Archive for July, 2019

Marriage

Sunday, July 28th, 2019

The core of the reactionary program is to make marriage legal again. Without marriage, the higher races cannot reproduce successfully, and reproduction is dysgenic.

Leftist marriage, modern marriage, is gay. Marriage has been gay since 1928.

Obviously reactionaries must reintroduce marriage that is suitable for heterogamous organisms, and we will have to introduce it as a matter of faith and morals before we can introduce it as a matter of law.

The left offers your wife cash and prizes for destroying the family assets, destroying you and destroying your children. The lawyer and the marriage counselor will tell her she is oppressed, and she can get a court order that gives her cash and prizes, raises her status, and will result in her marrying a six foot six billionaire athlete with a dong the size of a salami.

Modern marriage is gay. Everyone who gets married gets gay married. If your wedding vows are symmetric and interchangeable, the same of the man as for the woman, your marriage is gay and you are being gay married.

If your wedding has a master of ceremonies or a priest who acts like he, rather than the groom, is the big important man at the wedding, that he is the alpha male, your wedding is gay, and you are being gay married. (And the master of ceremonies is usually gay, and if he is not gay, he thinks that two males pretending to marry each other with the intention of cruising for nine year old boys to transexualize is smart and fashionable.)

The wedding organizer appoints a gay master of ceremonies whose main job is to define the groom as Homer Simpson, to emasculate him in the eyes of the bride. The minister conducts a gay wedding ceremony that treats the bride and groom as equal and interchangeable, even though experience has demonstrated that wives will not tolerate househusbands, and will invariably leave a domesticated man for a wild man who beats her, rapes her, and rapes and beats her husband’s children.

The worst thing progs did ever was remove “Honor and obey”, “submit and reverence” from the marriage ceremony.

The book of common prayer purged the wife’s vow to honor and obey and purged Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 5:22-33 in 1928. That, not female suffrage, was the worst thing ever, effectively abolishing marriage.

One household necessarily has one captain. If the wife does not promise to honor and obey, to submit and reverence, you are not actually getting married, because you are not actually forming one household, so no point in the ceremony, and, surprise surprise, people stopped holding the ceremony, just as they stopped turning up to Church when the pastor started telling them their husbands were Homer Simpson and if you showed up at Church you were likely homophobic.

We have to restore the marriage ceremony to what it was before first wave feminism.

The marriage ceremony needs to include “honor and obey”, and it needs to once again include Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 5:22-33

  1. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
  2. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
  3. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
  4. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
  5. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
  6. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
  7. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
  8. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
  9. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
  10. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
  11. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
  12. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

And once again include the first epistle of Peter 3:1-7

  1. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
  2. While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
  3. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
  4. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
  5. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
  6. Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
  7. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered

And we also need to have 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, though the book of common prayer does the same thing in a different way:

  1. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
  2. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
  3. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Because without the obligation each to sexually gratify the other, no marriage.

The need to bring marriage back implies a familist movement will look awfully like a religion.

Another important aspect of family is eating together at the same time. Everyone, kids, wife, and guests, holds off from eating until the patriarch says “Amen” then they all eat together. Grace is a ritual that ensures that everyone eats together and that presents the alpha male as backed by the ultimate alpha male, God. Women inherently like their alpha male to be backed by a bigger alpha male, and they are astonishingly comfortable with being assigned to another man by a higher alpha.

So any effective familist movement necessarily has religious rituals that are going to qualify it as a religion. But, like the Masons and progressivism, will probably have to pretend that it is not a religion.

On the other hand, to inculcate the appropriate attitude in women, to make the rituals work, have to tell them “God says do it this way”, which kind of gives the game away.

OK, if God is three and God is one, familism can be a religion and not a religion. If AA can be not a religion, familism can be not a religion.

The Anglican Church died, as the Congregational Church died as a Christian movement long before them, and the Roman Catholic Church is dying in the west. The Pope defends priests having gay sex in a great big pile by saying “consenting adults” and “Global Warming”. Well, if Global Warming is the great moral crisis of our times, why should anyone show up at Church. And they don’t. And if the Church abolishes marriage, why should anyone get married. And they don’t.

The Christian and biblical position is that Christians are kin by adoption and by marriage, that Christians are adoptively the children of God, and the Church is the bride of Christ. So when the pastor abolishes marriage and attacks the authority of the father and the husband, he saws of the branch on which he sits, and it looks to me that every Church dies after it abolishes marriage, though its death takes a bit over a century. The longer ago they abolished marriage and the family, the longer ago they died. Congregationalism was the first to abolish marriage and the family, and the first to go.

We want a synthetic tribe, because we are detribalized. God backing dad comes in mighty handy for making the family a family, particularly for making people eat meals at mealtime. And God comes in mighty handy for promoting ingroup cooperate/cooperate equilibrium by making people kin. These two functions of God seem to be connected in practice.

It is recorded that Christianity spread in the early Roman empire in large part through conversion of women. It is also recorded that marriage had collapsed in the early Roman empire. I suspect these two facts are connected, that Christian marriage may have been a familist movement in the early Roman empire. Similarly we notice that today white female Christian converts to Islam are overwhelming fertile age single women. Roman women converting from dead paganism to live Christianity in the Roman Empire may well have been similar to white Christian women converting to Islam today. They are joining a synthetic tribe where the ultimate alpha male will assign them a husband and ensure that they have a family. While the ultimate alpha male of today’s Christianity is going to give them a “season of singleness”.

If we look at the marriages depicted in the bible, they are all marriages in which the top alpha male assigns the woman. Which is what women want, even if they don’t know they want it.

In Genesis, God, the ultimate alpha male, marries Eve to Adam.

Abraham, a powerful alpha male who successfully made war with kings, marries Rebecca to Isaac. Rebecca is not consulted until afterwards, and Isaac is not consulted at all.

In the book of Ruth, Boaz is a powerful male who is the top alpha in the environment where Ruth is working. Ruth sneaks into Boaz’s bed while he is drunk and sleeping, asks Boaz to marry her, and appears to believe he has authority to perform marriage on the spot. He declines to do so, saying he has to resolve some legalities first but they spend the night together anyway. In the morning he goes off and successfully resolves those legalities, and later assembles witnesses and marries Ruth. Ruth’s mother in law (Ruth is a widow and the adoptive daughter of her mother in law) gives the bride away. Boaz, a powerful alpha male, is the one who presides over this ritual, not a judge or a priest. The elders witness, but they don’t emcee. If Ruth is present at this ritual she does not speak, but before the ritual she had plenty to say to her mother in law and to Boaz in private.

Chicks like the man who is throwing a party, because he is top alpha at the party. As “Setting the Record Straight” tells us, game boils down to three simple things.

  • Pass her shit tests
  • Don’t show weakness
  • Dominate other men

It is obviously optimal for marital harmony if the wife always sees her husband in social contexts where he is top alpha. When you throw a party, other alpha males act at the party as if you are the top alpha, even if in other social contexts you are not. So having someone else preside over the marriage is not a good idea. Marriages should resemble the marriage of Boaz and Ruth – unless the bride actually is being assigned to someone else by a powerful human alpha, as tended to happen during the early days of Australian settlement. If we look at first millennium Christian doctrine on marriage, it appears that marriage is a sacrament performed by the husband with the priest being wedding organizer, rather than presiding over the wedding. Existing Catholic doctrine is that marriage is a sacrament performed by the husband (which was very recently re-interpreted as the husband and the wife), but the priest presides over the ceremony, with the husband not being the alpha male in that context. Anglican doctrine back in the days when it was actually functioning as a religion is that marriage is and is not a sacrament. The articles say it is not a sacrament, but the preamble given by the priest in the book of common prayer treats it as a sacrament, and in the ritual the husband performs that sacrament.

He takes the brides hand, and

With this ring I thee wed

And then the priest tells the congregation what just happened, describing it terms that make it sound mighty like a sacrament performed by the husband. So, marriage is a sacrament or something very similar performed by the husband. And we know from evolutionary theory, PUA theory, and PUA empirical observation that this is in fact what women want – which suggests that the husband, rather than the priest should preside over the marriage, with the priest acting as wedding organizer and second in command at the party.

To get women to collectively behave better, women have to be informed as to what behavior is good.

Depict wives and children interacting with husbands and fathers the way they were depicted on television and movies after 1933 and before 1963. That will inform them. We cannot do that till we are in power. But while out of power, can restore the marriage ceremony to what it was before 1928: Wife promises to honor and obey, husband promises to love and cherish.

And let us go back a bit further, nine hundred years further. Husband administers the sacrament of marriage. Technically he still does: Takes wife hand. “With this ring I thee wed.” Places ring on finger. But that has been heavily played down for many centuries. It was a big power struggle in the Church of England after Henry the Eighth. They keep trying to make the marriage contractual (“I do”), when it should be sacramental (“with this ring I thee wed”). Women really hate contractual marriage. Contractual marriage is failing a shit test right at the starter’s gun.

We also need to restore the tradition that is implied in the story of the wise and foolish virgins, where the husband mock abducts the wife to a big party which he emcees, and everyone at the party treats him as top alpha male. Abduction, or else someone with family authority over the bride gives this woman to this man, leading her to the man. “Who giveth this woman to this man?” Women do not really like consensual and contractual marriage, hence the need for the bride to be given away or abducted.

Mueller Testimony

Sunday, July 28th, 2019

A lot of people interpreted the Mueller testimony as Mueller being senile and forgetful.

Did not look like that to me. He was “forgetful” under hostile cross examination:

Looked to me that he was repeatedly caught lying to congress. He was not forgetful, he was changing his story in midstream.

Looked to me that he is used to an environment where lying is mandatory, crimethought forbidden, so you can lie easily and comfortably and no problems ensue, everyone lies to each other and to themselves, everyone is supposed to lie, and was caught like a deer in the headlights when he was required to interact with those so shockingly discourteous as to follow different rules.

When Nunes issues his opening statement Mueller looked to me like a criminal listening to the prosecutor make his opening statement, then, part way through the prosecutor’s indictment, realize that the prosecutor has not yet found the good stuff, and he stands a good chance of beating the rap. Mueller is worried, but he not as worried as he would be if Nunes had the goods on him.

The General Flynn Affair

Wednesday, July 17th, 2019

From the beginning, it has been obvious that the FBI and the Democrats sincerely believed they had the goods on Trump, that he was guilty of something or other, had to be guilty of something or other, even though they were never clear in their own minds of exactly what. And from the beginning, it has been obvious that the FBI and the Democrats did not have the goods on Trump, because anything that they deluded themselves that they had, they leaked ten times over to the press in ten different versions, and it was all nuts.

It was always obvious that all this stuff was self delusion, wishful thinking, and motivated reasoning, usually reasoning so highly motivated as to be Trump derangement syndrome. It was obvious from the beginning that they were evil plotters who could not get their evil plot together because driven mad by Trump.

General Flynn hired defense lawyers that were completely in the pocket of Trumps enemies, completely in the pocket of Mueller, completely in the pocket of those prosecuting him. He pled guilty to lying to the FBI, which is the universal all purpose charge of which anyone who talks the FBI is guilty. If they ask you questions for eighty hours, you are bound to say something that that plausibly can be interpreted as contradicting something else, so anyone who talks the FBI for long enough is guilty of lying to the FBI. He then got a plea deal in which this terrible crime would be excused, because he was such a cooperative witness.  They talk to you until you say something that can plausibly be argued contradicts something else you said, then they demand you tell them what they want to hear.  This is a closed loop that leads to madness, because it is guaranteed to produce confirmation of delusions.

Which plea deal makes sense only if the FBI and the Democrats believed he had the goods on Trump and he had agreed to give them the goods on Trump. And also makes sense only if he believed that the presidency, the traitors, had the power, and the mere president did not have the power. And similarly, hiring “defense” lawyers that were completely in the pocket of Mueller and the prosecution lawyers only makes sense if the presidency, the traitors, have the power, and the mere president does not have the power.

His lawyers were radical leftist traitors attempting to overthrow the elected government of the United States, the prosecutors were radical leftist traitors attempting to overthrow the elected government of the United States, and Mueller is a radical leftist traitor attempting attempting to overthrow the government of the United States with a long history of abusing the power of the FBI to persecute real and imagined rightists, while turning a blind eye to the crimes of leftists. There was no daylight between Flynn’s defense team, and Mueller’s prosecution team, they were all in each other’s pockets, they were all one big happy family. And it only makes sense for them to be all one big happy family if they were all after Trump, they all believed Flynn had the goods on Trump, and they all believed that Flynn had given them the goods on Trump.

The Mueller investigation consisted of going after everyone connected to Trump, concocting crimes for them, and demanding that they sing on Trump to be excused these crimes. And, often enough, when put under sufficient pressure, they did sing on Trump but the tales they came up with never had any substance, always wild assed speculation, bare faced lies, sheer nonsense, or just hints that pointed Mueller’s team to go after someone else, anyone else. Trouble with putting people under pressure is if you apply too much pressure, they are going to tell you what you want to hear, but it is not necessarily going to be anything likely to stand up in court.

Eventually, belatedly, very belatedly, the light dawned, that Flynn had not given them the goods on Trump, that he did not have the goods on Trump. This had always been obvious to me from the transparent insanity of all the leaks telling us that Flynn had the goods on Trump, but it had not been obvious to all the transparently insane people leaking how Flynn’s testimony nailed Trump.

So the defenseprosecution team, defense and prosecution being a single team that was after Trump, not Flynn, decided that Flynn had broken his plea deal, and they would hang him out to dry. Whereupon Flynn, to Trump’s delight, fired his “defense” lawyers, who were trying to lock him up and throw away the key, being driven mad with rage by the failure of Flynn to nail Trump. Flynn then got a Trumpist defense lawyer who was, and is, determined to expose the crimes of the Mueller investigation and nail Mueller’s hide to the wall. Flynn’s choice of defense lawyer only makes sense if the president has the power, and the presidency, the traitors, do not have the power.

So this looks like a creeping coup, and a creeping countercoup, with Trump countercoup successful. Going after Flynn is an act of pointless self destructive vindictiveness, an act of madness. They just want to lash out and hurt people for no sane reason. Punishing Flynn does not help them – it just makes it more obvious that the investigation of Trump was criminal, and used criminal methods. And if their attempt to punish Flynn fails, as it looks like it will fail, it also makes it more obvious that they lost, that they are defeated, that they are out of power. If they can punish Flynn, they are still in power. If they cannot, not in power. And now, whether they are in power or not is about to be put to the test. If they cannot punish Flynn, no one will fear them any more, and if no one fears them any more, everything falls apart for the traitors.

Trump closes the asylum loophole.

Tuesday, July 16th, 2019

a new immigration rule Monday that will restrict illegal immigrants from countries, other than those bordering the United States, for applying for asylum first in the U.S. if they have attempted “to enter the United States across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country.”

Trump threatened Mexico with tariffs, they gave asylum. Mexico agreed to new asylum rules designed to meet the long established US rules on third country asylum, and now Trump can deport hundreds of thousands of people pouring over the border, a quarter of a million last year, if the borders remain open, likely increasing, if Democrats continue to hold the borders open, to a million next year, four million the year after that, sixty million in 2026, a billion in 2030.

New rules apply allowing Trump to immediately deport asylum applicants back to Mexico.

If the flood of people demanding asylum from the poverty, violence, chaos, and destruction that they created and intend to inflict upon us continues to grow exponentially there will be over a billion black male military age Muslims in the US by 2030 screaming for infidel blood and white pussy.

If we go by what the asylum seekers are saying, they believe that all white people need killing, that the poverty and violence from which they fled is the result of us stealing from them, that our wealth is an indication of our sinfulness, and destroying our wealth will make them rich.

Now maybe they are just saying that like Havel’s greengrocer. Maybe they are just saying that because the murder of white people, the destruction of white property, and the destruction of the technology that white people developed is politically correct, and don’t really intend any of it. Marxist economics has become dangerous to doubt. But that is what they are saying.

Judges are likely to rule Trump’s order illegal and order the borders remain open, a flagrant abuse of judicial power, and an abuse that is likely to get my children killed and my property destroyed. At some point, Trump has to do a Jackson, or threaten a Jackson and see if the judges back down.

If Trump is defeated on this, hundreds of millions of Americans are likely to be murdered. If the current asylum seekers, like Havel’s Greengrocer, do not truly believe what they are saying, and quite likely they do not truly believe, they are eventually going to be massively outnumbered by a billion black male Muslim military age asylum seekers from black Africa in 2030 who do truly believe it, in so far as they are capable of any thought beyond “gibmedat”.

At some point Trump has to just damn well close the border against illegal immigration, which Judges are likely to rule illegal and unconstitutional. And if he hopes to win the 2020 election, he has to do it well before the end of 2020. And if he loses the election he and his family are going to be arrested, and once you start arresting ex presidents, you soon start killing them.