans can think abstractly, and there are no abstractions in nature, and they tended to see the human mind as more perceptive than creative i.e. they tended to think people notice abstractions, theories, that exist, and not make theories, not make models (yes it is really weird but that is how the Scholastics thought and actually still do, check Feser’s blog), they figured abstractions have a supernatural existence, and thus the part of the human mind that notices them is also supernatural, and this, only this abstract thinker, this Little Mathemathicial, without emotions, memories etc. survives the death of the body. But this is a very small part of a human person, hence the emphasis on bodily resurrection: they grokked you can only have emotions, memories and normal life with a body e.g. a brain.

      • peppermint says:

        You: the hyelomorphism of Aristotle and Aquinas make soul vacuous and thus unobjectionable

        Me: go fuck an image-bearer you filthy rat image-bearer

        • Michael Rothblatt says:

          It existed before Aquinas. Early Christians adopted the materialist view of the soul as nephesh from Judaism. Earliest of the Jews didn’t believe in any form of the afterlife, save for the survival of the genes. It’s why the Old Testament is so full of geneaologies. Later, because they did not have a pagan conception of souls, Jews came to believe in the afterlife as bodily ressurection. But Christians freely mingled with pagans, and therefore Platonic views on souls came to dominate the discourse later on, which is sort of ironic, because it is at odds with bodily ressurection, the central tenet of Christianity.

          • Eli says:

            @Dividualist: roughly speaking, this is what Maimonides, Gersonides and Spinoza thought as well. The immortal component consists of certain intellectual knowledge. No personality other than that.

            @M Rothblatt: James Darmesteter, one of the founders of Iranian studies and translator of Zend Avesta, held that the ideas of Apocalypse and resurrection are authentic Aryan (Iranian) beliefs. They are not native to Semites. The belief in “another/next world” is, however, authentically Jewish. He also held that, ultimately, even the ancestors of Aryan pagans had a belief in the One God (Dyeus aka Denis Pater), but that only some currents within Zoroastrianism retained that monotheism. (Hence, it is ironic to me that NRx has to invent “Kek” instead of using their ancestral heritage.)

            I highly suspect that the idea of Messiah and resurrection came into Judaism from Second Temple period interactions with Persians.

  8. Peter George Stewart says:

    What about the Enlightenment of Locke, the Scottish crew, Voltaire, and other Europeans who disagreed with Rousseau?

    I rather view Rousseau as part of a counter-Enlightenment trend, flying under Enlightenment colours. The “real” Enlightenment came from the freeing, by Bacon, of Aristotelian induction from the Platonic encroachments it had accrued via Platonic scholasticism, and Bacon’s connection of science to the improvement of the human lot. Rousseau’s (and Herder’s, Fichte’s, etc., etc.) movement was AGAINST this, a desire to return to a pre-scientific state of humanity (“noble savage” myth, hyper-egalitarian mythos, etc.).

    In this I’m still following Rand’s basic sketch – gradual transition of humanity from rule by Faith to rule by Reason (i.e. “what shall I do next” being answered by either respectively).

    All the setbacks are from Faith-based collectivist systems (e.g. Jewish ethnocentrism, the various other Asian collectivisms) constantly trying to claw back what is essentially the gradual shucking-off of the collectivist ethoi (is that a word? 🙂 ) that human groups developed while co-evolving with plant or animal monocultures (in the course of which they memetically mimicked the social structures of the hive insects that co-evolve with monocultures).

    What’s bedrock natural to human beings is the hunter-gatherer system of small groups, with generalist, hybrid individuals who are more or less “heroes”, and a fairly flat social structure. But our period of co-evolution with monocultures resulted in outbreaks of memetic mimicry of a collectivism that is alien to us, particularly in ME/river valley cultures (pastoralists, agriculturalists), where you have tight collectivistic groups with rigid social hierarchies and castes.

    Only Europeans (because of the strictures of Ice Age life requiring maintenance of the small group lifestyle) kept the archaic ways alive: individualistic, exogamous, egalitarian, family groups, etc.

    • jim says:

      What about the Enlightenment of Locke, the Scottish crew, Voltaire, and other Europeans who disagreed with Rousseau?

      Rosseau was explicitly opposed to civiilization and overtly wanted it eradicated. Voltaire advocated ideas that were inimical to the maintenance and continuation of civilization, and was not overly concerned that he might be destroying Chesterton’s fence and de Maistre’s altar.

      Locke’s program of rule by property owners would have been fine, but that program came to power in alliance with the free-the-slaves, emancipate-women, prohibit-alcohol, and ban-beta-males-from-having-sex crowd of excessively holy pharisees. And, as in any united front operation, the more holy quickly devoured the less holy

      • Alrenous says:

        Locke was anti-security. If you like security and logic it quickly becomes apparent that ‘mixing your labour’ has nothing to do with anything. You own a thing when you control it and expect to control it in the future. You expect to control it when that control has been secured.

        If you do not expect to control it – if it hasn’t been secured – you don’t attempt to control it in the first place. You won’t ‘mix’ your labour with it.

        Locke theorized that society should magically provide security for labour mixing or something. Amazingly this didn’t work out for Locke.

        • jim says:

          Property derives not from first use, but rather derives from first beneficial use worth defending, “I bagsed it and I am keeping it” – from a credible incentive and capability to defend it. Objectively beneficial use matters because it makes willingness to defend both credible and prosocial. Because prosocial, the state should back it. Because credible, if the state fails to back it, trouble ensues.

          • Turtle says:

            This sounds nice in theory. But I think of Aesop’s fable, where the dog is spitefully territorial, and guards the hay from hungry livestock. We don’t get to judge what is beneficial use, without judging human action, and thus playing God. So Christians just work, I think, without claiming objective rights to property, only gratitude for God’s gifts.

            • peppermint says:

              first beneficial use is a way for the government to ensure that it’s getting the full value out of land it’s selling instead of selling it for cheap to a speculator who then turns a profit off reselling it

              it doesn’t work for a pile of hay, the dog controls it, if it’s his, and if it isn’t someone can get a court order

              if it was a field the dog controlled instead, the dog would be paying property taxes and if the other animals weren’t offering enough they can take their business elsewhere

              first beneficial use worth paying for is used for initial allocations of all kinds of property rights, including ipv4 addresses

              after which property rights are traded, not assigned by government fiat, except for hopefully rare events

            • jim says:

              > But I think of Aesop’s fable, where the dog is spitefully territorial, and guards the hay from hungry livestock.

              The dog lacks incentive to guard the hay, and might therefore well retreat from a credible threat, as, for example, from a hungry bull.

              If the bull thinks this, and the dog thinks the bull thinks this, the prophecy becomes self fullfilling.

              If the dog was guarding a bone, things would be different. Taking a bone from a dog is a seriously bad idea, but taking hay from a dog seems likely to be easy, and, believing it to be easy, and the dog believing that you believe it it would be easy, and you believing that the dog believes that you believe …

              And thus, property. Property is a dog’s bone. I believe I cannot take a bone from a dog, and the dog believes that I believe.

              In a game of chicken, any credible prophecy as to who will chicken first becomes self fullfilling. Property is winning at chicken.

              • Turtle says:

                >> The dog…might therefore well retreat from a credible threat, as, for example, from a hungry bull.

                Yes. But a calf cannot take the hay from the dog. So property according to brutal ‘survival of the fittest’ is a strong dog’s bone, which a stronger dog can rob it of. This kind of property is unreliable for the weak. Weapons might seem to equalize strength differences, but I don’t really know if that works.

                If property is winning at chicken, then the insane will lose at chicken by not bowing out. This is costly for the winner. Perhaps property is more mysterious, like winning itself. Due to greed, we don’t value things unless they are scarce. So people often choose to compete for things they don’t need, and we get some incidence rate of insane dogs guarding hay. And what are blood diamonds, if not greed causing violence?

                Anyway, resources in this world are only scarce because of sin. Economics is a distraction.

                • peppermint says:

                  Equalizing strength differences isn’t necessary, making it cost too much to attack is the goal of weak animals having weapons too. The strong dog will need to fight the weak dog for the bone, and that could cost more than acquiring a different bone.

                  This is why it’s necessary to perform the fistfight that your woman sets up at the bar for you even though she set you against Chad and he’s probably going to win. By fighting you demonstrate your willingness to fight for her, which makes her feel safe with you after you get kicked out and take her home, while if you walk away because he’s stronger she’ll go home with him.

                • jim says:

                  a strong dog’s bone, which a stronger dog can rob it of.

                  The stronger dog will win, but will get seriously injured, possibly die. The weaker dog cannot win in a fight, but he can, and usually will, win at a game of chicken if he is already in possession of the bone.

                  Repeating: In a game of chicken, any credible prophecy as to who will chicken first becomes self fullfilling. Property is winning at chicken. It is not winning at fighting.

                • Turtle says:

                  @pepperemint

                  Turf wars still happen sometimes, at least in times of scarcity/ hunger. I don’t know their prevalence, but people are not so rational, and crave resources they do not need, such as blood diamonds and harems.

                  Chad will start the fight only if he thinks he can steal your woman by beating you, and if he thinks he will win, you think. But I think Chad might like fighting for fun; Chad might be a homo. Fighting is not about women per se, it is about scapegoating our perceived enemies. There is plenty of pussy to go around, given that men are scarcer. Of course, beauty can be worthy or not, and so we cannot evaluate women fairly, without playing God. So I wouldn’t know if a woman is worth fighting for. I’d rather be friends with Chad in the first place.

                  She won’t feel safe with a man who loses fights just because he tried. There are no ‘effort points.’

                  If she will leave for Chad, she prefers Chad. There’s no worldly (as in biosocial dominance) way to prevent her from leaving in spirit, if not physically as well. Also, mate-poaching is theft, and I hope Chad will get his own pussy.

          • Alrenous says:

            Because prosocial, the state should back it.

            The state should do a lot of things, but has demonstrated it won’t, repeatedly, reliably, in accordance with game theory, and in accordance with public choice theory.

            • jim says:

              This is the reaction. We want a state that does do what a state should do.

              So, why would a King do this?

              The King gets to be the fount of all honors, mortal and divine, by performing as a King. The King is backed by the violence of individuals, because he backs the violence of individuals. Monarchy depends on the people who have the ability to enforce their will going along with it. The King is King because the patriarch is patriarch.

              The official story may well be that all property is property by the King’s will, and wives submit to their husbands because the King wills it, but if he allows himself to believe his own story, he will soon find that all property is property by the will of his bureaucracy, and his bureaucracy finds their King dispensable.

      • Peter George Stewart says:

        Yeah, on dissolving fences/little battalions and breaking altars, I think the relevant distinction to note is between legal sanction and “soft” social sanction.

        The drive to equality before the law, and some tolerable measure of equality of opportunity at a reasonable cost (out of both compassion and meritocratic pragmatism) are both correct. But because of the holiness spiralling, as you guys say, from the “Puritan” strain, combined with (((cunning))) ethnocentric Judo, liberalism overshot into the corrosion and destruction of the more diffuse “soft” social sanction that’s the real foundation of society.

        In a trope, it was absolutely correct that, e.g., people should face no legal sanction for being gay or sleeping around, but to destroy the pillar of social shaming for such behaviours, was the big mistake (ofc not a bug but a feature from some points of view).

        Human beings can vary tremendously as individuals, our evolution depends on a balance between genetic pooling and genetic variation, therefore it’s right that there should be a “mainstream” and an “underground”; the underground is a gadfly on the mainstream, the mainstream makes the underground possible at all. But those who have a natural proclivity for underground mores have to win their right to it by BRAVING social shaming. To make underground mores mainstream is not only destructive of the mainstream, it also destroys the underground-ey nature of the underground, it leaves no place to escape to, from the mainstream.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          “The drive to equality before the law, and some tolerable measure of equality of opportunity at a reasonable cost (out of both compassion and meritocratic pragmatism) are both correct.”

          In practice meritocracy means rule by the civil service; individuals loyalty is to the organization and so over time the organization grows stronger at the expense of everything else.

          Additionally if the purpose of handing out political power is to reward individuals for following social norms and showing people examples of conduct to follow, it doesn’t make sense to have outsiders on equal competition with the mainstream for most posts. The character traits necessary to be a Good Englishmen are different from a Good Scotsmen, much less a Good Frenchmen.

          “In a trope, it was absolutely correct that, e.g., people should face no legal sanction for being gay or sleeping around, but to destroy the pillar of social shaming for such behaviours, was the big mistake (ofc not a bug but a feature from some points of view).”

          Doesn’t work. Once legal sanctions are gone you have people who do the deviant behavior self segregate from the rest of society. Now you have a group of people who have behavior harmful for society, are removed from social sanctions for that behavior and proceed to attack people in mainstream society for applying social sanctions to members. If they get access to power or money they will proceed to use it to tear down the social restrictions of mainstream society.

          “our evolution depends on a balance between genetic pooling and genetic variation,”

          Most mutations are bad so most attempts at genetic variation will be bad. Additionally most evolutionary favored genetic variations will be socially bad- psychopathy gets you chicks but it is not a trait we want to encourage.

          Not a good justification for cultural variation either- 40% of personality is genetic so mainstream can easily contain almost all normal people including beneficial genetic changes.

          • Peter George Stewart says:

            “In practice meritocracy means rule by the civil service”

            In politics, to an extent, yes, but not in the market.

            “if the purpose of handing out political power is to reward individuals for following social norms and showing people examples of conduct to follow”

            That’s not meritocracy – meritocracy means handing power to people who do their jobs well. I agree that the civil service is an imperfect institution – it’s only good so long as the honorable ethos of it exists. But societies change and renew, and the form of it can change too, be improved over time, or replaced with something better.

            “Once legal sanctions are gone you have people who do the deviant behavior self segregate from the rest of society.”

            Yes, you have an “underground.” There’s nothing wrong with an underground, you need both a mainstream and an underground, because you need possible variations at the fringes of society.

            It’s the same as with evolution in general – you need a stable pool of algorithms that work under current circumstances, but you also need variations bubbling at the fringes, so that there are algorithms waiting in the wings to become mainstream should circumstances change in an UNFORESEEN way. Same again with the immune system – you need lots of possible “locks” hanging around so that one of them might fit an intruding “key.”

            “Most mutations are bad so most attempts at genetic variation will be bad.”

            I think you’re confusing the molecular level with the population genetics level (or something like that 🙂 ). The mutations that are bad produce things that die and don’t even get to reproduce. If a mutation exists in a host that reproduces, then it “passes” and becomes part of the stock that’s there to cope with – again – the unforeseen.

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              “In politics, to an extent, yes, but not in the market.”

              I’m not up to speed enough but it looks like in the market meritocracy leads to a small clique of people who attend similar schools running everything and whose behavior is similar to civil servants (taking care of their own, expanding power of organization).

              “That’s not meritocracy – meritocracy means handing power to people who do their jobs well.”

              I know, I was explaining the alternative. The best individual for most positions are some degree out autistic obsessives. We should not define our goals so narrowly.

              “Yes, you have an “underground.” There’s nothing wrong with an underground, you need both a mainstream and an underground, because you need possible variations at the fringes of society.”

              No, the Arab world has a gay underground. Elimination of legal sanctions produces San Francisco. You need legal sanctions and discretion in applying the law so that you can clamp down on abnormal activities if they become too antisocial.

              ” The mutations that are bad produce things that die and don’t even get to reproduce. ”

              I’m talking about genetic load. You can get high levels of genetic load and still reproduce and it is a partially bad problem for our current society due to the low mortality rate.

              • Peter George Stewart says:

                “Elimination of legal sanctions produces San Francisco.”

                No, that comes from making underground mores mainstream – THAT WAS THE BIG MISTAKE. But it wasn’t something that came naturally from the underground itself, it was something imposed by ideology, by the Left.

                (I remember being a punk as a kid, reading people in indie rags saying things to the effect of “how can we push our music into the mainstream?” Every fiber of my being said “NO, this is OUR music, our particular thing, it would be spoiled by pushing it to the mainstream” – and so it was.)

                Again, I think there’s a sweet spot where you can have no legal sanction (based on the very universalist humanist principles that are part of our heritage) but still maintain social sanction. That line was overshot at various times and places, because of our own holiness spiralling egged on by the culture of critique.

                This is partly an argument from compassion, and there’s nothing wrong with that – and I believe the difference between “spoiling” people with compassion and treating them kindly while maintaining our ethos sits just at this precise distinction between legal sanction and social sanction.

                Good conversations! 🙂

            • peppermint says:

              At some point, sand niggers will evolve tetraploidy to avoid the cost of incest.

    • jim says:

      Locke and Adam Smith were the original libertarians. The trouble with libertarianism is manifested by Bryan Caplan, who wants to import four hundred million black male military age Muslims screaming for infidel blood and white pussy to live on crime and welfare in America.

      Libertarianism treats a cohesive a law abiding, trusting, and cooperative society as a solved problem, and trivially solved at that. So obviously those Africans are going to replace the missing grandchildren.</sarcasm>

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Bryan Caplan is an entryist, Libertarian position on four hundred million black muslims coming in is exemplifed by Ron Paul, who supports the wall.

      • Peter George Stewart says:

        I think the answer is sort of inbetween. While it’s true that the liberal way of life was invented by Europeans, relates to European family forms, etc., and sits more naturally with us, nevertheless it’s an idea with its own internal logic, and ideas can be taken up by others and used by others, even if those ideas might never have occurred to them in the course of their own ethnic and cultural development.

        And given time and a reasonable rate of assimilation, it really wouldn’t matter what the ethnic composition of a liberal state was. The problem is that mass immigration, at too fast a rate for assimilation, is being invited at a time when ethnomasochism has been hammered into European and European-American cultures for nearly a century now by (((the usual suspects))).

        Anyway, I’d just say don’t give up on the Enlightenment that easily, and don’t fall too much into thinking in terms of collective guilt. It’s always about individual and what goes on in the privacy of the individual’s mind. As I alluded to above: human beings are “over-engineered” for any sort of collectivist lifestyle, whether that be ethnic-based, culture-based or politics-based. None of it actually sits that well with us, at bottom, we just … nearly … became insectile in various ways, and the progress since the Bronze Age has been us moving further and further from that, back into our native individualism. In fits and starts, for sure, but it’s actually inevitable in the long run (again, because our biology, our brains, are too complex to bear living as hive insects). In another thousand years, the whole episode of ethnic/cultural/political collectivisms will be understood to have been a blip that started before the Bronze Age, and lasted roughly until the Enlightenment.

        • Cavalier says:

          >And given time and a reasonable rate of assimilation, it really wouldn’t matter what the ethnic composition of a liberal state was.

          On the contrary; the Know-Nothings were right.

        • peppermint says:

          》 nevertheless it’s an idea with its own internal logic, and ideas can be taken up by others and used by others,

          e.g. Mao

          》And given time and a reasonable rate of assimilation, it really wouldn’t matter what the ethnic composition of a liberal state was.

          for example, Ho Chi Minh City today

        • peppermint says:

          》 In another thousand years, the whole episode of ethnic/cultural/political collectivisms will be understood to have been a blip that started before the Bronze Age, and lasted roughly until the Enlightenment.

          This is the Locke/Rousseau/Yazidi state of nature. Learn biology or diaf.

        • Anony-maus says:

          The Enlightenment gave us feminism. What a wonderful thing to preserve, that. Do you feel like this is a better world for living in a female-dominant society? Do you feel happier for it?

          • Anonymous says:

            The enlightenment gave us romanticism, romanticism precipitated the puritan worldview, the puritan worldview leads directly to femdom legislation, and femdom legislation is why Corey Walgren is dead. So, you do have a point: the whole enlightenment project ought to be repudiated, because the enlightenment = WHITE GENOCIDE.

          • Peter George Stewart says:

            The Enlightenment didn’t give us Feminism, it’s older than that, it comes originally from Troubador gynocentrism, which is then filtered through the hyper-egalitarianism of the Counter-Enlightenment (Rousseau, etc.)

            Some degree of gender egalitarianism is part of our heritage. Think of tough, matriarchal North English mining families, where the man comes home and gives his wife his wages, so she can organize the housekeeping. This division of labour comes from the harder, nature-facing circumstances of the North (you need all hands on deck more).

            So there’s some natural gynocentrism there, and female selection being more operative, producing tougher men.

            But again, as with our natural egalitarianism in general, what’s happened is that this instinct, and the shame and guilt around not conforming to abstract ideals, has been taken advantage of and enhanced to ridiculous degrees.

            It’s always tempting on breaking intellectual taboos, to go to another extreme, but generally I think it’s best to steer a course between extremes (although not always necessarily a middle course, ofc, sometimes there’s more skew one way or the other). Extremes are usually new ideas had by people who are so shocked by their own genius that they hold to their bright ideas monomaniacally; the scientific way is to guard against that, see what truth there is in what intelligent people have said and discovered, and filter out their (and one’s own) cognitive bias as much as possible.

            Nobody has a monopoly on truth, nobody has a hotline to God.

      • >Libertarianism treats a cohesive a law abiding, trusting, and cooperative society as a solved problem, and trivially solved at that.

        This is a great quotable. The weird part is that we on the “far” right tend to notice often surprisingly similar faults with liberalism as people on the far left do. Sometimes the Jacobin mag is insightful, like when they wrote about fitness being signalling. Similarly lefties long criticized Mises types for assuming human nature equals the habits of a 19th century gentleman raised in law abiding capitalism. Indeed. That is the problem. Our main difference is that lefties think humans can be made to behave better than that, we tend to think humans far too often behave much worse than that.

        The weirdest part is… even if humans could be made to behave much better than that, i.e. sort of convinced to be voluntary communists and share everything by need… I would simply find that boring. Lack of challenge, lack of status ladder, lack of the game I call life. I suppose, at some level, I am a villain. Virtually every decent conservative in history said communism would be great if it was possible but alas sadly not. By saying I would not enjoy it, by saying I would much rather have a society where deprivation and suffering exists than a boring society, because you have more meaning and goals and more content in life in the first one… by saying this I am probably immoral at some very basic level.

        • peppermint says:

          》By saying I would not enjoy it, by saying I would much rather have a society where deprivation and suffering exists than a boring society, because you have more meaning and goals and more content in life in the first one… by saying this I am probably immoral at some very basic level.

          You’re right, and came here to find the reasons. Communism doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because incentives matter, which you touch on but ultimately say you must be immoral for caring about.

          14w is good by definition. Communism is bad because it inhibits the civilization that enables 14w. In addition it destroys natural inequality and evolution which is necessary for 14w in the future.

          We could actually have a UBI system that would work, but with the proviso that the individual is prohibited from reproducing until he pays off his debt to society. Since that is unthinkable, it’s best to coumtersignal UBI as communism and bound to lead to low wage people quitting and inflation.

          • Peter George Stewart says:

            (This is connected to the other comment I made in response to you below.)

            “Communism doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because incentives matter, which you touch on but ultimately say you must be immoral for caring about.”

            The incentives problem is important, but it’s not the most important problem with Communism.

            The problem with Communism is threefold: 1) incentives, 2) knowledge problem, and 3) economic calculation problem.

            1) can be solved “with the best will in the world”, the others can’t, short of a super-powerful AI in charge of the economy – a literal deus ex machina.

            • jim says:

              A superpowerful AI could solve the economic calculation problem, if it had the data, but, of course, we don’t have the data, most of which is widely dispersed amongst many people, and is tacit knowledge, that is hard or impossible to express verbally or explicitly, so a superpowerful AI would be no better at solving the knowledge problem than you or I, indeed worse, because alien.

              • Peter George Stewart says:

                I should have added, “a superpowerful AI with a direct feed from everyone’s senses and a readout of their brain patterns” 🙂

                Which then requires that the AI be benign and not use the data for nefarious purposes. Obviously extremely dubious.

                But granted that, I think a Communist utopia with these conditions could be workable and attractive – cf. Iain Banks’ s-f novels (where the “Minds” are such AIs – and it’s a comical reductio that such a deux ex machina is required for Communism to work, especially as Banks seems to be blissfully unaware of the irony).

                Something for some space colony to work on, in the coming diaspora 🙂

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “But granted that, I think a Communist utopia with these conditions could be workable and attractive – cf. Iain Banks’ s-f novels (where the “Minds” are such AIs – and it’s a comical reductio that such a deux ex machina is required for Communism to work, especially as Banks seems to be blissfully unaware of the irony).”

                  I’m going to have to disagree. The problem with such a society is there is literally nothing to do. If you want to see what it would realistically look like, go to the ghetto where all material needs are taken care of by Uncle Sam.

      • Turtle says:

        I hear that Ethiopia (mostly a genomic mixture of semitic and negroid heredity) is underrated. No evidence I know of though.

        • peppermint says:

          what you may have heard is that they have their own ancient alphabet, that was obviously developed from other sources, and that they have churches cut into rock, which obviously were done to imitate rock-cut buildings in the levantine desert. in addition italy failed to conquer ethiopia, and at this point i wouldn’t be surprised if the british played a role in stopping them

          • Lalit says:

            The Russians played a role in preventing the Italian conquest of Ethiopia. Orthodox vs Catholic, see?

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adwa

            France was a Russian ally at that time. Feel free to ask for help anytime, peppermint!

            • Turtle says:

              Then what about France’s involvement? Aren’t they mostly Roman Catholic, even though the Vatican is in Italy?

              • Samuel Skinner says:

                France was Roman Catholic, but the French Left (which was in power) was secular/anti-clerical/atheist. Italy-Ethiopia was in 1895; France had just had

                1889-1891 Boulanger crisis; threat of right wing coup
                1892 Panama Scandal
                1892 Pope Leo XIII encourages Catholics to engage in politics

                That said Italy was allied to Germany (1882 secret treaty) so the French had every reason in the world to work with the Russians to screw over Italy.

                • Turtle says:

                  Thanks, S.S. That context helps explain the world wars.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  Forgot to mention the really important one- French-Russian defensive Alliance 1892

                  Also Italy allied to Germany needs to be expanded; it was an Italian-German-Austrian agreement to come to their aid if they were attacked by another major power and (in the case of Italy) to not attack Austria if it went to war with Russia. In 1902 Italy made similar agreements with France.

    • peppermint says:

      Locke had the same state of nature idea as Rousseau and the variant of Genesis the Yazidi have that the fruit Adam wasn’t supposed to have was wheat but Eve wanted it so Adam built civilization. In reality, the opposite is the case, Adam wants civilization and Eve is along for the ride and wishes she could run off with a hunter-gatherer.

      • Cavalier says:

        Before about 1900 it was far better to be a hunter-gatherer than anybody even remotely affiliated with civilizations. Hunter-gathers had enormously higher standards of living, on average, were healthier, had fewer diseases, and humans in general are far better adapted to hunter-gathering than civilization, a simple matter of relative evolutionary time.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          Ya right did you forgot to mention the part where they headhunted each other and most males died in battle? The life expectancy comparisons don’t bear that out.

          • Cavalier says:

            No. Personally I would be a great warrior with many feathers on my head-thing, many serfs on my totem pole, the skulls of my many dead enemies adorning my bar, and my belly forever filled with venison courtesy of my supreme hunting ability and my balls always empty courtesy of my plentiful war booty.

            But it’s also better to die young fighting gloriously for your future Darwinian success than it is to fall to syphilis or to some unspeakable thing you contracted walking down the street from the shit that splashed on you when somebody threw their chamber pot out the window.

            Average height is the relevant metric here.

            • Stephen W says:

              Only problem is that those malnourished and diseased farmer folk tend to outnumber and overwhelm hunter gatherers. By the iron age an increase in crop varieties and genetic adaptation to wheat and milk based diets led to semi pastoral barbarians recovery most of the health lost in the neolithic. As soon as a civilization stamps out head hunting malthusian poverty tend to set in though. Until the wealth of the post industrial age.

              • Cavalier says:

                True, except with regard to adaptation to wheat and milk. Long-time farmers did adapt to wheat, but it still isn’t very good for them (us), and as a general rule quick evolutionary changes are sloppy changes; lactose tolerance has always been, and remains to this day, a very northern thing. Very northern. And very white, as the chinks and/of nips (who even knows) used to call whitey man something that, if I recall correctly, translates more or less to “stinks of cheese”.

              • Stephen W says:

                Did I really write that many typos.

      • Peter George Stewart says:

        I don’t think Locke’s SoN is the same as Rousseau’s, Locke’s is scientifically reasonable, Rousseau’s is Pollyannaish.

        Locke’s idea is simply that we have SOME natural propensity to social order without the State, which is correct: much of the heavy lifting has already been done by TIT for TAT at “blind” levels of evolution (even animals have rudimentary stateless social order). This all fits very well with evolutionary psychology.

        Rousseau’s idea is more that of a pristine individualism and purity of innocence that’s tarnished by the formation of social order – it’s simply unscientific nonsense.

        • peppermint says:

          It is exactly the same, it assumes Aryans were just created one day without White sharia and villages.

          • Peter George Stewart says:

            On the contrary, Locke’s SoN assumes SOME degree of spontaneous social order has already occurred (which includes some law and security of contract, contrary to Hobbes, who thinks law requires Leviathan). The State is just supposed to tidy up something that’s already ongoing.

            Sharia is (supposed to be) God-given law, and its standard of reference is the behaviour and pronouncements of one man; white law has never been God-given in that way, but is rather “common law”, developed by a gradual process of negotiation and adjudication by respected community members, ongoingly judged by the observing community, not as a collective, but as a group of individuals.

            • peppermint says:

              White sharia is in our DNA and built our DNA. It is the closest thing to divine law of the creator of our race that could possibly exist. When the common law courts rule against White sharia, they are wrong, because White sharia is White sharia.

              Locke doesn’t talk about villages and commons. He talks as if every man is Robinson Crusoe.

              We must restore White sharia. Commons exist in White sharia and are maintained by social shaming of abuse and community events for maintenance which are rewarded with accolades.

              Have you ever picked up a White teenager’s litter and thrown it at him, calling him a nigger?

              Locke doesn’t mention that because he’s too busy talking as if his favorite abstraction, personal property, applies to everything. Which had the predictable consequence of emancipation of niggers, “emancipation” of women, and garbage in every public park.

              • Peter George Stewart says:

                Rousseau: “The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, to whom it occurred to say this is mine, and found people sufficiently simple to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.”

                Locke: “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… ”

                Hobbes: “To this war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues.”

                These are three very different ideas, with different views of human beings in a stateless condition, and Locke’s is the one that conforms with evolutionary biology and psychology.

                Hobbes’ state of nature is not the state of human nature, but that of blind evolution, of simple animals; but we’ve already been through that – from blind evolution we TIT for TATTED to evolve the “natural reason” that makes for SOME degree of propensity to social order that’s innate, but imperfect.

                Rousseau’s idea is simply vicious, anti-reason, anti-nature, hatred of man as man, masquerading as wit and love of man. It’s listening to Rousseau’s idea that’s resulted in the breakdown of social order, the littered streets, etc.

                There is no LOGICAL path from Locke’s idea to what we have now, because all he’s doing is admitting what’s obvious: that we simply ENHANCE that variable (bell curve trait) degree of propensity to co-operation by forming a political unity. There is nothing in Locke that requires any weakening of the political bonds.

                Hobbes is too tight, Rousseau is too loose, Locke (as the Scots) hits the sweet spot and is in conformity with common sense and science.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Thing is people are not equal or independent by necessity in pretty much any sense of the words. So thats right out.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “Bacon’s connection of science to the improvement of the human lot.”

      I hate to break it to you but his argument had little to do with anything. The improvement of the human lot came by way of engineers and craftsmen- the connection of science to their endeavors was centuries after Bacon was dead. Remember that France and the Low countries were also on their way to an Industrial Revolution, not just England. Intellectuals did not lead the change.

      “In this I’m still following Rand’s basic sketch – gradual transition of humanity from rule by Faith to rule by Reason (i.e. “what shall I do next” being answered by either respectively).”

      Rome, China and Greece were hardly ‘ruled by Faith’.

      “All the setbacks are from Faith-based collectivist systems (e.g. Jewish ethnocentrism, the various other Asian collectivisms)”

      You misunderstand the problem. The problem with China wasn’t collectivism; the problem was low trust and the ruthless status games of the elite. There was a guy in China who built a mechanical clock which was similar to the ones in Europe. And then when his faction was out of power, his political enemies had it dismantled.

      The ‘purest’ form of this can be seen in Korea where the Joseon dynasty going through 2 factions- 1 faction is destroyed- winning faction splits cycle for 500 years.

      • Peter George Stewart says:

        “I hate to break it to you but his argument had little to do with anything. ”

        This is wrong, Bacon’s method – and its humanist motivations – was a huge influence on Enlightenment science (Harvey, Boyle, Royal Society, etc.) and Enlightenment philosophy (admired by Voltaire, etc.).

        The effects of improvements in engineering and craftsmanship were certainly important to the development of science by way of scientific instruments and generally functional goods, but that influence is more part of the capitalist revolution (capitalism distributes end-user testing, an ultimate check on whether things work or not).

        “The problem with China wasn’t collectivism”

        Yes it was. Whenever you have a God-like leader and a pyramidal social structure with rigid roles and hierarchy, there you have political collectivism, there you have humanity memetically mimicking the social insects, as a byproduct of co-evolution with monoculture and the internal logic of protecting stores of them (in the case of China, rice). Where you have that kind of social structure, there you have currying favour and faction.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          “The effects of improvements in engineering and craftsmanship were certainly important to the development of science by way of scientific instruments and generally functional goods,”

          Your putting the arrow the opposite way you originally did.

          ” Whenever you have a God-like leader and a pyramidal social structure with rigid roles and hierarchy, there you have political collectivism, there you have humanity memetically mimicking the social insects, as a byproduct of co-evolution with monoculture and the internal logic of protecting stores of them (in the case of China, rice). Where you have that kind of social structure, there you have currying favour and faction.”

          First, not all mono-crop agricultural states are God-King despotism.

          Second, China’s first crop was millet, not rice. Rice is a South Chinese crop which was only important starting with the Han dynasty.

          Third, not all East Asian states that were monocultures were God-King despotism

          Fourth, protecting stores doesn’t lead to all power in the central government, but feudalism since you can’t transport food long distances so you need to have it stored locally and your loyalty is to the local individual who protects your food supply.

          • Peter George Stewart says:

            “Your putting the arrow the opposite way you originally did.”

            Not sure what you mean here.

            “First, not all mono-crop agricultural states are God-King despotism.”

            They were at the relevant time (Bronze Age) – Egypt, early China, Assyria.

            Thanks for the correction re. millet.

            Feudalism is a much later development that arises out of the breakdown of previous established over-arching social order (Roman), it’s built from the ground up, so to speak, and based on quid pro quo with local strongmen protecting small areas from banditry and the like, and Christian leaders ministering to local knowledge (incl technical) and spiritual needs; kingship then arises out of that situation, and establishes a new over-arching social order.

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              “Not sure what you mean here.”

              1)Bacon’s connection of science to the improvement of the human lot.

              2)This is wrong, Bacon’s method – and its humanist motivations – was a huge influence on Enlightenment science

              The effects of improvements in engineering and craftsmanship were certainly important to the development of science by way of scientific instruments and generally functional goods,

              Former- Bacon->science improve human lot
              Latter- Bacon-> Science/ improvement in human lot ->science.

              “They were at the relevant time (Bronze Age) – Egypt, early China, Assyria.”

              I think Bronze Age is more relevant; the Egyptians certainly grew more than one kind of crop and while their diet was certainly dominated by one staple, that has been the norm in human history. In fact wouldn’t the trend towards monoculture be stronger over time since population growth reduces the amount of meat people consume?

              Re: Feudalism
              Mea Culpa.

              • Peter George Stewart says:

                Bacon had it that the main emotionally driving reason to do science was to improve the human lot, and this also motivated the early Enlightenment scientists (Boyle, Harvey, Royal Society). Science was also accelerated by improvements in instruments, which depended on developing capitalism (end user testing) – in the early days, a few technical improvements here and there, then accelerating more and more with capitalism, machining, etc. I’m not seeing any reversal.

                Meat is itself a monoculture. The Indo Europeans were originally pastoralists, the Middle Easterners (and related Southern Europeans) were more farmers. So you have this to and fro between two broad types of societies both of which, under pressure from each other, are starting to take on some of the social, even psychological
                (insofar as psychology is the introjection of social roles) traits of hive insects, simply as a result of evolutionary logic (convergent evolution, possible on our part because of our plasticity, memetics).

                The “coevolution with monoculture” factor becomes less important, less formative (of society and psychology) as capitalism proceeds (farming more machined).

              • Samuel Skinner says:

                I’m saying the improvement of human lot was due to industrialism and science had no effect on its progress until much latter.

                Re: Monoculture

                I think you are overgeneralizing. If you mean autocratic states, those appear to be the general rule for human history with democracy and oligarchy being rare exceptions that appear to have been brought about by the breakdown in the previous existing order and a dependence upon trade.

                If you mean the specific type of autocratic rulership, I think it is just because that is the first idea that comes up.

        • peppermint says:

          Your problem is that you’re too elitist. End user testing isn’t what capitalism does for the people. Communists can also have quality control. What capitalism does is allocate resources by the Führenprinzip, with each person allocating the resources he controls according to his information and ideas, and the best and luckiest or best hedged win.

          Capitalism breaks down when people allocate resources they don’t care about or the government promises to prevent them from losing. End user testing doesn’t matter and Google, in bed with the government, is a lot better than Microsoft, which is only the government’s in the sense that they wouldn’t exist without copyright law.

          • Peter George Stewart says:

            Communists can’t have quality control because they can’t do economic calculation without money, prices and a free market. Under such circumstances, quality is simply whatever the State says it is.

      • China may be a warning sign that too large states do this, but Korea is about the same size as the Low Countries together. If relatively small country size did not save Europe from factionalism back then, what did?

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          Korea was protected by China so they could do whatever they wanted and as long as they oppressed the peasants effectively, they would face no consequences for mistakes.

          So the civil servants cut the ruler down to size, spent all their time jockeying for position and eventually stopped oppressing the peasants effectively.

  9. Dave says:

    Banks have now solved the “lending to minorities” problem. They just don’t lend to anyone. Instead of approving or rejecting loan applications, they stall by asking for more documentation. A great many home sales are in limbo because of this. You can still get a loan from a private lender, but they charge much higher interest rates, so you might have to lower your offer price or find a less expensive house.

    • Alrenous says:

      Ha. That’s a good idea. If exactly 20% of loans have to be to minorities, that’s fine…just find the five minorities you can safely lend to, and that caps your loans to majorities – 20 loans.

      I’m betting the private loans are at market rates.

    • Turtle says:

      This is fine with me, but there’s a bill in the House of Rep’s assaulting Credit Unions.

      Also, Trump’s promise to deregulate Wall St./ finance sits well with the GOP, so it’s a sure thing. It looks like I won’t be priced out of my childhood real estate market, which is a blessing.

  10. Cunning Crow says:

    Translation from pseudointellectual:
    “I am a barbarian throwback who has deluded himself into thinking he’s Western civilisation while wanting to burn down the actual Western civilisation.”

  11. This is pretty much the essence of the Dark Enlightenment – after Yudkowsky demostrated how irrational humans tend to be, some realized it invalidates the whole Enlightenment political project as everything in it is based on a rationality assumption. At least this happened on the timeline I know 🙂

    But the truly important part is that today we can explain what exactly happened with “Beliefs are to be accepted only on the basis of reason, not on the authority of priests, sacred texts, or tradition but wait where is evidence and observation?”

    Jim, this is something maybe you even don’t fully grok: reason without evidence and observation is largely /r/iamsosmart. It is A status signal of intellectuals, intelligent people, it is an advertisement of IQ or at least sophistication and learnedness, it is a way to gain status, and for many others, it is a way to cure their self esteem “I may be a loser but at least rational i..e. smart”

    Jim, this is what I meant when I told you that our problem is that we cannot really make stuff like nationalism sound smart and thus sexy for these type of people. You told me intellectuals would accept anything, the dumbest sounding thing, if power told them so. But this is exactly why not. The whole “reason without evidence” Enlightenment thing is “saying smart sounding stuff gets you status and self-esteem, saying dumb sounding stuff not”.

    You don’t have to be smart to accept authority or a religious text, literally interpreted. You have to be smart to “think critically” and so on. It is all about advertising how smart you are.

    4-500 years ago intellectuals started an arms race of who builds better cannons vs. who builds better forts and suddenly the noblemen holding a sword looked flaccid. Long story short, there is lots of power and riches to be had in being smart, hence sounding smart is a status signal. This is all there is there.

    So we should try to make our stuff sound smart and sexy and appeal to “reason” i.e. sounding smart. Look at what Land is doing lately, http://jacobitemag.com/2017/05/25/a-quick-and-dirty-introduction-to-accelerationism/ I haven’t the faintest idea what is he on about, but – perhaps because – it sounds very impressive.

    • Alf says:

      The problem with smart and sexy as status game is that people might nod along and say ‘wow that sounds impressive’ but they do not actually listen to what you say and re-interpret everything in a way that suits their own status games.

      Being smart as in being obnoxiously right mostly leads to shocked faces and banhammers. But sometimes it leads to people actually listening.

      Still nothing wrong with sounding smart and sexy. See Milo.

    • peppermint says:

      》 4-500 years ago intellectuals started an arms race of who builds better cannons vs. who builds better forts and suddenly the noblemen holding a sword looked flaccid.

      No, singularitarian, 4-500 years ago intellectuals started a “humanist” arms race of what is most convincing to them being accepted, since God wouldn’t let lies win, leading away from Aquinas’ backdoor Aristotelianism and becoming holier than God.

      》 Long story short, there is lots of power and riches to be had in being smart, hence sounding smart is a status signal. This is all there is there.

      Yes, which is why the seminaries of political correctness hide behind what scientists they permit. But it has always been the case the priests claim responsibility for every good thing that happens.

      • Turtle says:

        Christ the High Priest claimed to be both God and the Son of Man, and to me, the essence of the Gospel is his miracle working. I don’t know what His identity means, but only God the Father is the Fountainhead of good.

        For those who are not omniscient, goodness is debatable. So I wonder if you’ve considered that priests claim credit for what they want, not every good thing.

    • Alrenous says:

      Lies are always more marketable than truth. There’s only so far you can alter the truth for presentation before it stops communicating true ideas. Lies can be designed for presentation from the bottom up.

      • This is an important observation. Actual truths have basically a random amount of likeability, while lies and half-truths can be engineered to maximal likeability. When people are not rational – value likeability over evidence – lies and half-truths win.

        How far we are from JS Mill’s optimistic argument that the reason free speech is good that on a marketplace of ideas truth tends to win! No, every marketing department knows lies and half-truths well engineered for maximal likeability win. The worst part is that even skin in the game helps only so much: everybody who buys a product because of a bullshit advertisement has direct skin in the game (cost vs. utility of the product) and yet unfortunately it works.

        • Alrenous says:

          Even if they care about rationality, lies can be engineered for plausibility too.

          Though adverts genuinely add value if all you care about is appearance, like folk who buy inedible but non-rotting plastic apples instead of delicious but ugly apples.

  12. Garr says:

    Two things: (1) I like the recently kinder, gentler Peppermint; (2) Those “Handmaid” outfits are really cute, and the “Gilead” society looks great to me; I wonder how many ordinary males are feeling this when they see the posters and advertisements.

    • Turtle says:

      Peppermint was calm and of good cheer for years, that’s who he really is.

      I think the outfits are sumptuous, not cute. They are tempting, like my lusting after a ‘dignified’ harem (which is ridiculous). Cuteness involves submission, not absolute status, while the outfits are generic, thus deriving status from group membership, not leadership or individuality, but still, status comes first, not personhood or mankind. So it’s a variety of the same humanism. I don’t even like fiction anymore, just like sugar and porn. My former indulgences are all vestigially distracting when I choose to do truly better things.

      Males seeing these images are either feeling scared that they’re going to say something not-PC and get shit tested, or passing the test. It’s a new meme to deal with, which is exciting but risky. While I shouldn’t, I might get the book and watch an episode, once the show is out.

    • peppermint says:

      I can’t really compete with anonymous’ rageposting

  13. Harold says:

    Cathedral definition of enlightenment debunked.

    Here is what Immanuel Kant says in his essay ‘What is Enlightenment’

    ‘But only the man who is himself enlightened, who is not afraid of shadows, and who commands at the same time a well disciplined and numerous army as guarantor of public peace—only he can say what [the sovereign of] a free state cannot dare to say: “Argue as much as you like, and about what you like, but obey!” Thus we observe here as elsewhere in human affairs, in which almost everything is paradoxical, a surprising and unexpected course of events: a large degree of civic freedom appears to be of advantage to the intellectual freedom of the people, yet at the same time it establishes insurmountable barriers. A lesser degree of civic freedom, however, creates room to let that free spirit expand to the limits of its capacity.’

  14. Joshua Chamberlain says:

    “The first two propositions superficially sound like a commitment to the scientific method – but somehow they have left out evidence, experiment, and observation.”

    That is interesting, considering de Maistre attacked Locke for advocating the “blank slate” rather than the mind containing innate ideas.

  15. Turtle says:

    What Jim generally refers when he talks about controlling women fits into

    a school of post-modern “third-wave” psychology:

    Mode Deactivation Therapy (which is a way to say, defeat the sin by firmly loving and disciplining the sinner).

    It works with rebellious teenagers, officially, so it can work with adult wives too. This is great- professionals have published resources on Jimist psych. They’re probably PC, but that’s easy to correct for when reading. I mean that good therapists are not cucks, they are compassionate and smart. So we can learn from them when they are right.

    I’m not buying any workbooks yet, but one’s on my list. If someone has trouble with women or children, but is a blue-pilled person, we can refer him to this modality, rather than trying to red-pill them, which is less likely to work. It’s a good compromise, I hope.

  16. Mackus says:

    “All men are equal in respect of their rationality, and should thus be granted equality before the law and individual liberty.”
    Isn’t it kinda counterproductive for enlightenment fans, since it turns equality of abilities into requirement for equality before law?

    They could split this statement into two, and consider each of them separately:
    “All men are equal in respect of their rationality.”
    “All men should be granted equality before the law and individual liberty, irrespective or their ability.”
    This way, even if someone would effectively question 1st, 2nd remains unassailable, because it no longer requires 1st being true. Of course, it also means that second is even more obviously sort of divine revelation, but its no problem at all, since it sounds like something “nice” that people who are attracted to enlightenment ideas in the first place would jump onto without need for evidence.

  17. Dividualist says:

    Thinking about the subject, a charitable view would be that ideas like the Enlightenment are valueable where they are born, they generate problems when exported elsewhere. Basically if you have a club by and for intellectuals you can run it on Enlightenment rules. They invented it, because it is something that suits them. Exporting to the whole of society was bad, and exporting it outside the West doubly bad.

    We constantly see this, not? Relaxed sexual rules work for intellectuals, as they can fuck responsibly, using condoms, they export this rule to all and then there are sluts, single moms and STDs. Atheism works for intellectuals, they export it, and you get peasants without a moral compass. Internationalism, globalism works for intellectuals. Being gay works for intellectuals because they are not much masculine anyway even when straight. Same for feminists, lesbians, even a straight, conservative female professor is usually ugly af. So why not. Every problem comes from them exporting the rules that work for them.

    If I had the power, one way I would try to solve Leftism would be giving intellectuals privileges and then basically forbidding them to export them. Scott Aaronson was right when he wrote about the Muslim ban affect some world famous female Iralian mathemathician and good PhD students. Why should these elite people be treated the same way as some peasant from Aleppo? Different rules for different people. Make it a matter of course that intellectuals are exempt from such rules and maybe it is easier then to shut them up. Reorganize universities, they should not be paper mills giving out licences to take an office job, create different institutions for that, and reduce universities into smaller, more ivory tower research and scientist training institutions, and then give them the kind of privileges they had in the Middle Ages, that they have their own citizenship, law, and courts, and are exempt from the laws of normal citizens. Naturally these laws would be very permissive and liberal. But categorically forbid them to export these rules and attitudes. Make it normal and accepted that Yale Law has gay marriage, American Law, French Law does not have it. One is for intellectuals, the other is for pea… er, common people.

    Maybe this would not work, as intellectuals compete for power and status. But at least it would take away one motivation of theirs: they are afraid we are pushing on them the kind of rules that were meant for peasants, the strict ones, marriage, reproductive sex, no drugs, nationalism, they are an obviously poor fit for intellectuals, and currently one reason they are leftist is that they fear they cannot be exempted from them.

  18. Turtle says:

    I’m realizing I need to spend more time praying and being a student of God, reading His Holy Scriptures. So, I’ll have less time for commenting and worldly reading. I’ll still read Jim’s posts, but I’ve decided to comment much less if at all. It’s not like anyone asked me to join here, and I have real-life relationships to work on.

    I do like it here, except that I’m looking for more theological discussion, and personal guidance.

    Goodbye for now 🙂 .

    • peppermint says:

      God doesn’t exist and scriptures are garbage. Discussion is how you learn things.

      The problem with puritanical anti-degeneracy is that it is individualistic. The race doesn’t care how much you drink, smoke and fap. The race only cares if you preserve and reproduce Aryan genes and civilization.

      In addition, and in particular, Christianity consistently gets wrong the place of women and the purpose of sex. Sex has a triple purpose for men – cementing the pair bond, reproducing, and getting notches to brag about. For women it only has the first two. This is an essential difference between women and men, while Christians refuse to recognize the third purpose and refuse to recognize that souls can have different roles.

  19. […] A. Donald: The Enlightenment Debunked. Jim cuts a wide swathe through the heart of the Oxford Companion to Philosophy‘s view of the […]

Leave a Reply