Red Guards and Cultural Revolution

Three years ago, after World War Trans, people said, “OK, one more unconditional and total capitulation by the right, and then we will be able to live in peace.

But today we have red guards and a cultural revolution.

And that is what everyone says, after each capitulation, starting with the denial of King George’s divorce. “The left has today become so crazy, so extreme, it cannot get any crazier, and there is going to be a blacklash.” (Or, in the case of King George, a holash. And after King George’s divorce was denied, there was indeed a holash against wives who fuck around, but it did not stop things from rapidly getting worse, and the attack upon the family from endlessly escalating, and the total fertility rate from endlessly falling, with a temporary remission from the early thirties to the early sixties, between first wave and second wave feminism.)

Now it is apparent that the next big thing is Red Guards and the Cultural Revolution. Whiteness is today being erased from our past, and tomorrow we will be erased from our present. After whitness, maleness, starting with fathers and husbands.

A left singularity is usually terminated, as by a Stalin or a Cromwell. One leftist grabs all power and absolute power, and then stops things from getting worse, lest he be devoured in his turn. But until then, it just goes on getting ever more extreme. It does not stop quietly of its own accord, merely because it has become sufficiently extreme to sate people’s appetite for destruction. It is only going to stop if someone stops it.

Fathers and husbands will be deemed toxic for wives and children and will be removed from their families – the salami slicer is already operating to remove the supposedly worst husbands and fathers, and eventually it is going to get the whole salami. Wives who fail to cooperate in the removal of husbands and fathers will lose their children, and eventually be subject to violence and imprisonment, and eventually execution. Next cishet single men, then insufficiently gay single men, and then …

Eventually, as in Szechuan, everyone enthusiastically tortures everyone else to death in an unsuccessful effort to be the last to be called out for insufficient leftism and devoured, and no one remains, unless at some point, the left gets it in the neck, and is purged from the institutions of the state religion – in our case the Ivies and the key media.

In Russia, the left communists were leaving old fashioned Marxism Leninism behind, as the Unitarians had left Puritanism behind. Stalin was guilty of old fashioned Marxism Leninsm, and so would surely have been devoured, so he purged the left communists under the excuse that they were “objectively fascist”. In the ensuing purge, Jews suffered disparate impact, extreme disparate impact, and the party wound up pretty much Judenrein, but it was not a purge of Jews for Jewishness. It was, mostly, a purge of communists for heresy, entirely genuine heresy.

The “fascists” and “wreckers” that were purged were largely imaginary, but the “Objective fascists” that were purged really were heretics from what had been orthodox Marxism Leninism, and they were nailed for heresy, not Judaism.

Eventually, the left edge of politics is going to be purged from the Ivies and government employment – perhaps by us, more likely by someone unimaginably further left than any present day tendency.

Or else, as in Szechuan, everyone is going to die horribly.

Equality and Social Justice is just rhetoric for mobilizing envy and covetousness and turning it into violence and destruction, as for example Detroit.

The left cares about power, and power is “impact”, and “impact” is making people suffer. When they run out of kulaks, they liquidate the peasants. Obamaphone woman cares about equality and social justice, the mindless river of meat cares about equality and social justice, in the sense that they are pissed that some people have nicer stuff than they do, and want to trash that stuff and mess up those people, but the puppeteers controlling Obamaphone woman do not give a shit. When they have finished using her to kill all whites and all males, they will take Obamaphone woman’s phone away, and then they are going to kill her: Impact!

Look at any greenie environmentalist protest. They leave a trail of garbage behind them, they totally trash the environment. Look at the save-our-jobs counter protest. They clean up behind themselves as if they had never been there.

They don’t want to save the earth they don’t want equality and social justice, they want power, power is impact, impact is making people suffer. Every BLM and greenie protest proves it.

Leftism has made envy and covetousness into a sacrament, because that is the sin that is easiest to pander to politically.

Not only is it easier to destroy Detroit, than to transfer it intact from whites to blacks, it is easier to destroy Jewish assets than to transfer them intact to Germans.

And not only is it easier, it is much more satisfying in the short run. Do you want to balance a set of account books, or do you want break windows and terrorize the people behind those windows? BLM and Antifa!

Face it. Smashing and terrorizing is just more fun. If you want a mob of muppets, you don’t offer them other people’s assets to organize and operate, you offer them other people’s assets to destroy, and other people to destroy. BLM and Antifa is impact!

Impact!

Tags:

101 Responses to “Red Guards and Cultural Revolution”

  1. Pepe minion says:

    America’s Red Guards are attracting some interesting attention:

    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/08/chinese-social-media-notices-us.html

    In China, there were senior figures in the party and army who hated the cultural revolution. Sufficient that after Mao’s death the leftists were rapidly overthrown. I wonder whether the US can hope for anything similar? Doubtful.

  2. vxxc2014 says:

    Given the power of equality they go insane and begin to erase our history in anticipation of total victory.

    Imagine what actual victory or even majority would bring?

  3. ilkarnal says:

    The impact!!!!! faction is a small minority. The center is wide and determined to be cucked. They realize that violence would not lead to the outcome they desire (and they are fat, old, and lazy). Widespread violence would galvanize a response, and the response to war and deprivation is inherently rightist.

    Unfortunately there won’t be widespread violence, just more or less a continuation of the status quo. That’s very bad, because the catastrophe is what is happening right now. If current trends continue for several generations, we will have idiocracy except much less funny and cute. This demographic trend that encompasses billions of people is like tectonic plates moving – slow and essentially inevitable. Consider it locked in for at least the next few generations. Difficult to see how it is stopped after that.

    When a tectonic plate moves to crush you, you don’t try to stop it – you move out of the way. That’s the appropriate response here. Throughout history there have been places that are natural refuges to the worst catastrophes. Old European blood flows on in such places – in Europe, swamps and mountains. Difficult ground. The tides of change are chocked off and slowed in such places. Change penetrates at a rate inversely proportional to the cost of movement.

    I spy places where you can have our cake and eat it. Looking at the world population density map, you note vast green deserts. There are reasons for the lack of people in these lands – the soil is paradoxically poor, washed out by torrents of rain and squeezed for nutrients by the vast root networks of the trees. Tropical diseases take their brutal toll on humans, but are vastly more cruel to the livestock they depend on. Criminality and banditry is rife where there are any people at all. These are places around which the rivers of trade flow easily, and so even as the rest of the world becomes easier and easier to traverse they remain stubbornly impenetrable.

    Once the challenges associated with these places is overcome, they will be incredibly productive in terms of food and natural resources of all kinds. Overcoming these challenges requires vigor and competent application of technology, as well as will. But it does not require vast resources, it does not require doing battle with rich, powerful states. Once ensconced in such a place, you will be extremely difficult to uproot. Rebels that can disappear into the jungle have proven resistant to extirpation by military means in recent decades. Sufficiently dogged and competent opposition would eventually exterminate them, but staying power and competence are fading. Unfortunately for rebel movements, it is fading among their ranks just as fast as in the old powers, and they have less to spare.

    You said in an earlier post that if you go live in the woods, you will either decay down to primitive conditions, or, if you attempt to sustain a high tech existence, you will be considered a threat to ‘the environment’ and squashed. It is no doubt true that this course of action would garner the harshest opprobrium on this and other grounds. But it is instructive to look at the case of Rhodesia. The military forces their enemies managed to muster in an attempt to unseat them were pathetic. Economic pressure was applied and failed to drive them down to primitive conditions because of the richness of the resources at their disposal. They were defeated, ultimately, because their people valued ‘quality of life’ and reputation over independence and glory. Attempts to unseat them forcefully failed.

    I tell you, this is the sort of place you want to be in! The population explosion of early American colonists could be replicated.

    • Cavalier says:

      If you appear on their radar, they will come after you. There are only two options: the first is the urban Jewish style: subvert the state to achieve an unprincipled exception by providing indispensable services to power; the second is the rural Amish style – this requires complete disconnection from the industrial economy. The Amish can have 8 children apiece because their economy is effectively independent of the “mainstream” economy, as well as the fact that their technology level predates all electronic communications, the backbone of 20th- and 21st-century Cathedral soft power.

      So… we’re all Jews now.

      • viking says:

        the amish are good businessmen as are mennonites they don’t buy all that land without cash.

        • c matt says:

          Cash or credit, the government can still take it if it so desires. The Amish can succeed for now because TPTB allow them.

      • vxxc2014 says:

        Except America is our Zion and we can’t surrender it and exist.
        Anywhere.

        Oh and the real Jews have their coveting eyes upon it.

        Richest lands on earths in every respect – inhabited by Dodo Birds and Cowards.

        There’s nowhere to run. This is where we die, fighting and winning or laying down and dying. But we die here.

        What we actually need is an American Purim.

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          WHITE PURIM – great meme.

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          [Unfunny snark deleted as a waste of reader bandwidth]

          • jim says:

            Snarking assumes the argument has been made, and your own side is obviously correct, without the inconvenient necessity of actually explaining the argument.

        • ilkarnal says:

          Why? Why doesn’t this apply to the colonists who spun out from the British Empire? There are still places in this world that are uncolonized, and potentially fruitful.

          • viking says:

            where? because i have thought long and hard theres no where really. You have to be able to defend all comers and realize your success will breed interest. The usa clains sovereignty over the entire universe try claiming some martian territory see what they do.same antarctica and dont even think about a seastead an island nation its all been tried.ask any dictator what happens when they have a different opinion from washington.If you simply want to live in quiet obscurity you can do that in the the US without the dindu risk in places like north idaho.If you want security for children and grandchildren youll have to fight and kill the left and their zulus

            • ilkarnal says:

              Seasteading is stupid, because the US navy rules the seas. There are places where the US has very little power, large swaths of south america and africa are essentially independent. The US can come after you in central africa, but the forces they can marshal are much less powerful than in the US itself or at sea. Kony’s continued survival attests to this. One hopes that a group of white colonists would be considerably more formidable than the Lord’s Resistance Army – if they don’t go out of their way to make enemies, they should be fine.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                That is true but the US Navy is also an internal enemy of the regime. Giving the US Navy the right to kill “pirates” would make the world dangerously orderly.

              • viking says:

                yes exactly the USG rules the sea its rules the sky it rules outerspace and our African command has at least 60 bases. Its never that we cant do something its always a matter of diminishing returns and long tern strategy. we spend more on military than the rest of the world combined.You would be wrong that some neo afrikaners would do better than some nigger warlord. just ask the old afrikaners how that worked out and they had nuclear weapons and formidable allies.Whites transcending the cathedral is a top priority

                • peppermint says:

                  Nowhere but Russia and China is safe until the US either renounces global domination (we will not tell the Afghans how to live) or is plunged into civil war

                • ilkarnal says:

                  The US only ‘rules the sky’ in very select areas close to large airbases or carriers. South Africa fell because the people valued fat living and the ability to jet around the world over autonomy. If they were as steadfast in standing behind their interests as Israel, they would exist just like Israel continues to exist.

  4. Mister Grumpus says:

    HOW I love you man. HOW I love you.

  5. Kevin says:

    I think Jim’s blog will be a template in the future for the dissident right. No vulgar bigotry or rank anti-semitism just an essay of one mans thoughts. No memes or cartoons. That is where we are now.

  6. Jefferson says:

    Beautifully put. Thank you.

  7. viking says:

    Well said Jim. I don not think white men are at all like yellow men, I think it is true many are scared to stand up and be surely cut down, others still think it will pass, or that it doesnt really cost them they can afford to be paternal. But because the insanity you site more and more are coming to see the true nature of leftism. some will be like Brevik others will be more thoughtful and conclude they really have nothing to lose. eventually one of these guys will trigger a war. Or maybe it will be a trump like guy that triggers it, or maybe someone probably accidentally will hit upon an organizing method for one thing that is found to work well for the administering war on the left.You have to remember the vast majority of americans are not in favor of any of this and of those that are most are niggers spics jews dikes fags and effeminate men. These people wont and cant fight when theres a real fight. They overwhelm now because they are protected from realphysical harm and because few will show up and be counted as right because they cant believe its really as bad as it is because they have the means to opt out still, because they cant afford to lose. This is changing rapidly. AA has destroyed blue collar jobs so they had to be outsourced this is now happening to white collar. when blue and white converge watch out

  8. Glenfilthie says:

    Speaking as an ousted father from a proggie liberal family – I don’t think it’s going to go that far. They’ll self destruct first.

    Consider: public schools are laughably incompetent day cares thanks to liberals. Smart or gifted kids are homeschooled or sent to private schools. The media – thanks to leftists they can’t sell a newspaper and their online efforts show diving ratings. Trump is flogging them like a rented mule. The courts – having nothing to do with justice, people are openly discussing the removal of the judiciary and fomenting organized rebellion against them. Vigilante justice is almost inevitable – especially where vibrants are involved. Whenever the left takes over or infiltrates an institution – it dies.

    Trump’s win is a spectacular success, given the resistance against him. Eventually we are going to be forced to fight. No nice demonstrations, no courtesy and respect is going to pacify the left. When THEY are forced to fight they are going to lose, badly. How can it be else? They bring to the table marginal frauds, sexually disturbed degenerates, and barren cat-women that can’t think, much less fight.

    I choose to be an optimist.

  9. Contaminated NEET says:

    It’s been real, gents. See you in the labor camps.

  10. vxxc2014 says:

    Organize as the Right, not the Left.
    Show up Strong or not at all.

    What the Right does well is Police, Military -so in politics militia/paramilitaries.
    We do badly imitating Leftist political movements.
    Or even peaceful political movements.
    Tea Party, Right To Life failed, frauds.
    Sure had turnout even decided elections-to no effect.
    As for Free speech …be serious. This is not for us.
    It’s for the Left. The only reason Trump’s rallies aren’t
    smashed is size and police sympathy…and of course
    Bikers for Trump, etc. Even Trump had to cancel in Chicago.

    But RKBA/Right to Keep Bear Arms succeeded.
    Militias, Bikers for Trump, armed peaceable assembly succeed.
    Look at Cinncinati GOP convention.

    Organize along militia lines: and no it’s not some tinpot dictator
    playing martinet with you-they “command by influence” that is to
    say group consensus, agreement. There isn’t and shouldn’t be
    a chain of command. NCO’s or militia members can advise you.

    Again this is because it’s what the Right does well. If Militia
    puts you off organize like an [armed] biker gang.
    And conventional or protest politics are closed to the Right, even Center Right.
    Trump can handle that.
    Because if it isn’t obvious they mean to stop losing street fights.
    But at Charlottesville no one messed with the Militia.
    Or at Cinncinati.

    It’s the natural Right way of organization – the Left is worthy of study
    but not of emulation. Don’t quit and surrender the streets.
    Just show up strong or not at all.

    Bannon has a point. It is clownish.

    Speaking of clowns we don’t need martyrs-remember the Bundy’s?
    Me neither. This road is closed to us.
    I’d keep women and devout Christians out of the loop too- see
    the end of the standoff at the Federal lands last year. A joke, with women
    and Christcucks screeching about Jesus the entire way.

    But at the ranch they won. Because they were ready in The Right Way,
    not the Left, not the Christcuck way.

    In any case at least don’t try and organize in public squares, in
    the prescense of hostile cameras, etc. Organize and plan in safe areas,
    recruit at sympathetic campuses. The Left doesn’t try and organize
    and plan at Military bases or in Police Stations – the equivalent of holding a
    Unite the Right rally in Boston, or these Berkeley Free Speech experiments.
    Half these rallies are cancelled or farcical.

    Show up strong, organized with a plan rehearsed in safe areas and armed
    as best you can be – and don’t call rallies before these conditions are met.
    Call the rallies after the conditions are met.
    Winning is important. Pick your ground. Pick areas where open carry
    is allowed. Avoid Leftist strongholds where not. Don’t advertise or call for supporters
    to meet you in Boston, or Berkeley where you come weak and they are very strong.
    As it happens they’re picking the South and the Statues at present.
    That’s a Right and Open Carry Stronghold.

    As far as the Law: liase with, Respect and obey the police.
    For other legal matters there are lawyers. These are not the same people.
    They are in fact Right and Left. Remember that. The courts, media and rest
    are closed to us.

    Pick your ground, plan and rehearse, show up strong and organized.

    You don’t have Free Speech. You have to earn it along with respect-and fear.

    Show up strong or not at all.

  11. Eli says:

    Jim, sorry for bringing the poetic discussion down, but it has been revealed to me that you refuse to pay the Israeli import duty tax on the scotch you claim you sent to B.

    How do you expect that The People nominate you to be their Grand Inquisitor, if you can’t even follow up with furnishing payment on a bet you lost?

    You can’t pretend that the condition of the bet was that you just “send” the bottle. Furnishing the bottle has associated costs:
    1) Buying the bottle.
    2) Paying American tax
    3) Sending the bottle to Israel (paying the shipment fees)
    4) Paying the Israeli customs fee

    Points 3) and 4) are implied costs to you, by virtue of you making the bet to furnish the bottle to B and by you knowing that B is in Israel at the time of making said bet. Again, you did know that B resided in Israel at the time of making the bet and, in fact, did perform step number 3 above.

    I find it ironic that you accuse Jews of creative contract interpretation, but engage yourself in same. If you can’t show that you put skin in the game in such small matters, why should the “Fucking White Men” trust in you as their leader or even advice-giver?

    • jim says:

      I don’t refuse to pay it. I am happy to pay it. But no one will send me a bill. There is no obvious simple way for me to pay it that I am aware of that seems likely to have the desired effect.

      Private enterprise makes it easy to give them money. Governments, not so much.

      How about B pays it, and I compensate him? Or he can simply ask me for the money, and propose some method to send the money to him

      • B says:

        The bet was a bottle of whiskey, not a sum of money.

        The shipping company which you used said that they would pass the import charges to you, and that was the last I heard of the matter.

        These guys make single malt in Israel, and have a contact on their site. I bet if you ask them, they will deliver here: http://mh-distillery.com/products-category/our-products/

        • B says:

          Really, given the breadth of subjects on which you’ve expressed an opinion with complete assurance-from aeronautical engineering to anthropology to Indian horse and sheep breeding to, of course, American and global politics, one would think that getting a bottle of whiskey to a given point on the globe would be trivial.

          I mean, it’s been almost a year since you lost the bet. There have been major weapons systems that went from sketch to operational prototype in less time.

          • Alf says:

            Conflating the ability to have an informed opinion with the ability to make a bottle of whisky cross borders is silly.

            That said, should be good when/if you finally receive it.

          • Anonymous says:

            >Really, given the breadth of subjects on which you’ve expressed an opinion with complete assurance

            Your rabbis are incredibly self-assured about their wide-ranging views, somehow I doubt you’ll challenge them to send bottled alcohol across continents, and disregard their views should they fail.

            Hypocritical critique!

        • viking says:

          “The bet was a bottle of whiskey, not a sum of money.”

          gotta say shylock demanding a pound of flesh was what flashed in my mind reading that.

          • Wagner says:

            The subtext of this is: kikes are being kikes and trying to weaken white leadership. They know Jim represents a white chimpout that may mean their collective death. You better start kissing our asses, Jews, that’s your only option.

            • Eli says:

              Wagner, as a winner, you will have the right to demand that I kiss your ass. But you need to win first. For now, to me, you’re a chimp (hence, you’re correctly using the word “chimpout”), and I don’t have the fetish of kissing chimps’ asses when I pass by their cage/enclosure.

              For now, stick to swinging your excrement at me.

            • jim says:

              A chimpout directed at Jews as such will not succeed in its objective. The outcome will be the mob smashing up Jewish owned distilleries and pawnshops, with the vague idea that making Jews poor will somehow make those doing the smashing rich.

              However a chimpout directed at the left edge of leftism in government and quasi governmental institutions, such as banking and the academy, will have the desired effect, and will also have as severe disparate impact on Jews as Stalin’s purge of left communists did.

              If you wind up smashing pawnshop windows, you are not actually going to get anywhere. You need a plan where there is a nice house and a cute girl downstream of the smashing.

              • Wagner says:

                There’s certainly a strain of covetousness in the emerging right so it’s prudent to keep a check on that Jim but recurrently redirecting attention to that motivation as primary is obfuscatory of the true psychology behind neo-antisemitism: we’re outraged at the leveling/blackening/estrogenizing indoctrination disseminated by the media, plutocracy, and academy whose actors, if we “rounded them all up” and put them in the same room would cause one to raise one’s eyebrow and wonder “Are these guys behind this all COUSINS or something? What gives?” Not all, not all, Moldbug preemptively cut through the coming bullshit with his Puritan Hypothesis; there will – would 😉 – indeed be a sprinkling of vanilla faces in that room, but it would be quite fishy how many of those leftist-levelers were the chosen people. Right-wing Jews like B are tribalistic to such a blind degree that they don’t care if the Jews in power are leftist, as long as they’re MY FELLOW JOOS. Eli, it would be a lot easier to wipe out antisemitism if Jews of the Right didn’t actively work to subvert white-rightist discussions. I will stand between my vulgar Aryan brothers’ gunpoints and right-wing Jews – and actively do, metaphorically, at the price of alienation – but if you guys are going to side with your left-jew brothas and sistas (in a way that frankly strikes me as “my-nigga-tribalistic”) how are you different than those leftists? You don’t see how hard-antisemitism follows from this little quirk of yours?

                • Wagner says:

                  Whites are, relatively, the promise-keeping ape, and Jim should uphold that reputation but after seeing reams and reams of B’s rabbinical shitposts I’m wont to say: you’re a plain, old-fashioned liar, B, and you don’t deserve that whiskey on that ground alone. A charming fellow with occasional penetrating observations but unambiguously a cunning, malevolent liar who ranks the love of the true the good and the beautiful over LOVE OF ONE’S OWN. That’s a sin in my book, maybe not yours.

                • Wagner says:

                  *ranks love of one’s own over… You get it.

                • Eli says:

                  Wagner: some time ago, Jim put out a comment that sounded roughly like this:

                  “We should protect our gays from Muslims. We should deal with them (kill) ourselves”

                  There are passages in the Talmud (my memory is now hazy on where exactly) that expound similar logic.

                  So it is with us and leftist Jews. We don’t want our fellows to be killed by strangers. If need be, we push them down the well ourselves. But we don’t promise you anything.

          • jim says:

            Yes, stereotypical Jewish behavior, abiding by the spirit when convenient, but with great pious indignation and much holy outrage, switching to the strict letter of some small fragment, and disregarding the spirit and the entire rest of the strict letter, when the spirit is no longer convenient.

            Which brings us back to the current topic: what threatens Jews is not “racism” but envy and covetousness, and if they spent one percent of the energy and effort on the final commandment, as they spend on not boiling a goat in its mother’s milk, their religion would be a great deal more useful to them and less dangerous to us.

            In proportion as they ditch the rest of the law, they improve on their observance of not boiling a goat in its mother’s milk.

            • Eli says:

              Less talking, more doing. I’m hoping, you’re going to send the bottle to B, as you should, without B having to pay any money down.

              • jim says:

                I am supposed to wave a magic wand and get the infamous Israeli customs bureaucracy to be helpful?

                He does not have to pay any money down. Just ask me up front for what he needs to pay the Israeli customs bureaucracy, propose a means by which he can receive the money, and I will send him that money, and then he can pay them.

                How about Bitcoin? (To avoid recursive involvement with multiple Israeli bureaucracies)

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                If B pays for the customs fee, and is compensated for it by Jim, how the Hell is this “unfair”?

                The pilpul is getting completely out of hand here.

              • Eli says:

                I think the concept is simple to understand: when strangers are betting, there is usually an intermediary. Each side submits their money to a trusted party, and then, whoever wins, comes to the 3rd party to collect their winnings.

                In this case, the 3rd party is the Internet audience, and it so happens, because of the nature of the beast, there was no good way to submit money/goods to it at the time of making the bet.

                Nonetheless, the concept of strangers/adversaries remains (I mean B and you are not close friends, right?), and the no-trust factor dictates that B is in the right, including morally, to refuse to put money down after winning the bet.

                Simple to understand. No need to deflect it with “kikery” etc.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Okay, you must have written all this tongue-in-cheek. That’s some real serious pilpul going on here, otherwise. C’mon Eli.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  I think eventually the bottle will simply be lost. Literally “with Jews you lose.”

                • viking says:

                  seems to me they are at least equally responsible to figure out how to settle the bet they both made. B perhaps more so since he is betting an american on an american website. It seems jim bet a bottle of scotch not a bottle of scotcj and a weeks worth of israeli red tape. He opught to be able to bitcon B what a bottle of scotch costs in Israel or really even in the USA, at most if you want to insist on your pound of flesh theory then also the cost delivery from a liquor store. But your theory cuts both ways, I get being jewish you cant understand that , try imagining the bet went the other way and youre justifying why b shouldnt have to pay

            • Mackus says:

              And the saddest thing is, he doesn’t even get whiskey out of it.

        • jim says:

          Screw this.

          I sent you a bottle of the whiskey you asked for, which was not a whiskey made in Israel, but Scotch, hence expensive international transport problems predictable, problems that require work at both ends to solve them, and you need to cooperate with me in solving them.

          If you had asked for whiskey in the beginning, rather than Scotch, life would have been a whole lot simpler for me. Any attempt by me to pay the tariffs looks like it is going to lead down the rabbit hole.

          Pay the Israeli fees, tell me how to send you the money, and I will send you the money.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            This “with Jews you lose” saga with B brings to mind the central Jewish criticism of Christianity.

            What’s the central Jewish criticism of Christianity? It’s not about Jesus. Jesus is a relatively minor problem for Jews. Rather, the issue is legalism – that is, Christianity’s lack of legalism.

            The Jews believe that Judaism is superior to Christianity because, from the Jewish view, a high-functioning religion is by definition a law-system for governing every aspect of a person’s/community’s life: the more replete with mundane minute-regulations, the more “successful” it is in its task. That’s how Jews think, and one needn’t be antisemitic to recognize this reality, as the Jews themselves often joke about the legalistic nature of Judaism. (the Goy isn’t supposed to hear those jokes, though)

            With this in mind, the Jewish criticism of Christianity boils down, essentially, to “your laws aren’t nearly specific enough.” Christianity is seen as a lofty declaration of intent, devoid of concrete real-life application. The Talmud may pay lip-service to the Judean moral codes (through its aggadah literature, mostly; which is basically fanfiction for the entertainment of observant Jews, and accounts for a mere 5% of the Talmud thereabouts), but the main-stream of its focus is on forbidding, allowing, or commanding all manner of trifles and minutiae of conduct, aka “halacha”.

            The contrast between the Jews’ treatment of “don’t boil a goat in its mother’s milk” commandment, and their treatment of the commandment against covetousness, is instructive indeed. Kippah-wearing Jews are scamming loads of money out of Gentiles and fellow Jews alike, but the sky will fall and the moon will turn red if a crumb from a cheeseburger accidentally touches their plate.

            (No wonder so many Jews are avowed, militant atheists; if you grew up in such a religion, among such people, wouldn’t you also become an avowed, militant atheist?)

            (The cold-hearted amorality prevalent among the Jews is not altogether dissimilar to the cold-hearted amorality prevalent among the Chinese, another legalism-obsessed population. It’s not a coincidence that the Chinese are called “the Jews of Asia”)

            To return this terrible antisemitic diatribe (and so few canards!) back to the main issue: orthodox post-Biblical Jewish literature, and not-insignificant segments of the Old Testament itself, and even the shockingly unorthodox scrolls of Qumran, are all sharply differentiated from the New Testament, in that the former are brimming with superstitions, which superstitions form the basis of Judaic legislation, while the NT is a relatively *non*-superstitious text. Demon-stories aside, in spirit as well as in practice, Christianity rejects, rather than affirming, the zealous Jewish phobia of “impurity.”

            For the people of Judea, legalism goes arm-in-arm with superstition to create the noxious amalgam that is the “Jewish religion.” A synthesis of two falsehoods.

            That, in short, is why Jews are so uncomfortable with Christianity: when morality is wholly constrained by law, when “there is no morality outside the law, only morality within the law”, (and the law is, for the most part, composed of sundry and manifold antique superstitions,) it is only natural that Jesus saying (Matthew 19:18-19):

            “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

            triggers a devastating meltdown, reverberating throughout the darkest recesses of the Jewish psyche. “How impractical!” shrieks the superstitious, petty fraudster. “Such a miniscule creed in no way matches the heights of civility which our rabbinic scholars have produced, the divine law which we were handed down in Sinai” scoffs the lightswitch-avoidant-on-Saturdays rabbi.

            And yet, the evidence is all here, in this very thread, that the Jews have got it all wrong. Because by their fruits thou shall know them. What are the fruits of a millennium of Halachic totalitarianism? Individuals like B. So unkind, so haughty. What are the fruits of a millennium of Christianity? High-trust, aesthetically-unparalleled, Christendom. So much for Christianity being “impractical” and “not even a real religion” according to Jewish critique. A dozen centuries stand as rock-solid proof that it’s the Jewish system, the all-pervasive legalism, that failed.

            Judaism is the negation of morality by the letter. What you’re witnessing in this thread is the negation of morality by the letter. You’re witnessing a striking display of Judaism. Let this be a teachable moment.

            • StoneMan says:

              Gas the legalism, conformity war now.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                The Jewish religion is based on a fraud anyway. Sinai never happened, and the Jewish tradition has never been passed as a “family history”, as in: “here’s what happened to our own family from Sinai til now.” Never has there been anything of the kind. Instead, there has been a *collective* folklore, about the *collective* events that supposedly happened to the Hebrews.

                To re-state the case: these are the 2 “trump cards” that Jews pull out to justify the authenticity of Judaism. It’s bogus. I won’t get into a debate about Sinai, but suffice it to say here that the event not happening is much more likely than it happening. And, if it’s granted that there was an event, just not at all as depicted in the Bible, then right here a core foundation of the religions has been nuked.

                The slightly more sophisticated claim, about how “it’s a tradition that has gone in families from father to son”, is just deliberately inaccurate and outright misleading, because — while it may be true that, perhaps, *a* tradition has gone from father to son, which is not at all obvious for various reasons — it has never been a tradition of the “my great-great-great-great-grandpa was there on the mountain, here is what happened to him, here is what happened to our specific family” variety.

                Nope, the Jews got nothing of the kind.

                Rather, the supposed “tradition” has always been a regurgitated version of the collective Jewish folklore, primarily as it’s found in the Bible, with some additional collective folklore that doesn’t indicate a family history whatsoever, only regional variations and influences. Ask any Jew to provide an independent family tradition, or look for any independent familial Jewish tradition relating to the events surrounding the Hebrews, and nothing will be found.

                (Of course, even if some independent familial tradition supposedly dating to the ancient times of Moses and Aaron in Sinai (or even to Abraham, lol) could be found, that doesn’t mean it’s authentic. If plenty of such independent familial traditions dating to the earliest days of Hebraic folklore were found, and all of them would come from very old sources, rather than from shining brand new sources, that *would* make the Jewish proposition slightly more plausible. But they’ve got absolutely nothing like that)

                In short, at some point, probably 350 B.C, a bunch of Temple priests had finished up the Pentateuch, then sent agents across the country to teach the final story and the final laws to the illiterate masses, who were astounded indeed.

                That accords perfectly well with Judaism never having been a “personal family story” religion, but, just the opposite, as one would expect, always having been a “collective ethnic story” religion, whose “collective ethnic story” may or may not have been passed on in families at some point (probably not, given the immense centralization in Jerusalem and later the ascent of the Pharisaic leaders).

                Once you get this point, the pro-Judaism arguments all collapse like dominoes.

                One of the strengths of Christianity is that it has arguments in its favor that are absolutely independent of the Judaic pretensions. If Christianity were totally dependent on Judaic pretensions, which it isn’t, then I’d concede that Judaism collapsing like a house of cards means that Christianity must collapse with it.

                But since the reality is that Christianity is more akin to a “foreign force” utilizing a Judaic background for its own purposes than to a genuinely organic outgrowth of Judaism, not being truly dependent on Judaic pretensions, the collapse of Jewish pretensions *in no way* spells a consequent collapse of Christianity. Nope, sorry Jews.

                And funny enough, the Jews themselves — when it’s convenient for them to say so, especially when trying to dissuade fellow Jews from conversion to Christianity — admit that Christianity has foreign (meaning Greco-Roman) elements that cannot possibly be an organic outgrowth of Judaism. Foreign force!

                So it should be conceived as a Landian hypersition, a meme from the time-transcending Outside using and discarding the Jewish pretensions as it sees fit, not bound by them or obligated to serve them in any way. A (very successful) meme that has used Judaism for its own aims, in other words.

                Eat that, Yids.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Inb4 some Jewpologist misreads me and brings up traditions supposedly dating back to the House of David – that’s not the kind of ancient traditions we’re discussing here, as the subject is familial *Sinaitic* traditions, which familial Sinaitic traditions don’t exist and have never existed.

                  So, Jews. A person named “your wife’s son” just flat-out obliterated 2 millennia of your supposed tradition, while validating your arch rival. Whatcha gonna do, Jews?

                • jim says:

                  There is some independent confirmation, in that the Old Testament says that the Egyptians were pissed because of Jewish population growth and Egyptian lack thereof, and a papyrus of the times complains about Egyptian infanticide and barrenness, and complains that some people who sound rather like Hebrews had experienced alarming population growth. Also archaeology indicates a strong centralized Kingdom in the First Temple period.

                  There are internal and external consistencies in the Pentateuch that Second Temple scribes would be unlikely to get right. For example the rate of population growth between Israel the patriarch and Moses is reasonable and realistic.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “One of the strengths of Christianity is that it has arguments in its favor that are absolutely independent of the Judaic pretensions. If Christianity were totally dependent on Judaic pretensions, which it isn’t, then I’d concede that Judaism collapsing like a house of cards means that Christianity must collapse with it. ”

                  Jesus being the messiah and the messiah being justified based on Judaism is an important part of Christianity. I’m not sure how you can drop that and still have Christianity.

                • Eli says:

                  You’re an idiot. In order to become a Nazarean or an Ebionate (the earliest Christian groups, pre-Paul), one had to be a Jew first. Yeshua (“Jesus”) preached for Jews and Jews only, especially reaching out to the sinners and the poorest (“the lost sheep of Israel”).

                  The situation changed with the fall of Jerusalem (and the church that was centered there), when the center of Christianity shifted to Rome, and Paul decided to get rid of Mosaic law, in order to gain new converts. As centuries progressed, and Christianity became the official religion of Roman Empire, it was further more expedient to advance the “replacement theology,” where Jews are “replaced” by Christians.

                  If I could compare earliest Christianity, how it was as exposed and intended by Yeshua, I could probably say that it could be somewhat like an early Judaic version of Alter Rebbe’s “Chabad” — where the emphasis is placed on loving your fellow (though, importantly, the definition of “fellow” that Yeshua had in mind is very different from both historic Pharisaic and today’s Orthodox).

                  https://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2015/12/is-it-asking-too-much-to-love-your-neighbor-as-yourself/

                  Thus, the biggest problems that Judaism had/has with the Nazarean’s teaching is 1) his attempt to present himself as the Messiah(or worse, King in the world of Truth); 2) the insistence on non-resistance, if not outright love, which can (ought to?) include other nations / non-Jews, as the parable of the good Samaritan illustrates (need to love him at the expense of sinful Jews).

                  Notice how, while inviting the Good Samaritan and implicitly disparaging high status Jews who didn’t show compassion at the same time the Nazarean protects the sinners (the story about the adulterous whore). Contradiction, which makes me conclude that solely holiness signaling is at work here, but not, as he wanted to impress, “truth”

                  Christianity embeds that fellow-disparaging holiness escalation at its core, and current progressivism is a direct evolution of that.

                  Christianity is not a nation building religion, only a *temporary,* empire building one.

                  As to legalism: Yes, there is only personal intuition and human nature, outside of the Law. The Law is absolute, though contingent.

                  Laws are everywhere: from math, to physics, to chemistry, to biology, to ecology, to human society. Without higher laws, we are merely animals.

                • jim says:

                  On 2017-08-24 15:00, Eli wrote:

                  > The situation changed with the fall of Jerusalem (and the church that was centered there), when the center of Christianity shifted to Rome, and Paul decided to get rid of Mosaic law, in order to gain new converts.

                  Paul had this debate with Peter in Jerusalem. Ditching Mosaic law long preceded the fall of Jerusalem.

                  Jesus criticized the pharisaical law in the strongest possible terms. This is not some later addition to Christianity. In his time, as at present, the rabbis were constantly concocting elaborate laws that were extremely inconvenient for everyone else, but ingeniously loophole ridden for themselves.

                  At the time of the Jesus it was increasingly obvious that the Pharisees were locked in a holiness spiral that would eventually force the Romans to go Roman on the Jews. Jesus prophesied this in vague and unfalsifiable terms, and shortly before the fall of Jerusalem, it was reprophesied in a direct and unambiguous fashion, and all Christians got the hell out of Jerusalem by divine command.

                  Jesus repudiates pharisaical holiness in forceful and direct terms. Peter and Paul were not changing his doctrine, merely clarifying and institutionalizing. Jesus condemns pharisaic holiness spirals, and Paul condemns Christian holiness spirals, in the context of a situation where the fallout from the Pharisaic holiness spiral is becoming increasingly alarming and dangerous.

                • Eli says:

                  The idiot being “yourwifesson “

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Jim:

                  >some people who sound rather like Hebrews had experienced alarming population growth.

                  That’s not the point I’m arguing against, though. That some immigration from Egypt into Canaan has occurred, at a period when Canaan was under Egyptian control, is not at all controversial. That there supposedly was a supernatural event in Sinai, not documented anywhere outside the Bible, which has left no archeological evidence on the ground, and perhaps more importantly for this debate, has left no oral familial traditions among Hebrew families about it, “passing on from father to son” – that’s the controversial part. Whenever the Jews start with “we have a tradition passing on from father to son dating back to Sinai”, call them filthy liars, because they are filthy liars, as they have nothing like that and never had.

                  Samuel Skinner:

                  >Jesus being the messiah and the messiah being justified based on Judaism is an important part of Christianity. I’m not sure how you can drop that and still have Christianity.

                  If you start from Judaism being true, of course you can’t drop Judaism without also dropping Christianity. My contention is that you can start with Christianity being true, independently of its relation to Judaism, and see the Jewish pretensions (such as the messiah doctrine, and the prophesies which substantiate it) as nothing more than a convenient background for Christianity to utilize for its own propagation.

                  The Jews themselves will tell you that Jesus doesn’t fit their criteria of messiah. They think that it’s a point against Christianity, and from their perspective, it is. But looking at it from outside the Jewish perspective, that Jesus doesn’t exactly fit the Jewish criteria of messiah isn’t a point against Jesus – it’s a point against relying on Judaism to substantiate Christianity in the first place!

                  Eli:

                  >Yeshua (“Jesus”) preached for Jews and Jews only, especially reaching out to the sinners and the poorest (“the lost sheep of Israel”).

                  Right, that’s phase 1 of the program. Phase 2, which anyone could predict, was Jewish rejection of Jesus, culminating in his execution. Because the traditional messianic figure in Judaism is a militaristic Monarch, by claiming to be the messiah, Jesus pretty much guaranteed that the Jews would ignore him. So, either you think he was a naive fool who didn’t know what he was doing, or you realize that this was the plan all along.

                  Then you have phase 3: extricated from its temporary Jewish background, the meme was unleashed into the world and soon took over an Empire and eventually reached the farthest corners of the Earth. If, in retrospect, you make the argument that Jesus was naïve for thinking that the Jews would accept him, and that the dominance of Christianity over Gentiles was entirely unintended, well sure, you can make this argument; it’s just not very likely, in light of how things worked out in reality.

                  You can compare Jesus to Scott Alexander, who nominally articulates his arguments for the edification of his specific audience, while knowing full-well that the people actually receptive to his Word lay outside his nominal audience. Officially, he writes for his SJW-friendly rationalist fellow-travelers; but he knows that it’s the shitlords who pay the closer attention.

                  >Paul decided to get rid of Mosaic law, in order to gain new converts.

                  You are misunderstanding Paul, like most Jews. Paul did not seek to “get rid of Moses” – he sought to clarify the notion that Gentiles aren’t supposed to follow Moses in the first place, lest there be any confusion about the matter. There was nothing to “get rid of” in the first place. He succeeded, obviously. Rather than corrupting the original message of Jesus, he distilled it for phase 3.

                  Since converts into Christianity were often unsure about what they’re supposed to do with Judaic Law, Paul had to explain it to them that they’re not supposed to do anything with it, since it’s not intended for them, because Judaic Law is exclusively for the followers of Judaism.

                  >it was further more expedient to advance the “replacement theology,” where Jews are “replaced” by Christians.

                  “Replacement theology” isn’t the issue. Insofar as RT means that “Christians are the new Jews”, it’s entirely wrong and absurd. But that’s not the correct theology anyway. The real theology here is: “we are a totally new Israel, we are not the old Israel, so let us not confuse ourselves with the old Israel”. Again, the purpose is to dispel any doubts among Christians as to them having to become Jews. “We are a new Israel” doesn’t translate to “we are the new Jews”, just the opposite; it translates to “we are not the Jews.”

                  In other words, Paul says that Judaism is irrelevant, and the Jews are irrelevant; don’t follow Judaism, don’t become Jews; you are the New Israel, so don’t for a moment think that you should be Jewish in any way.

                  >1) his attempt to present himself as the Messiah(or worse, King in the world of Truth)

                  That’s only a “problem” if you see Jesus as a continuation of Judaism. If he’s an altogether different religion, then his claim to be the Jewish Messiah isn’t objectively offensive, since *from his perspective* (as opposed to *your* perspective) he may be absolutely 100% correct. You are stuck in the mode of Judaic lenses. Remove the Judaic lenses for a few seconds, and you can see that a distinct religion doesn’t care, at all, whether it’s verified or not by another religion.

                  If Christianity is NOT Judaism 2.0, then your argument: “Jesus doesn’t fit our criteria of Messiah” is simply moot; it’s irrelevant. From his perspective, he isn’t supposed to fit your needs; just the opposite, YOU fit his needs. (by providing him a neat background)

                  >2) the insistence on non-resistance, if not outright love, which can (ought to?) include other nations / non-Jews, as the parable of the good Samaritan illustrates (need to love him at the expense of sinful Jews).

                  The only problem I see here is Jews being heartless, self-interested people, unwilling to extend a helping hand to someone who isn’t from their clique. Obviously, Jews didn’t like to hear this message – and *still don’t*.

                  Really, had you listened to Jesus about this personality trait of yours, you could have avoided a lot of antisemitism. When the Goyim see that Jews are only helping out each other (if even that), but are completely hostile to anyone else – y’know, just like the Muslims – naturally they are annoyed, or worse.

                  >Notice how, while inviting the Good Samaritan and implicitly disparaging high status Jews who didn’t show compassion at the same time the Nazarean protects the sinners (the story about the adulterous whore). Contradiction,

                  How so? Sounds totally consistent. In both cases he prescribes compassion for people disliked by the mainstream of Jewry. Mind you, not unconditional compassion (“go and sin no more”), but still.

                  >Christianity embeds that fellow-disparaging holiness escalation at its core

                  Just the opposite: by maintaining that everyone is a sinner and that sinners should be forgiven, Christianity DE-ESCALATES the Jewish holiness spiral. He tells the arrogant Jews to get off their high horse, as they are not inherently better than a whore or a Samaritan.

                  Contrast that with modern SJWs who simply WILL NOT forgive the “sins” of racism or sexism, for instance. No, Eli; modern SJWs are much more typically Jewish, vindictive and zealous, than typically Christians.

                  >Christianity is not a nation building religion, only a *temporary,* empire building one.

                  It’s not supposed to be a nation-building religion, so what’s your point?

                  >As to legalism: Yes, there is only personal intuition and human nature, outside of the Law.

                  Exactly, Eli. And so, you should make sure that, *outside the law*, human conduct will be made to align with morality, rather than making up a bunch of nonsensical rules and calling it a day.

                  In other words, need to select for instinctive high-trust, not for superstitious fretting about cheeseburger crumbs. If you select for rigid moral conduct *outside the law*, you get Western Civilization, where the trust is naturally high, which allows for efficient cooperation – Jim’s cooperate-cooperate equilibrium. If you do not, you get Jews.

                  >Without higher laws, we are merely animals.

                  We are all animals anyway, but we need a system to select for better animalhood. Judaism doesn’t select for good animalhood, it selects for compliance with nonsense superstitious rules. Christianity does seem to select for good animalhood, which is (partly) why the Christians make for better animals than the Jews.

                • jim says:

                  That some immigration from Egypt into Canaan has occurred, at a period when Canaan was under Egyptian control, is not at all controversial.

                  Moses left at about the time of the collapse of Bronze age civilization, when nothing was under anyone’s control.

                  Not long after he left, someone set Canaan on fire.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  @YWS
                  That does work.

                  Problem 1- Christianity borrows too much. Hard to imagine Christianity without the 10 commandments or other parts of the Old Testament. If you dump that you dump all of the divine sanction for activities necessary for a functional society

                  Problem 2- Christianity is a universal religion. Not only does it claim to be true, it claims all other religions are false. Which means it needs more backing then miracles because plenty of other religions claim the exact same thing.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  Edit- doesn’t work

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >Problem 1- Christianity borrows too much.

                  Right: anti-Christian, often pro-Jewish apologists, have conclusively proven that Christianity borrows from orthodox Judaism, unorthodox Judaism, Gnosticism, Buddhism, Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, ancient Egypt, Rome, and basically everyone around.

                  If Christianity stakes its claim to legitimacy on being merely Judaism 2.0, then it sucks balls, and dropping Judaism also drops Christianity.

                  If, on the other hand, Christianity claims to be the work of Logos, which had come down to Earth, and *utilized* the Jews for its own ends, and so isn’t supposed to serve Jewish purposes at all, then dropping Judaism does nothing to discredit Christianity. Heck, it probably strengthens Christianity in a sense.

                  >Hard to imagine Christianity without the 10 commandments or other parts of the Old Testament. If you dump that you dump all of the divine sanction for activities necessary for a functional society

                  That’s the thing – you needn’t imagine something like that. As I said, if Christianity is a distinct religion which merely uses Judaism for its own ends, then… if there are parts of Judaism it wants to affirm, it may well do so – just as, if there are parts of Buddhism it wants to affirm, it may well do so, and dropping Buddhism (as a whole) won’t discredit Christianity, because you’re not invested in Buddhism (as a whole) in the first place.

                  See how it works? If you’re familiar with Hermeticism, then you shouldn’t have a problem with accepting a “divine sanction” that is independent of Jewish pretenses. And if there is divine sanction independent of the Jewish tradition, then disproving Judaism as a whole — while granting that some parts of Judaism are divinely inspired, as are parts of other religions — doesn’t disprove Christianity. Only strengthens it.

                  >Problem 2- Christianity is a universal religion. Not only does it claim to be true, it claims all other religions are false. Which means it needs more backing then miracles because plenty of other religions claim the exact same thing.

                  Sure, since you haven’t personally seen Jesus turning water into wine, it requires faith. That’s nothing new. However, substantiation-by-Judaism is definitely not required, which is why dropping Judaism doesn’t drop Christianity.

                • Eli says:

                  @Jim: the incident at Antioch indeed happened before the destruction of Zion. The details are murky, but it is evidence of major disagreement between Paul (Saul) and Peter (Shimon), where Paul (Saul) was representing a Gentile-focused effort, and Peter (Shimon) and James (Ya’akov) represented the traditional doctrine, as expounded by Yeshua, the progenitor of the movement.

                  Ditching of Mosaic Law by Jewish Christians never took place. What took place was the destruction of Jerusalem, after which the Jerusalem church never recovered, and the church in Rome took over as the de facto center. Later on, around the time of Nicean creed’s formulation, all gospels that deviated from the doctrine were destroyed, their adherents persecuted. Hence, there are no extant copies of Gospel of the Ebionites.

                  No! Yeshua never criticized Mosaic Law, in fact he called on Jews to piously observe it. What he disparaged where the high status scholars and priests:

                  “So do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” (Matt 23:3)

                  (Do you not see evidence/outlines of holiness signaling right there?)

                  @YWS: my assessment of your idiocy and ignorance stands. I’ll repeat it again:

                  Jews did not and cannot accept Yeshua and his ideas because:

                  1) A Messiah establishes real Jewish autonomy. It does not need to be via militaristic means necessarily, but it needs to happen one way or another. Certainly though, Ben-Gurion was closer to being a Messiah than Yeshua, for sure, though he was not. Also, Messiah is a living person.

                  2) Yeshua stood Jewish concepts on their head, completely corrupting their meaning and espousing reality not of this world. The main thing, he uprooted the concept of “re’ya” ([fellow] pasturer, a concept that originated from the time of and predating Abraham, corresponding to the times of Nahor and their nomadic pastoralist ancestors and way of life, where tribal cohesion was paramount). He essentially said that it denotes a stranger, a neighbor, like a Good Samaritan.

                  Worse yet, he built on that further, by, on one hand, implicitly disparaging high status fellow Jews (for their lack of compassion, which, yes, is not pious but *not* directly sinful) and, on the other hand, elevating a low status, *very* sinful Jewess. If this is not holiness signaling spiral right there (in one of its most evil forms!), I don’t know what is.

                  Yes, holiness spirals / virtue signaling are the inherent nature of all human societies/communities. But I’d rather obsess about cheese crumbs than do what Yeshua did.

                  As to the rest of your nonsense about Aggadah etc — you really don’t have a clue.

                • Eli says:

                  Correction: not helping a wounded Jew is against Mosaic Law, so the high status Jews were not only impious but sinful, too.
                  http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/good_samaritan1.html

                  Having said that, the point I made still stands: Yeshua elevates a low status sinful Jewess while disparaging high status sinful Jews. This behavior is embedded Christianity: elevating the bottom at expense of the top; uprooting hierarchy to signal holiness and thereby grab prestige/power.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  >A Messiah establishes real Jewish autonomy…

                  It’s like talking to the wall. Again, put down the Jewish lenses for a few seconds. Do you even grasp my argument at all? Jesus has come to subvert you, not to rely on your legitimacy. I know full-well that he doesn’t fit your criteria. He *is not supposed* to fit your criteria, because — read slowly — Christianity is a *distinct religion*. Seriously, re-read my post if you don’t get it.

                  >Worse yet, he built on that further, by, on one hand, implicitly disparaging high status fellow Jews (for their lack of compassion, which, yes, is not pious but *not* directly sinful) and, on the other hand, elevating a low status, *very* sinful Jewess.

                  Facepalm. Such an epic failure to understand my argument… I’m not the idiot here, Eli. Let me repeat:

                  In both cases, there were people whom mainstream Jewish society had considered low-status. In both cases, being considered low-status by Jews lead to mistreatment by Jews. And in both cases, Jesus admonished the Jews and told them to cut it out.

                  If you want to call it a holiness-spiral, you may well do so; what you don’t get is that Jesus criticized *you* for excessive holiness (in the case of the whore) and also for being obnoxiously and cruelly selfish (in the case of the Samaritan). Should you accept these admonitions? Up to you. You probably still don’t get it, so let’s make an analogy:

                  I see a bunch of Antifa SJWs bullying a white male racist for insufficient leftism. Now, let’s say I’m not the dangerously evil shitlord that I am – let’s say I’m simply a moderate leftist. Moderate! So I see them, and tell them: “guys, stop it. We are all a little bit racist. We all avoid strange black men at night. Come on – leave him alone. Also, dude, stop being racist.”

                  Have I engaged in holiness spiraling, or the opposite – criticized them for excessive holiness?

                  Still don’t get it?

                • Eli says:

                  @YWS: it’s not about Jewish lens, but lens of truth. This is what I’m telling Jim and now you also: Yeshua was not trying to subvert Mosaic Law, quite the opposite. What he was doing was attempting to make Jews follow it piously and, further, do so according to his exegesis, which was not too dissimilar from Pharisaic one, but with important differences.

                  Your silly example of black man being beaten by racists is inapplicable.

                  In the particular story of high status Jews not assisting their fellow, the punishment is excision from either fellowship or (since there were no witnesses) God. In the story of the *adulterous* whore, the punishment is stoning to death.

                  Notice, Yeshua applied excision to the high status Jews in the Good Samaritan case. He, however, explicitly abstained from metting punishment to the low-status Jewess.

                  Moreover, the irony of this is compounded by the fact that Yeshua was into absolute monogamy. So much so, that he derided divorce as a sin, as something akin to adultery. So much he derided divorce, that even his disciples remarked: “If this is the case, it is better not to marry!” (Matt 19:10)

                  You are telling me that Yeshua was just a moderate, trying to be the voice of reason, to stop the holiness spiral? Bullshit!

                • jim says:

                  Yeshua was not trying to subvert Mosaic Law, quite the opposite.

                  At some point in the process of elaborating law and drilling loopholes in it, it is not actually all that Mosaic any more.

                  Moses gave the ten commandments, then he and his courts proceeded to elaborate on those commandments, applying them to the time and the circumstances. Which was fine up to and including “Proverbs”. Then, after “proverbs”, after the first temple, we see Jews jewing their God to an extent that gets entirely out of hand, and we hear Jesus complaining about this.

                  Jesus fullfilled the law so we do not have to. This is not exactly subversion, but it is not exactly not subversion either. The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. Because you guys had constructed a very large pile of letters, and are still at it. The pile continues to grow, giving you ever more room to get creative at selecting and re-interpreting particular letters.

                • jim says:

                  You are telling me that Yeshua was just a moderate, trying to be the voice of reason, to stop the holiness spiral? Bullshit!

                  See my discussion of how to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner.

                  A holiness spiral was under way at the time of Jesus, which eventually led to war with Rome. And clearly Jesus was trying to quell that holiness spiral.

                  That a bunch of social justice warriors have used Christian heresies loosely based on his words as a starting point for their own holiness spiral is not his fault.

                • Eli says:

                  Basically, my point is this: all communities and cultures (heck, even animals, via sexual selection!) are engaged in some form of specific signaling, and with time it can spiral to bring about specific quirks and attributes — this is the nature of the cultural beast that evolves via cultural selection.

                  However, not all signaling spirals are created equal. Some give rise to weird quirks (like some African tribes in which women elongate their lower lips or in old China, where they constricted female legs; or in Australia, where the drive a stick into their penis (penile subincision) to celebrate passage into manhood etc etc etc).

                  Notice, some of these quirks are benign and some are not. Generally speaking, if individuals in a culture pay a price for membership, but if the culture prizes loyalty and cohesion, the culture tend largely to be a viable one, despite (and possibly thanks to) the costs, no matter how crazy on the individual level. (Though when the costs are wanton, there is the danger that said society will be overtaken by another one, where costs are not so, as in the case of the pagan Aztecs and the Christian Spaniards).

                  Jews, obviously, have their quirks, as seen by outsiders, since the culture is oriented towards law and purity. In general, however, it is viable, because loyalty and cohesion are explicitly prized above all. This is also verified empirically, by its very long continuity (arguably, the longest).

                  Some time ago someone came along, stood things on their head, called the most successful at said status signaling Jews the bottom people, while praising the former bottom ones as the true elite. He introduced new criteria of purity etc. Then that someone got killed, his message did not spread widely enough among the Jews, but someone else was successful at spreading it among other peoples. But in order to do that, he had to remove several crucial ingredients of the former system, to make it palatable and make it spread.

                  The new system has in it, inherently, the seed of its self-destruction vis-a-vis explicit universalism combined with obsession with (far from always warranted belief in) inherent authenticity of the poor and the downtrodden, the underdog — over the elites. Voila, we have have the current age of progressive cucks!

                  Btw, historically speaking, on average, compared to others, Jews have been above neutral in their attitude to surrounding peoples, though always tending to put their own first. But anyone obsessed with hating Jews won’t ever acquiesce, so it’s useless to engage in this part.

                • jim says:

                  Btw, historically speaking, on average, compared to others, Jews have been above neutral in their attitude to surrounding people.

                  Historically speaking, Jews have been disarmed.

                  How have they behaved when armed?

                  Their current behavior in Israel is underwhelming, for example their mistreatment of their Lebanese Christian allies and Syria minority groups. They are kind to their enemies and dreadful to their allies.

                  Similarly under Roman Rule, they attacked the Greeks, who were being as much oppressed by the Romans as they were.

                  In Dark Enlightenment language, Christians are commanded to engage in generosity and forgiveness to move relationships with outgroups from defect/defect to cooperate/cooperate, while Jews are commanded the opposite, commanded to behave in ways unlikely to facilitate cooperation with outgroups, and allowed to defect on members of the outgroup. Jews are not allowed to just plain cheat and steal, but they are allowed and encouraged to get mighty creative in interpreting agreements, in ways likely to be reasonably perceived as cheating and stealing. And then one thing leads to another.

                  Which is how you got expelled in the first place: Jews claimed a right of way over some Greek’s land, violence ensued, the Romans came to restore order, a Roman officer got killed, and things escalated from there to massacre and exile. If you had gone around his land, if you had been the kind of people to go around his land, this would not have happened.

                  I imagine that the Jews had some arguable explanation as to why they were entitled to a right of way, but they were seriously lacking in arguable explanations for a dead Roman officer.

                  The exile did not arise as a result of resistance to unreasonable Roman taxes, or extortion by corrupt Roman officials. It arose from a quarrel with your neighbors, a quarrel in which Jews behaved quite badly, and were supported in this quarrel by their fellow Jews.

                • Eli says:

                  Notice, I modified your example, because what’s happening in this country with regards to SJWs is a recent phenomenon. I’m using the old example of a well-dressed black physicist (yes, I know, almost as rare as a true unicorn) being beaten by racist toothless drunk hicks for being black as an example of same thing: when standards of behavior are arbitrary, signs of inferiority and low status are shallow.

                  This goes to both the antifa and the white racists. And this is where legalism and absolute standards are necessary, if these people are made to live as part of one “community” or “nation”

                • jim says:

                  It never happens that a well dressed well behaved black is beaten by white racists. It never happened anywhere ever. If it had ever happened, that guy would be your poster boy. You just don’t have a poster boy for that.

                  Your poster boys are Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin.

                • Eli says:

                  @jim: no time right now other than to say:
                  1) Mosaic Law is much more than the 10 commandments. You’re illustrating your ignorance here.
                  2) “Jesus did … so that we don’t have” — ok, whatever, we are Jews.
                  3) The example with black prof was a tongue in cheek one. Other than on TV, I’ve seen only 1 real-life black physics post-doc (Harvard, so it’s almost certainly a diversity case).
                  4) The situation with the Roman soldier unfolded differently. I remember you had argument with B about this. In 66 Jews of Cesarea got official document from Emperor Nero granting them control of the city. The local Syrians (Arameans) and Greeks provoked them by sacrificing to their idols right in front of the synagogue. The rest is evil of Florus (a procurator of Judeah who was a Greek with Asia Minor, milking the lifeforce out of Jews.
                  5) Whatever, you keep bullshitting about holiness spirals, when Judeah and Jews were being raped by greedy, evil procurators — who were nothing short of criminals, worse than mafiosi, as they didn’t care what would be left after their tenure in Judeah (which they bough on auction in Rome).

                • jim says:

                  1) Mosaic Law is much more than the 10 commandments. You’re illustrating your ignorance here.

                  I never said it was. Further, Jews don’t get to decide what and is not Mosaic law, because according to every twenty first century Rabbi what comes out of his ass is Mosaic law.

                  The local Syrians (Arameans) and Greeks provoked them by sacrificing to their idols right in front of the synagogue.

                  The Jews provoked that Greek by trespassing on his land.

                  Judeah and Jews were being raped by greedy, evil procurators.

                  You are giving reasons that are twentieth century legitimate. But the actual reasons for conflict with the Romans were not extortion by Procurators, but holiness spiral related. The Romans shook down the Jews mighty hard. But they also gave them clean water, roads, law and order, and access to world trade, as depicted in Monty Python “What have the Romans ever done for us”. The Romans were shaking down the Greeks and the Syrians mighty hard also, but the Jews chose to attack them, rather than ally with them against the Romans, because Greek and Syrian unholiness was a softer target than Roman unholiness.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  @YWS

                  You (and they) are conflating 3 things.

                  1) Symbolism
                  The Catholic Church uses Latin, the head is the Pontifex Maximus and Jesus, like Buddaha changes appearence based on the country. None of this has any bearing on doctrine though; it is just ways to communicate the message based on what is emotionally salient to potential believers.

                  2) Reason/Natural Law
                  There are many similarities between religions some doctrinal (golden rule) others structural (heresy, missionary work, etc). These are held to be inevitable results; either derivable by reason or required for such organizations to exist (so we shouldn’t be surprised that the true faith and false faiths both require spreading the faith; if they didn’t they would not exist).

                  3) Divine Revelation
                  Want unquestionable rules, you attribute them to God. This is what Christianity does with Judaism.

                  Now you can drop divine revelation and declare all of this is based on reason or natural law. I’m not aware of any religion that has managed to do that, survive and prosper. The issue is what to include which generally ends up with Deism (if you exclude based on reason) or new age.

                • Eli says:

                  Re Mosaic Law:
                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_Code
                  The rest of your crap is stuff you pulled out of your ass. As you you say, one lie — all lies. You’re ignorant but keep bullshitting

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              “What are the fruits of a millennium of Christianity? High-trust, aesthetically-unparalleled, Christendom. So much for Christianity being “impractical” and “not even a real religion” according to Jewish critique. A dozen centuries stand as rock-solid proof that it’s the Jewish system, the all-pervasive legalism, that failed. ”

              Christianity fell apart as soon as widespread literacy occurred. The printing press and the Reformation happen almost simultaneously which was followed by the wars of religion, ‘freedom of conscience’ and the slide into leftism.

              Judaism has its flaws but it is capable of surviving when its adherents are able to read its holy texts. Christianity is not.

              Medieval Catholicism may be superior to Judaism. It also no longer exist and will not be coming back.

              • Your Wife's Son says:

                >Christianity fell apart as soon as widespread literacy occurred.

                I’m not disputing that. Though I can make for a pretty compelling Christian apologist, believe it or not, I’m not actually a Christian. My arguments here are:

                a) that Christianity is superior to Judaism, based on the respective qualities of the “human stocks” both religions have produced over a dozen centuries;

                b) that discrediting the Jewish pretenses as entirely fraudulent shouldn’t, and doesn’t, also discredit the veracity of Christianity.

                Right now, I believe that, just as Christianity had come into a Jewish background and basically subverted the Jews for its own ends, likewise a new religion should be born, coming into this post-Christian world, utilizing *our* modern memes (which, as Moldbug contends, are post-Christian in nature) for its own ends.

                Christianity won the meme-war against Judaism. Now there is a new meme-war. I don’t know what will the new religion look like, but whatever previous religions or “memeplexes” it may use for its own ends, it must not, and will not, be reliant on the legitimacy of those previous religions or memeplexes.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “a) that Christianity is superior to Judaism, based on the respective qualities of the “human stocks” both religions have produced over a dozen centuries; ”

                  You are assuming that low clannishness, high trust is good. If human societies are inherently unstable, this simply results in higher peaks and more horrific collapses.

                  We might get into space. We might all die due to plague as the infrastructure of society breaks down. “It was virtuous and moral” doesn’t matter in the end; only survival does.

                  “b) that discrediting the Jewish pretenses as entirely fraudulent shouldn’t, and doesn’t, also discredit the veracity of Christianity. ”

                  Not clear what you are proposing is different from deism.

                  ” likewise a new religion should be born, coming into this post-Christian world, utilizing *our* modern memes ”

                  That already happened. It was subverted to serve the state. What do you think Uncle Sam, Paul Bunyan and the rest of American mythology is? It is the paganism that invariably gets created but since the Protestants rail against idolatry they aren’t include as saints but turned into the secular creed of civic nationalism.

                • jim says:

                  Deistic religions have too big a gap between man and God, with the result that deists tend to view the universe as unintelligible and unknowable. Observe the lack of scientific contributions from Muslims and religious Jews.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                Christianity existed when its texts were read aloud in vernacular languages, then died as those vernacular languages become unintelligible prestige languages, and then reemerged with translation enabled by the printing press.

                What really was medieval Catholicism? I am not sure many moderns have much clue to the answer to that question. I am sure those who could read its texts took them seriously, and many of them wanted to holiness spiral, but the institutions in which this took place were very different.

                Another key historical question is whether the early church – the church in which believers knew what they believed because Latin and Greek were still vernacular – spread by natural increase induced by patriarchy or by co-opting elites as leftism does. I see a lot of historical evidence for elite co-option, but very little for or against natural increase.

                • jim says:

                  Christianity existed when its texts were read aloud in vernacular languages, then died as those vernacular languages become unintelligible prestige languages, and then reemerged with translation enabled by the printing press.

                  This is the reverse of the truth. Christianity was at its greatest when the common folk were effectively forbidden from reading the bible for themselves, and therefore were dependent on their betters to explain it to them, when the aristocracy and the high bourgeousie could and did read the bible, but the commoners could not.

                  When the bible became directly accessible to the masses, we immediately got one heresy after another, Social Justice Warriors being the result of this.

                • peppermint says:

                  If you want to know about medieval catholicism in theory, you could read summa theologica

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  The problem is not Christianity; the problem is the lower classes envying the upper, i.e. leftism. The lower classes need to recognize that they are not qualified to lead. Demotism is a concept that seems to have been lost among the Alt-Right. The masses do not matter. The warriors or the priests will always rule, and if you fight the rule of warriors based on strength, you are facilitating the rule of priests through holiness.

                  Go look up the Bonus Army if you think getting a few soldiers to support you will do any good.

                  The Shadowed Knight

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              It’s solipsistic nominalists all the way down.

              “Like Midas, the Rationalist is always in the unfortunate position of not being able to touch anything, without transforming it into an abstraction; he can never get a square meal of experience.”

          • Alrenous says:

            B can clearly privately contact Jim. Eli can clearly privately contact B. They seem to think that the fitting place for this discussion is the public comment section of an unrelated post. Hmm. I could of course go on.

  12. viking says:

    VXXC
    this is a consistent theme trust the cops and military.despite my libertarianish background and misspent youth I have always tended to agree with this policy of yours. However while we dont have many plays and this is one of the best its fast deteriorating in my estimation. The militarization of the police since 911 has changed the mindset of cops, whereas they once were gimlet eyed towards niggers and such now they seem to think treating some suburban cuck like a iraqui goatherd in the wrong place and time is o. And the military itself which I dont have personal experience with from the outside looks pretty cucked.I even used to like the spies and now feel foolish its as if they were all soviet agents and are now working to reinstate communism in russia.when not marching our troops in her shoes with camo tranny suits. This oath keepers sounded promising but seems pretty marginal.A lot of these guys are christ cucks and big on authority and the left is authority. At one point cops were sort of quietly skeptical and acted accordingly. Not so much anymore they like the military have worked foe decades under affirmative actions oppression, real hard prison time is held an inch over their heads and perhaps worst of all active resistance is constant humiliation. If you consciously oppose every bit of it you can speak up and will be gone in a second or keep quiet and be humiliated every hour most seem to unconsciously get this and cuck early before joining up I suppose. I am no longer convinced these guys willhave our back. look at charlotte they cut of the rights safe exit to the north and forced then to run the gauntlet. Im sure they were told to shut down the event they didnt have to do that. In fact if the truth comes out its they not the Pols who will be thrown under the bus for engineering the violence that led to the death. Of course we have few plays and they are a bit better than most. I think trying to organize within them but thats so hard they are so closed to outsiders. but having inside info would be good for civilian militias or whatever we call them thats less fraught,
    These militias I agree could be good in many parts of the country there are areas where resistance is more the rule than not and they could be organized. but its not like the wrong sort of people havnt been doing that for decades to no advantage.Its almost as if appealing to those who most want to be in a militia is the wrong approach, yet we want men who will pick up a gun when the time comes. Identifying when that time is seems to be the problem, when we can win is the answer of course. we could win tomorrow id every conservative white man picked up a riffle today went to washington and stood silently or would it be another bonus army.
    When I get back up to idaho Im going to play with this idea of taking ovr the fraternal organizations and repurposing them for lets call it cultural rejuvenation. Its going to have to be carefully done or the left will strangle it in the cradle. I think nurturing self sufficient and virtuous men that see clearly. while subtly making sure leadership is fully woke, these types of groups are legal entities and as such have to have corporate officers thats the leadership i mean AA has a pretty brilliantly entry resistant organizational structure I may try to reconfigure for this.

    • vxcc2014 says:

      Viking,

      My plan has never been the police fight for us.
      All we need from them is neutrality.

      Which happens to be legal you know-they can choose what laws they enforce and don’t. SCOTUS long ago gave them this practical tool.

      It’s not what they do-it’s what they don’t.
      Like they didn’t at Bundy ranch.
      Like when they allow massive peaceable open carry of arms assembly.
      Like when they didn’t enforce SAFE act for the misguided Governor Cuomo in NY.
      Like when Sheriffs across the land openly announce they will not enforce a gun ban.
      That they support the 2d Amendment openly and more important in practice.
      THE BLIND EYE.
      SEE
      SPEAK
      HEAR
      NO EVIL.

      That’s all we need.

      We need a blind eye and that is all.
      Also all that’s reasonable. They’re not soliders Viking- police aren’t inclined to be cold blooded mass killers and that’s what soldiers do in war.

      Armed neutrality is fine. They can mitigate much evil that way, the chief mitigation you will see in war being evacuation of non-combatants.

      As for Charlottesville they appear to have been betrayed by the pols, are saying so openly and were caught off guard. They have confirmed they were ordered to stand down. Plan being Antifa kicks the shit out of unarmed Whites.
      Not the police plan, the Politicians plan.
      Plan went awry when Antifa bricked the wrong Dodge Charger.

      The Military isn’t cucked. It stands at attention and obeys orders, listens to indoctrination doesn’t believe it. Resents it.

      The military are men of action waiting for orders.

      Now yes many of our Generals and worst of all the DOD Civilians [not military] are terrible cuck hacks. Cowards more than believers really.
      But there are millions of real men and only so many cowards.

      Viking here is the 4 step plan for saving the west one neighborhood at a time.

      1] Man up
      2] Organize. You must have a serious, cohesive group. Serious is will, training follows. Experience folllows.
      3] Obtain police neutrality. < KEY. but they won't without step 2 first.
      Police are natural diplomats. But there's no reason to be diplomatic with bloggers.
      4] ACT.

      Follow the steps in order.

      Dick punches to remind males where their manhood's are helps with step 1.
      Seriously. enough talk. time for love taps, even in the balls.

      • viking says:

        I dont expect them to fight for us I did expect they would not fight us but not so confident anymore, they are not so much us anymore they are integrated i hear this is big problem in armed forces.Its a moot point we have no choice they exist and will do what they will do if they stand against us they will die. I think bundy was the obama administration learning from the clinton administration that waco and ruby were losing propositions they couldn’t risk in todays tinder box.I suppose the truth is they are mixed bags some are cucks and some are black sheriffs that are patriots.Which for me fucks things up having despaired of any hope for multiculturalism good minorities are a problem.

        • Garr says:

          (The poetry of Viking)

          I dont expect them to fight for us
          I did expect they would not fight us
          but not so confident anymore,
          they are not so much us anymore
          they are integrated

          i hear this is big problem
          in armed forces.

          Its a moot point
          we have no choice they exist
          and will do what they will do
          if they stand against us
          they will die.

          I think bundy was the obama administration
          learning from the clinton administration
          that waco and ruby
          were losing propositions they couldn’t risk
          in todays tinder box.

          I suppose the truth is
          they are mixed bags
          some are cucks and some are black sheriffs
          that are patriots.

          Which for me fucks things up
          having despaired of any hope
          for multiculturalism

          good minorities are a problem.

          • viking says:

            garr harr harr

            so whats this jew covetousness all about do the nazis want their credit default swaps?

          • viking says:

            could put a few of the lines in as refrains in italian

            (The poetry of Viking)

            Non pretendo loro di combattere per noi speravo che non ci combattessero

            but not so confident anymore,
            they are not so much us anymore
            they are integrated

            i hear this is big problem
            in armed forces.

            Its a moot point
            we have no choice they exist
            and will do what they will do
            if they stand against us
            they will die.

            Non pretendo loro di combattere per noi speravo che non ci combattessero

            I think bundy was the obama administration
            learning from the clinton administration
            that waco and ruby
            were losing propositions they couldn’t risk
            in todays tinder box.

            I suppose the truth is
            they are mixed bags
            some are cucks and some are black sheriffs
            that are patriots.

            Which for me fucks things up

            Avendo disperato di ogni speranza
            Per il multiculturalismo

            Le buone minoranze sono un problema

            or we could change it to bullfight poetry?

  13. […] Jim’s Blog: Red Guards and Cultural Revolution […]

  14. TheBigH says:

    So why is the left and the media condemning Antifa after singing their praises for weeks? It’s clearly a coordinated move.

Leave a Reply