Fixing (or replacing) Christianity

High IQ species with lengthy childhood find it hard to reproduce without cooperation between males and females.

Productivity is not an issue.  In a wealthy society, a man could easily buy enough food and shelter for taking care of umpteen children, but he cannot actually take care of umpteen children. Observing variations in total fertility rate over different regions and different times, we see that even in very poor societies, boom or bust, war or peace, wealth or poverty, make very little difference to the total fertility rate. The only thing that matters is female emancipation.

Support in the sense of feeding and sheltering children is not an issue in the west, indeed it is not the major issue even in very poor countries. The problem is not feeding children, but looking after children, which requires two people. A single person household can barely look after one person, except by paying for services that are not easily obtained on the market place.  A single person household tends to eat out a lot, has difficulty with house maintenance.  A single person household tends to have no garden, because unable to manage a garden.  If you rent to a single person, chances are you will see a lot of repair and maintenance costs.

If you rent to a single person, you have to be really fascist about the condition of the house, because a single person gets overwhelmed.

So, reproduction requires two, and a two person household requires one man in charge, and the wife to honor and obey.

And the connection compelling the wife to submit to the husband has to be durable – has to last long enough to raise children.

If you have moment to moment consent, you cannot have durable marriage.  Indeed, any kind of female consent makes reproduction hard, because all women would prefer to have sex with Jeremy Meeks, and are apt to hold off on marriage till their eggs start drying up in hope of getting a booty call from Jeremy Meeks. We really should have romantic consensual marriage normal and normative only for women that can reasonably be presumed chaste. The rest should be pressured or coerced into patriarchal marriage, or a similar, but lower status and less secure, arrangement.

One helpful workaround in a society hostile to fathers, husbands, and marriage is that God backs the authority of the husband and the father, and the husband and the father backs the authority of God.

This works well for me as an individual. It would work a whole lot better if backed by a tribe / church / religion / social support group representing the authority of God on Earth.

Unfortunately all actually existent religious groups, with the notable exception of Mormons and some weird and unpleasant Jewish sects tend to be aggressively hostile to the authority of the husband and father. Latin Mass Catholics seem to be non hostile, but are not all that supportive.

Christian theology is that the fatherhood of God makes the fellow members of your congregation adoptive kin. (This is the Christian replacement for the Jewish Abraham). Thus “Christian” hostility to God the Father kills the Christian Church dead. A religion is a tribe, and actually existent Christianity is hostile to its own tribe, much as the US government is hostile to legacy Americans.

Anti patriarchal Christianity is a self contradiction – but it is all we have got.

Poolside is defect/defect equilibrium, the battle of the sexes.  Difficult to reproduce poolside, difficult to have a family, difficult to have an old age surrounded by children and grandchildren.  The only way to end the war is male victory, followed by some alarmingly drastic coercion.  I base this on what happened on the shore of Port Jackson, when they were working with female material far more favorable than that which we have, and were initially paralyzed because reluctant to do what proved necessary, which is presumably what fathers had been doing behind the scenes.

Obviously anyone who tries what was tried on the shores of Port Jackson is not going to be left alone by progressives.

For successful reproduction and child raising, women must be compelled to obey the father of their children, compelled to submit sexually to him, and forbidden to submit sexually to anyone else. Moment to moment consent frustrates both men and women, since it makes it difficult for them to reproduce. We need outside coercion to get to cooperate cooperate equilibrium. Moment to moment consent results in defect defect equilibrium, where no one gets what they really want. To reproduce successfully, men, women, and their children need durable and patriarchal marriage, and durable and patriarchal marriage needs coercion.

When Black Mohammedans in the middle of Africa try overtly coercive methods similar to those used on the shores of Port Jackson, the Cathedral drones them.

So, since public whippings give the enemies of the family an excuse to meddle, need to synthesize a tribe, and primarily use social pressure rather than public whippings.  A tribe requires a religion.  And the participants in the religion have to socially support all well behaved women, and forcefully exclude all badly behaved women and their male bastards.

God backs the authority of the husband and the father, and the husband and the father backs the authority of God.  God’s authority on earth is manifested through the tribe.  There is something of an exemption for religions – the Cathedral will not jump you provided you stick to weaponized social pressure and observe age limits that are increasingly difficult to observe.  It is illegal or close to it to stop girls nine or older from having sex, and illegal or close to it for them to marry under eighteen, let alone be pressured into marriage, but so far one can socially enforce patriarchy.

The Benedict Option:

What I call the Benedict Option is this: a limited, strategic withdrawal of Christians from the mainstream of American popular culture, for the sake of shoring up our understanding of what the church is, and what me must do to be the church. We must do this because the strongly anti-Christian nature of contemporary popular culture occludes the meaning of the Gospel, and hides from us the kinds of habits and practices we need to engage in to be truly faithful to what we have been given. As Jonathan Wilson has pointed out about the New Monasticism movement (a form of the Benedict Option), the church must do this not to hide away as a pure remnant — the church would be unfaithful to Christ if it did so — but to strengthen itself to be the church for the world.

This assumes that actually existent Christianity is just fine.

It is not. It is cucked. Christianity has to be patriarchal, because of “God the Father”, because its replacement for biological kinship through Abraham is adoptive kinship through the fatherhood of God.

And, despite all the hand wringing by progs, actually existent Christianity is hostile to fathers and husbands. And actually existent Judaism is not a whole lot better.

Even the Mohammedans are in trouble, with Iran and Saudi Arabia gone feminazi. A big part of the appeal of Islamic State is that fighting for Islamic state was apt to get you a real wife.

The problem is not that popular culture is anti christian. It is that actually existent Christianity is anti christian.

You can have an individual relationship with God and Jesus “Jesus is my boyfriend” without patriarchy.

But you cannot have a Christian Church, except it is solidly patriarchal and goes full Pauline on marriage.  If no patriarch, then no nuclear family, if no nuclear family, then no extended family, if no extended family, then no support for actual kinship.  If no support for actual kinship, then no adoptive kinship.  If no adoptive kinship, no church.

You can have individual Christians without Pauline patriarchy, but without Pauline patriarchy, you don’t have a Christian Church.  Dalrock is not a church.  He is another guy with another blog, and taking a sane position on the problem of reproduction and a straightforward position on the interpretation of Saint Paul on marriage has alienated him from his Church, and his Church from him.

If there was a church that was willing to support me, I would support it.

Christianity without patriarchy is Pope Francis celebrating gay sex and transvestite prostitutes. Christianity without patriarchy inexorably winds up joining Heartiste poolside. Some Roman Catholics are whining about the Church supporting divorce, but if you support moment to moment consent, if you oppose “marital rape”, then you have to support divorce. I remember a time when everyone supported marital rape, when the words “marital rape” made no sense, when it was incomprehensible to most people that there might be anything wrong or unusual about a man compelling his wife to perform her marital duty. Today, I don’t think even Dalrock supports “marital rape”, but if you oppose “marital rape”, it is logically inconsistent to oppose divorce at capricious whim. If wives have a duty to honor and obey, and wives and husbands have a duty each to sexually gratify the other, then no such thing as marital rape. If they don’t have such a duty, why do you have a problem with the church service celebrating a transvestite prostitute auctioning off his body cavities?

In order to oppose both marital rape and a church service celebrating transvestism and sodomy, Christians have to be against sex generally, rather than against the war of the sexes, a position that is stupid, contrary to the bible, contrary to the survival of the species, anti Darwinian, and contrary to what the Bible tells us of God’s plan – it is the foolish and wicked heresy that Puritans were rightly accused of. Marriage in the old testament is not a magic ritual making sex magically OK. It is a man’s commitment to keep a woman and never let her go. Such a commitment is impossible and foolish today, however much a man desires it, thus no marriage any more. It is all fornication, the sacrament is in vain.

One of the major earthly jobs of religion is to promote peace and cooperation generally, particularly cooperation between members of the religion, and particularly members of the congregation, and particularly cooperation between men and women in begetting and raising children. This is intended to promote sex, not prevent it. In order to prevent the battle of the sexes, the Church needs to prohibit not sex, but adultery. And adultery is not a code word for sex. Adultery means the same thing in marriage as in beer. Improper mixing. Adultery means one man’s seed going into the same pussy as another man’s seed, because that prevents a man from raising his children.

So the Church abandons its mission of promoting cooperation within the family, and then, to demonstrate that it is nonetheless twice as holy as before, doubles down on opposing movie producers having sex with starlets, even though abandoning marriage and the family makes opposition to movie producers having sex with starlets irrelevant, absurd, and pointless.

171 Responses to “Fixing (or replacing) Christianity”

  1. […] Fixing (or replacing) Christianity […]

  2. Reno says:

    Nice post. The part about “poolside” sitting stood out to me. You see, it is “alpha” to sit poolside and pretend not to care about anything. Being coercive is not “alpha” you see, it shows you’ve “lost state,” so basically, doing nothing and saying nothing is “alpha” and total victory is not. Just sit poolside maaaaaaaan. That’s the idea in the ether these days.

    • jim says:

      If you have been cuckolded, keeping state is a pitifully slight victory. No one should believe you don’t care. I don’t keep state.

      • Reno says:

        I was spoofing the “alpha” poolside ideologues of course. I’m down with victory over quietly ruling over the ashes. And I don’t care if I’m “alpha”, or any other letter of the alphabet. Rock on Jim.

  3. BomberCommand says:

    Any new religion would have to be a secret cult to get going. Far too much overt mind control from the media to create it in the open.

  4. Bane Blumpf says:

    Nice post Jim u basedboy

  5. Jefferson says:

    The accelerant on the leftward ratchet, in religion, was the deterritorialization of the idols. God the father is the last and most important, but it’s easier to maintain civilization with a full suite of idols. The virgin mother goddess is a good one for women, but the Greeks had some solidly blocked off divinity. That’s not to say that mimicking them world work, but the constantly shifting shell game we’re working with now needs to be replaced with something more durable. Something like the “Warrior, Priest (manipulator, in reality), Creator” for men, and something mirrored for women, to keep them in their lanes, seems healthiest to me.

  6. some guy says:

    okay, you identified the problem. but title is “fixing (or replacing) christianity,” not “diagnosing christianity.” so how to actually fix? get to the point. if want to fix, must join a church and improve it. if want to replace, need to start a church, or pick a different religion. what will it be, western man? the faith of your fathers, or some nonsense of your own creation?

    • jim says:

      Improving a church is easier said than done.

      The Church naturally converges with the state, and the state is hostile to marriage, men, the family, and patriarchy.

      • some guy says:

        you’re not wrong, but neither am I. Choose either Fix or Replace. If choose Fix, how will you actually do it?

  7. Joe says:

    I don’t see how Christianity can be fixed since it requires belief that Jesus was the Son of God and died for our sins. And with all due respect to our Christian friends, I don’t believe that and never will. Science killed that kind of belief except among people who are too dull-witted to think deeply about much of anything. There are people who have personal spiritual experiences where they become convinced that the Jesus story is true, but there are Muslims and Buddhists and so on who have the same experiences that convince them that their religions are true, so personal spiritual experiences don’t count for much.
    A workable religion or set of cultural norms is going to have to be based on something that is actually true so that it is not vulnerable to the first scientist type who comes along and points out that the belief is bullshit.

    All these proposed rules about marriage, controlling women and such are good rules because they are in harmony with the true nature of men, women, children, families, and human society. I don’t see why you have to have an unprovable supernatural belief mixed in there in order to make it work. What you need is a society that openly and explicitly enforces rules that are in harmony with nature…a society that rejects equalitarianism as incompatible with actual human nature. A society that teaches the young very early on, “boys and girls, men and women, are different because nature has evolved them that way. To make our society work, the experience of countless generations has demonstrated that we need to do this and this and this, and so we do.” Base the rules on actually provable facts about differences in the sexes and their sexual behaviors and motivations and leave Jesus out of it.

    • some guy says:

      > Science killed that kind of belief except among people who are too dull-witted to think deeply about much of anything
      > unprovable supernatural belief

      Was Aquinas dull-witted? What about Augustine, Aristotle, or Samuel Clarke? Is even so lowly a living person as Edward Feser a moron? Do not judge a belief by the worst of those who hold it, but by the best.

      All these men certainly thought the supernatural belief was provable. What cause have you to say that it is unprovable? I would posit that the idea that science can even in principle disprove God is ridiculous for the reasons detailed here: http://staquinas.herokuapp.com/aquinas_questions/1

      Quit being an arrogant asshole and grapple with some intellectually serious Christians… if you dare.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        Well said. Hell is eternal.

        Cornelius Van Til and Gary North are important authors to study. Also, start reading the Vulgate in Latin.

      • peppermint says:

        They also thought the world was a sphere held together by some spherical attraction principle instead of flat and everything held down by gravity. They had no idea that if two people have sex they get a child that mixes their traits and thus had no reason to encourage reproduction of productive men of the nation with the daughters of other productive men of the nation, but instead believed in Christianity, under which the lowliest bastard should be offered the opportunity to sleep with anyone’s daughter, and productivity, being a mysterious talent from God, must be taxed away and given to all nations.

        Obviously God doesn’t exist, because we know how we evolved, shaped by our ancestral environment.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          Scientists have also claimed many stupid and false things through the years. Ulcers are caused by stress, the universe will contract into a ball, there was a bacterial ‘oxygen holocaust’, etc. Those examples were recent enough to be disproven in my lifetime. Let’s not even get into the various pieties regardig DNA.

          Current cosmological theories can give nonsense answers dozens of magnitudes in error. Scientists haven’t figured out how to make quantum mechanics and relativity work together yet, the perhaps most celebrated scientific theories of the modern age. There are plenty more examples.

        • Milk says:

          Study near-death experiences. Notice the recurring patterns.

          Read up on contemporary accounts of people (not all of them moronic suburbanites) who “claim” (ah, the lovely skepticism of the verb) to have visited heaven or hell. Again, notice the recurring patterns.

          Read books by Catholic exorcists and by Protestant exorcists. I mean book published in the last decades; but by all means read the 16th century ones too. Notice, again, the patterns. Try to account for them within a materialistic worldview. (I’m not even going into levitation and such paranormal phenomena that may occur, even if rarely, during exorcism. Just notice the patterns.)

          Speaking of paranormality. The very CIA recognizes its reality. There are studies, found on its website, that meticulously document rigorous studies which prove (yes, prove, in the full scientific and academic meaning of the term), that phenomena such as telekinesis are real.

          By all means go to this most popular of web venus, Youtube, and look for videos of levitation, telekinesis, exorcisms. Wipe the James Randi smirk from your face for a second; analyze them as if they were a novel phenomenon. “Multiple personality disorder”, yes, sure, you’re a smart boy; even the DSM authors had to come up with “possession disorder” to account for the uncanny peculiarities of the phenonemon.

          And if that is too grim, read up on Padre Pio’s miracles. Or St. Francis of Assisi’s, for that matter. Or check out the phenomonen (incredibly common) of people who know each other having precisely the same dream, down to the smallest and most significant details, at the same night.

          I could go on. s. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Was Chesterton stupid? How about Hilaire Belloc? How about Evola and Guenon? Tolstoy and Dostoevsky? T. S. Eliot and W. H. Auden? Religious men all of them.

          • peppermint says:

            Maybe the recurring patterns in near death experiences tell us about what kinds of behaviors were evolutionarily advantageous.

            Dostoevsky wrote a great book about a neet a hundred years before neets became a serious social problem.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            We’ve been ‘treating them as a novel phenomenon’ with open minds for hundreds of years and it’s still tosh.
            As for multiple personality disorder, it is indeed very interesting. I recommend Dennett’s extensive paper on the subject. It’s not interesting because it proves the existence of possession or multiple souls: it’s interesting because people can come to believe very odd things and be capable of total certainty that their subjective impressions are objective truth.

            What’s notable about ‘paranormal’ accounts is not that something happened – it never, ever did – but rather that the strength of conviction is massive:

            “I DID see a ghost – what you think I can’t trust my own senses? What are you, crazy? I saw it WITH MY OWN TWO EYES and I bloody-well know what I saw dammit!”

            Now if you want to base your metaphysical convictions on feelz then go right ahead and if it lands you at the Ten Commandments, extreme hostility to divorce and the embrace of tradition, patriarchy and hierarchical-authoritarian systems of government then I’m all for you having your feelz,

            but there are other routes to those end-points and if we all pretend we’re willing to pin our colours to such claims, we lose the smartest people in society.

            Can we hope to convert them in any case? Yes, because a lot of them frequent this blog. One of them authors it.

            So as much as we as a movement shouldn’t adopt the militant atheist mentality and insist on only beliefs that were arrived at through the naturalistic worldview and automatically ridicule and dismiss anything arrived at through folkloristic pathways, we should also not insist that the science-loving mindset is automatic poison.

            Dan Dennett is almost certainly a liberal so we should be very cautious around him, but one of his recurring themes is an insistence that where a difference makes no difference, it’s not worth demanding that it be settled. This is one of those cases. Just as it’s fine to “adopt the Intentional Stance” regarding the question of why your cat’s jumping up at you in the kitchen, it’s fine to defer to subjective differences in *WHY* someone believes such&such and rush straight to the merit of their end-point beliefs: you may be a Mormon who thinks Joseph Smith took angelic dictation but so long as that belief leads you to eschew covetous redistribution programmes, my libertarian side’s happy to call you an ally.

            Given that we live in times when the unprovoked slaughter of wedding parties is seen as a matter of pragmatism, the more people who hold fast to “Thou shalt not kill”, the better. Whether they got there through the non-aggression principle, rational racial self-interest, Thomist theology or anti-carbon environmentalism, we can work on them in Yemen before we have to swallow our pride and work with them in Armenia.

            • Milk says:

              Yes. Wonderful.

              You say it is “tosh” and that “none of it ever happened”. What fine scientific thinking. It is exactly what a liberal university professor will tell you if you talk to him about Soviet infiltration of American institutions.

              Look at all these phenomena closely (and, by God, without having your thinking marred by mediocrities such as Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and the rest), and you *will* stumble on quite unexplainable details sooner than you think.

              Different people dreaming of very same event or person at the same night, dreams precisely matching down to the least detail, discovering they have had the same dream when they talk to each other. Possessed people speaking languages they have never learned (it’s rare but it does happen; there are historical accounts and contemporary accounts; and these accounts often related by learned men, whether Catholic of Protestant) . CIA papers detailing rigorous studies confirming the reality of paranormal habilities. By God, look up MK Ultra, and I mean dig deep, don’t just read some hack skeptic’s fifth rate account of the subject. People the world over, many of them Buddhist or Muslim, having visions of Jesus (visions of Jesus far outnumber visions of any other eminent religious figure; but this too your fine mind will chalk up to coincidence).

              Even a high IQ man such as Robert Lindsay (of our beloved anglosphere) recognizes the unexplainable reality of deja vu (“past lives” would be an explanation, but it doesn’t fit our cute cartesian materialism, does it now?).

              Even a man as Olavo de Carvalho recognizes the reality of astrology (meticulously proved by scientific studies; certain signs *do tend* to overwhelmingy prefer very particular professions, statistics so probability-defying that the idea of coincidence becomes ludicrous).

              Both these man, come to think of it, have 150 IQs. The idea that the skepticism of a Dr. House, a Walter White, a Sherlock Holmes (although Conan Doyle was a spiritualist!) is the only respectable intellectual perspective one may adopt is stupid. But it is a stupidity most people are glad to buy; and it is a pose that does make you people regard you as a smart boy, and that certainly pleases you very much.

              In short, truly examine the issue, with a real open-mind and real rigor, and you will be surprised. But you won’t do that, will you now? Best regards.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Honestly there are only so many times that people will be prepared to be ‘open-minded’ about things that’ve been researched with honesty and integrity over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again only to find again and again and again and again and again and again that it’s nonsense, and only to find again and again and again and again and again that it cuts no mustard with people like you and you simply repeat yet again, for the millionth time, that we (but never you) should keep an open mind.

                Like I said, if your fantasies lead you to the endpoint of no irrational foreign wars, no lala Keynesian shenanigans, no mass immigration, no affirmative action, no Poz, no envy policies and no insane whackadoodle theories then great, I for one have no interest whatsoever in depriving you of your sincerely held subjectively validated beliefs.

                I’m not kidding. I’ll slap someone down for trying to talk you out of your nutty horse manure so long as you want what I want: it’s a difference of opinion that makes no difference.

                • Milk says:

                  Carlylean Restorationist says:
                  2018-04-26 at 17:14
                  “Honestly there are only so many times that people will be prepared to be ‘open-minded’ about things that’ve been researched with honesty and integrity over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again only to find again and again and again and again and again and again that it’s nonsense, and only to find again and again and again and again and again ”

                  Haha! “Honesty and integrity”. “Again and again”. That’s just formidable. And yes, these manifold studies have invariably found that the “paranormal” is just a fiction. Yes, certainly.

                  Many studies of the sort *have* been conducted, but a surprisingly ammount of them did arrive at results that defy any materialistic explanation. (But this kind of thing doesn’t make the pages of the Scientific American. I wonder why?)

                  The pious fiction that all such studies have proven the unreality of the paranormal (yes, how wonderfully that would confirm out materialism) is like the imbecilic fiction that “the Bible has been translated over and over thousands of times”.

                  Both these pious fictions are unthinkingly accepted by legions of middlebrow agnostics.

                  Tertullian in the fourth century d.C. mentioned “rapping tables”; 19th century French spiritualists observed the same phenomenon. Ah, yes: they must have read Tertullian; that gave them the inspiration for their cunning trick.

                  But that is a quaint example, not the best one; maybe it really is a trick passed on through the centuries. So let’s look at something less kooky: look up studies on “morphogenetic fields”. Read them carefully. You’re a smart fellow. You will realize their implications. Then think about how neatly these scientific conclusions line up with your dear materialism (hint: they don’t).

                  Read up on the scientific experiments conducted with Uri Geller in the 70s. Ah, but again, Uri Geller, hasn’t he been thoroughly “debunked” (that lovely verb) by that placid smirking authority, the stage magician James Randi (who incidentally is a boy lover; but let us not be paranoid and draw any “pizza” and “disinfo” conclusions here).

                  Chesterton in the 1930s predicted that science would catch up with “paranormal” phenomena. And indeed it rather has; scientific experiments have been conducted in this field, and with results that do scandalize adventurously open-minded materialists such as you.

                  But yes, the *official science* hasn’t caught up. I mean the “science” one gets from Bill Nye and Scientific American. Would it be too fantastic to speculate that perhaps such men and institutions are as honest about science as politicians are about pedophilia?

                  Official science lies about SSRIs (they’re deadly); it lies about poly-unsaturated fats (deadly too); it lies about global-warming; it lies about homosexuality; “peer-reviewed” studies are “reviewed” and sanctioned by thoroughly incompetent careerist academics; the whole thing is a monumental shambling farce.

                  Why would official scientists not lie about materialism, about paranormality, about ESP and things of the sort? It’s not like the government has any interest in such matters.

                  In short, you truly haven’t investigated the matter at all, but you are confident that able men in recent history have investigated it thoroughly and concluded that, yes, we are alone in a cold materialistic universe. That is the idea that is generally implied; one sees glimpses of this pressuposition in the scripts of movies and tv shows. It is not true at all. Yes, someone has looked into it all, men of science and integrity, and they came back with the dispiriting news that no “paranormality” exists.

                  And yet that most emphatically is not what happened. Do read up on it. And do look for good sources (you’re smart enough to see beyond middlebrow respectability; you’re smart enough to not be awed by a mere Dawkins and a mere Dennett, are you not?).

                  But again, you will not investigate the matter, will you? You will stand firm on your heroic materialist conviction; and you will react with solemn indignation towards those who dare defy it. Okay then. Best regards.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re basically saying that a truce on the issue is not available. Fine, I’m hostile to your nonsense then, if for no reason other than your having accused me of being a liberal basically.
                  My opposition to ridiculous claims that’ve been debunked a million times has absolutely nothing to do with the peer reviewed science establishment, their popular mouthpiece publications or anything else of that ilk.

                  Part of embracing reality though is being open to changing your mind when a proposition’s shown to be faulty so here I am conceding that peace between ‘Brights and Supers’ (to maintain the DCD link) is not an option.

                  So be it. In the future restoration, you will not be humoured.

                • Milk says:

                  >ridiculous claims that’ve been debunked a million times

                  Again: that is quite untrue.

                  It’s a silly truism, really.

                  And yet you affirm it with such apoplectic conviction. Good job.

                  >Part of embracing reality though is being open to changing your mind when a proposition’s shown to be faulty

                  Precisely. That is why I had to let go of my dearly held materialism.

                  >So be it. In the future restoration, you will not be humoured.

                  What a kindly soul you are.

                • Milk says:

                  Curiouly, Eric Voegelin pointed out that modern thinkers such as Marx, Comte and Bakunin all made a point of forbidding any inquiry about the “supernatural”.

                  It’s almost like the possibility of it being real is frightening to some people.

                • jim says:

                  As a dark enlightenment blog, the reality of the supernatural is off topic. The Dark enlightenment position is that Christian doctrines about this world, rightly understood, are compatible with scientific truth about this world, rightly understood. And as for the next, will deal with that when the time comes.

    • some guy says:

      Your idea that a system of rules based on “actually provable facts” can be the solution is laughable. The godless system is the system we live in. The intelligentsia departed from belief in God and nearly immediately purity spiraled into the mess we have today. The only societies that can successfully reject egalitarianism are religious ones, as history shows.

      • bruce says:

        If this world is all there is, then inequality is intolerable.

        • Jehu says:

          If the world is all there is why GAF?

        • peppermint says:

          To who? You? How about, instead of getting brownie points for saying that, you get brownie points for making fun of people who say that?

          • bruce says:

            To e.g. ugly chicks. In the old days they could believe that God loved them, they could become nuns, etc. Now they are angry and tear everything down because they are ugly (unequal) and it’s intolerable.

            • peppermint says:

              30%ile chicks should marry 30%ile men. Instead they get used by 50%ile men for n count until they’re too old, because the 50%ile women are trying to get an 80%ile man who hasn’t married because he needs to get his career ready. Men and women should be able to pair off between 18 and 28. Mass executions of academics is the solution.

        • jim says:

          No one genuinely cares about inequality. Talking about inequality is a rationalization for covetousness and envy.

      • jim says:

        The proposition that our society is not religious is obviously false. Equality is a religious belief:

        “All men are created equal”,

        when quite obviously they are not. The solution is to replace a state religion which has equality as its key belief, with a state religion whose key beliefs are less easily falsified by empirical data about the world.

        Take Christianity, interpret away young earth creationism as parable about early humans getting black pilled, and we have a religion far more resistant to empirical falsification by the facts of this world than progressivism, a state religion far more compatible with reason, science, technology, and industrialization than our current state religion.

        • some guy says:

          Augustine, Origen, and other ancient early church fathers have been maintaining that early Genesis is non-literal for >1500 years. young earth creationism is a modern heresy

          • jim says:

            Please link me to the relevant ancient writings on the early Genesis account.

            We are going to need ancient roots. Have to deny that the new religion is new.

            • some guy says:

              Origen: (writing in the 200s)
              > Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars — the first day even without a sky?

              in paragraph 16 of http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm

              Augustine:

              > There is knowledge to be had, after all, about the earth, about the sky, about the other elements of the world, about the movements and revolutions or even the magnitude and distances of the constellations, about the predictable eclipses of moon and sun, about the cycles of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, fruits, stones, and everything else of this kind. And it frequently happens that even non-Christians will have knowledge of this sort in a way that they can substantiate with scientific arguments or experiments. Now it is quite disgraceful and disastrous, something to be on one’s guard against at all costs, that they should ever hear Christians spouting what they claim our Christian literature has to say on these topics, and talking such nonsense that they can scarcely contain their laughter when they see them to be toto caelo, as the saying goes, wide of the mark. And what is so vexing is not that misguided people should be laughed at, as that our authors should be assumed by outsiders to have held such views and, to the great detriment of those about whose salvation we are so concerned, should be written off and consigned to the waste paper basket as so many ignoramuses (The literal meaning of Genesis, I.39).

              IMO, Augustine believed that the creation was an instantaneous event rather than being spread out over six literal days, and that the six days of Genesis 1 were a literary structure rather than a statement of the order or timing of events. You can see some of this reasoning in the end of his Confessions.

              St Thomas Aquinas seems to fall more on the literal side, but not explicitly young-earth, and tries to take some kind of middle ground.

      • Milk says:

        The real intelligentsia is constituted by figures like Dugin and Guenon, who are far from being atheists.

        (Not to mention the grim esotericisms secretly practiced by elites worldwide, rituals that uncannily resemble the prescriptions of magic books.)

        But yes, sure, the newspaper pundits express a fashionable, middlebrow agnosticism.

        • peppermint says:

          > dugin, spirit cooking, skull and bones
          why do you think these no name ass clowns are intelligent? Because you can’t tell the difference between being powerful or saying things powerful people want to hear and knowing what’s going on in the world? But if you don’t think Jim is one of the smartest people in the world, why are you here?

          • Milk says:

            Can we really not discuss matters without agreeing with each other on every point and without kissing the ass of the guy who owns the place? Should we just blindly take sides and vociferate at each other? Okay then.

          • Milk says:

            Every civilazation is ruled by a priesthood.

            The true American priesthood is the shadow Masonic priesthood.

            But I’m sure all their rituals are mere pomp, aren’t they? It’s not like America has one million missing children a year; it’s not like anything grim ever happens to these children. They just get “false memory syndrome” sometimes.

            • Milk says:

              “Civilization”, of course.

              (And, though it was just a typo, English is not my first language.)

            • peppermint says:

              Okay, priesthood. What do Samantha “bombing for human rights” Power and the tranny bathroom crusaders have in common? Where are (((Steven Pinker))) and (((Lawrence Summers))) allowed to say maverick things like we need to account for race before the alt-right wins and build my damn bridge already?

              What kind of person is seen as authoritative by journalists?

              Dugin is a no name ass clown who doesn’t set policy and spirit cooking / pedo snuff is the way the elite blackmail each other.

              • Milk says:

                Yes, those are some cute caricatures, thank you.

                Yes, it really must get down to (((them))), to whose we so humanely love to put between (((parentheses))).

                It isn’t weird at all how you foam at the mouth while talking about them; it isn’t weird at all how need intellectual gurus to tell you that yes, (((they))) are the problem, and it’s alright to feel murderous rage towards (((them))), and by God I can’t wait for the day the dam breaks and we finally get to butcher (((them))).

                Any perspective that doesn’t bolster these lovely humanitarian inclinations must be discarded with the firmness of a snopes.com debunking.

                Yes, I guess you’re right. Bless your heart.

                • peppermint says:

                  The most significant thing to have happened recently is that there are no intelligent well-intentioned leftists under 40, and no intelligent White leftists under 30. The priesthood has forsaken the intelligentsia, which is now the alt-right.

                  Meanwhile, major priesthood institutions are run by morons now following retirements of capable people. Soros and Ruth Ginsberg are not long for this world. Y t f did the DNC sue Trump?

                • Roberto says:

                  >one MILLION missing children are pizzagate-raped every year by showy Masons as part of their rituals; also muh paranormal activities are involved.

                  As organic a theory as UFOlogy and Flat Earth.

                  I wonder why it’s the antisemitism that triggered you, though. Don’t you — the expert government shill — know that you’re supposed to promote the idea that Jews pull the strings behind the curtain? That way any rebellion against (or subversion of) the Deepstate/CIA/Cathedral will be redirected and deflected to Schlomo. Isn’t that the plan?

                  Get with the times, bro. Read the memos they send you. In fact, you guys have been playing this “look, a Jew!” game for many decades now. I don’t expect you to change policy any time soon. Otherwise some 50% of WN/NS/AR websites would suddenly disappear into the void. (To the dim-witted: not because of any censorship, but because they are run by spooks)

                  Ah, who am I kidding. Milk doesn’t actually glow in the dark. He’s just got schizophrenia.

                • Milk says:

                  Looks like I’m banned from replying to the kindly replies below?

                  Anyway: yes, thanks for the schizophrenia insinuation. Men eminently sane, intelligent and well-read as Chesterton and Guenon believed in the “supernatural”, but yes: label me a madman. Thank you.

                  I gather, then, that being paranoid about jews is less uncouth, is more acceptable in the polite society of this blogosphere, than being paranoid about other brands of shadowy cabals. Alright then.

                  “Illuminati” wasn’t even my main point. The point that every civilization is ruled by a priesthood, and that in America this priesthood has for centuries consisted of masons, I got from Olavo de Carvalho’s “The Garden of Afflictions”, where it is plainly stated. (Ah, but Carvalho too is a loony; nevermind that his politicial predictions tend to be minutely precise; nevermind that his predictions tend to come true.)

                  Anyway, I’m not looking for a heated discussion. I wish you guys no ill. Cheers.

                • jim says:

                  > Looks like I’m banned from replying to the kindly replies below?

                  Not that I am aware of

                • Milk says:

                  “One million” does sound hyperbolic, doesn’t it? I’m perfectly aware of it. Do look up the statistic.

    • Orthodox says:

      Don’t be a snowflake.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      As Bruce Charlton has discussed, perhaps we need a better metaphysics (or return to a better one). The scientific one of meaningless despair is not really inspiring. And indeed, ordinary humans seem incapable of actually taking it fully seriously. Perhaps that’s for the best.

      Science has chosen scientific naturalism as its basis, where supernatural explanations are simply considered invalid. But note that that’s just an assumption.

      Note also that metaphysics by their nature are not provable.

      • peppermint says:

        God promised not to send any more prophets and only rarely works miracles because He works through us, usually not by direct divine inspiration but through grace acting on our highest virtues.

        Therefore, we should expect there to be a natural explanation for everything, and rigorously test any supernatural explanation in the hopes of being pleasantly surprised.

        We are not barbarians living in a dark age where people think a man can turn into a woman randomly or through bizarre mutilations.

      • jim says:

        You confuse science, the science of the Royal society, with the post 1945 “science” of Harvard, which has murdered science, gutted its corpse, and wears its gutted corpse as a skin suit.

        The key lights of the early Royal Society were deeply Christian and opposed to the enlightenment. Science rested on a commitment to truth that was rooted in aristocratic and elitist Christianity, a value system whose elitism and aristocracy ran fundamentally contrary to the enlightenment, and whose Christianity ran fundamentally contrary to the enlightenment.

        Science was possible because a gentleman and a nobleman should speak the truth, and because truth speaking was a sign of being a gentleman or a noble.

        Compare and contrast with the Harvard self esteem culture, where speaking the truth shows you are a deplorable and an oppresser of the holy masses.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          No, I don’t think I do.

          Of course it’s quite possible to do scientific work while remaining religious — see Gregor Mendel and others if nothing else — but from the social standpoint, the enlightenment has obviously had a far greater influence than the original RSE. Just look at where we are now. (Richard Dawkins is a FRS.)

          At the time of the enlightenment, the commitment to truth was used to attack religion because of insufficient evidence in its support (only naturalistic evidence, please). It also became acceptable to question previous verities freely (and, again, reject answers that did not comply with scientific naturalism). See also ‘free thinkers’, ‘free inquiry’, skepticism, and so on, which as we have seen has gradually evolved to separation of church and state, secular humanism, existentialism … many such cases … Harvard, the vulgar stupidity of IFLS, and the unholy mess we’re in now.

          • peppermint says:

            The dark age ended when it became cool to build stuff and know practical things instead of believing whatever and knowing everything about it including how to use the words transman and transwoman properly and using people’s pronouns properly.

            What we see now, however, is that demanding that everyone first adhere to the official religion is a consequence of not just social but biological disintegration. If we must live with other ethnicities, then we must demand they express our values so we can trust them.

            When practical knowledge became cool, people began to express their doubts in the talking bush on fire and the man who walked on water.

            The academics hated that and hated the way businessmen and scientists were cooler than them. So they insulted businessmen and scientists for centuries until, finally, they have successfully imposed themselves over the businessmen and scientists and brought about the biological disintegration that makes adherence to doctrine over practical building necessary while making building as hard as possible.

            If we don’t want this dark age, we must slaughter the academics, send back the migrants, make building cool, and mock doctrines.

            • peppermint says:

              As we see now, cessation of economic activity follows the signalpocalypse because it becomes impossible to hire good people and get government permission to do stuff. Previously it was assumed that like banditry or whatever preceded the cessation of economic activity and the signalpocalypse was just how people behave when they have nothing better to do. This misconception is aided by the fact that 30%ile women don’t marry 30%ile men until 50%ile men marry 50%ile women which happens after 80%ile men marry 80%ile women, which looks like cessation of marital activity leaving people with nothing to do but signal. But why do the people at the top lack virtue? Because virtue signaling is more important.

          • jim says:

            > Just look at where we are now. (Richard Dawkins is a FRS.)

            Post 1944, the FRS became the enemy of science and the scientific method. As I said, the enlightenment murdered science, gutted its corpse, and wears the body as a skin suit.

            > At the time of the enlightenment, the commitment to truth was used to attack religion because of insufficient evidence in its support (only naturalistic evidence, please)

            And what is the naturalistic evidence that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights?

            The enlightenment was the enemy of science and the scientific method from the beginning. The only difference now is that in 1944, the enlightenment smashed science and the scientific method.

            • Anonymous 2 says:

              And what is the naturalistic evidence that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights?

              The enlightenment was the enemy of science and the scientific method from the beginning. The only difference now is that in 1944, the enlightenment smashed science and the scientific method.

              I can’t say I disagree. There is quite a bit of intellectual three card monte going on.

    • jim says:

      > I don’t see why you have to have an unprovable supernatural belief mixed in there in order to make it work.

      Personal experience: Women want the authority of their alpha male to be backed by a higher alpha male. God is the ultimate higher alpha male, and is conveniently unlikely to cuckold me.

      • A.B. Prosper says:

        Even Jehovah had a son with a mortal woman. That said, if it ever happened its incredibly rare

        Taking care of children is indeed hard for a singleton but taking care of a modest home is not with technology. Its a few hours a week.

        Most of the reason that cause smaller families, lack of patriarchy et all have been well discussed with one exception, opportunity costs. Child rearing for many people is work and it takes time and money that cut into other things. Call it selfish if you like but having children is also selfish too.

        Now religion wise, its not coming back till the new dark ages and it may well be as Varg Virkirnes suggests that Christianity is incompatible software with Europeans at this point in time and going forward

        However in time knowing people, some kind of folk religion ill come about and while this won’t make it easy for the centralizers the way universal regions do, it will allow a sufficient level of patriarchy to function which is fine.

        • peppermint says:

          » Child rearing for many people is work and it takes time and money that cut into other things. Call it selfish if you like but having children is also selfish too.

          i find it difficult to believe anyone even thought this was convincing enough to be worth saying, like joy reid’s claim that a hacker blogged about faggots

          • peppermint says:

            I mean, it was said authoritatively enough that I though it was believable when I was 10

          • A.B. Prosper says:

            Learn more math peppermint.

            Urban people like the vast majority of the US and European population have options and can decide if they wish to have children and what they want to do.

            Apparently a lot of people don’t want to and it MAY be as Reason notes, ;people don’t like having kids much

            Fact is its not 1603 where the option was bang or sleep in some rural village somewhere . They can chose to do different stuff

            You don’t like this? Abolish modernity.

            Now the math.

            Using the USDA cost calculator its around 1000 a month to raise a child. Its probably less than this though and you can of course deduct 1k per year

            So lets go with 8k per year per child

            A family has three children thus has 24, 000K cash costs maybe a but less plus a fair amount of time and loss flexibility.

            An example, a couple without children can go out any time they want and do mist any activity not being constrained by child care needs, having more funds If for example said couple wants to bang in the kitchen or perform some sex act that might so long as the windows are closed and door locked, no need to worry about the kids

            Also said couple also has to be willing to take time to rear infants to a functional age which is time consuming, life altering and so on,

            Given the US from the 1930’s to current was at low (below replacement or near it) more than it was not this suggests to me that low fertility (2 at max on average is the new normal not the baby boom (which was also a lower than before TFR)

            This trend is spreading and there is nothing wrong with it since in time the population will drastically decline , get more rural and recover anyway

            My personal opinion here is that the healthy TFR is about two and change which suggests a 1/3 “child” suppression from cultural trends

            • jim says:

              No they are not free to decide.

              For to reproduce, must make an enforceable agreement, and modern people have lost freedom of contract.

              • A.B. Prosper says:

                This presumes anyone wanted that kind of contract. Given how little it took it end it , I’m not so sure.

                That said such a contract presumes conditions that are not as relevant in the modern era, for example female work having a low value to employers

                It clearly does not and in fact technology lowers the value of male work unless of course on e is willing to interfere with global capital s for the common good

                I have no problem with such myself but the politic elite are money cucks one and all

                All that aside, the West is grossly overcrowded and if we could reverse immigration, the population shrinkage would be a good thing

                • jim says:

                  Really?

                  They were unable to end marriage by democratic means, so I would not call the destruction of marriage “little”.

                  And they are currently fighting wars around the world that are in substantial part provoked by this issue.

                  As was recently said of gay marriage:

                  Legitimacy comes from widespread acceptance, not from imposition. Negative referendums, brow-beating by the media and volunteer thought police and five Supreme Court justices are not the sign of widespread acceptance.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “All that aside, the West is grossly overcrowded and if we could reverse immigration, the population shrinkage would be a good thing”

                  The problem with suicide cults is there is no off button; it doesn’t level off at a sustainable level, everyone simply dies.

                • peppermint says:

                  Female work has a vastly lower value to employers than it does to husbands. Equal pay and females in many occupations at all only exists through force. Everyone knows this, as seen through their lies.

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  Peppermint, modern technology lowers the amount of work any woman has to do to keep house which lowers her value to men

                  Dishwashers, microwaves , stoves and running water all contribute

                  As an unmarried man with no children I keep my own house and its takes me a few hours a week and in fact the only time consuming thing is cooking.

                  women are not needed to fetch water, mend clothes, and of the things traditionally that are womens labor, the take much less time than at any point in history . Its value is lower and in terms of household budgeting and working womans wages it can literally be cheaper to hire a maid a couple of times a week

                  This is not the case with the working class however

                  As for ending marriage, it was done by democratic means, states voted one by one for no fault divorce starting with I think California. That was the end of marriage

                  Homosexual marriage OTOH yeah you are right.

                  And Samuel , below replacement fertility is not a suicide cult. Its a rational adaption to conditions and once the conditions are dealt with, it will almost certainly reverse

                • jim says:

                  Below replacement fertility is not a rational adaption to conditions except in the sense that it is a rational adaption to the inability of men and women to form a binding agreement.

                  Divorce on demand was a logical and necessary adaption to the invention of “marital rape”, and “marital rape” was not introduced by democratic means.

                  Marriage was abolished by creating and normalizing the idea that wives could refuse their husbands, and husbands their wives, which program was introduced by means no more democratic than gay marriage or the right of men to be women and women to be men. Having smashed marriage by entirely undemocratic means, no fault divorce was just a mopping up operation.

                  Below replacement fertility is a response to the abolition and criminalization of marriage. Marriage, as it was understood for the last few thousand years, now constitutes “domestic abuse”.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “And Samuel , below replacement fertility is not a suicide cult. Its a rational adaption to conditions and once the conditions are dealt with, it will almost certainly reverse”

                  If it was a ‘rational adaption’ we would see fertility vary tremendously by social class, with the upper class having higher fertility then the lower orders as was historical.

                  This is not what society looks like. The elite are having less children and each generation is dumber then the one before it; in other words society is cannibalizing itself.

                  It is not possible to plan below replacement fertility that doesn’t destroy society unless you are literally liquidating the poor. Any tool used to reduce fertility will be used by the elite in their competition with each other and preferentially target them over the lower orders.

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  Given our elite are crap if they went completely extinct no one would miss them

                  In any case there are planet of smart people in the middle and working and very rarely the lower to replace them.

                  Also the US population went from 150 million to 325 in a few decades.

                  how much is enough?

                  The West doesn’t need to be rat warren like India or China and having it less crowded benefits everyone.

                  Sure yes it could possibly get stupider maybe decline from a median or a 105 among Whites to a bit lower, this will also reduce the technology that is in part causing the population decline and as an addition, the ambitious morons who invent things like nuclear weapons and CRISPR won’t be able to put the entire civilization and possibly humanity itself at risk

                  As for the traditional patriarch thing, a friend of mine is going down that route and its making him tired but happy. I don’t know how this will work for him but he’s doing it right . He’s also Mormon FWIW and gets at least some tacit support from his community

                  The thing is this does not imply that others would feel the same .

                  I’d argue the only issue that’s created any strong social backlash is abortion. Anti abortion people were able to greatly reduce physical presence of abortion clinics and abortion in areas they control by use of protest, lawfare and violece

                  No doubt the right could do this with other issues if they wish but thus far Jim is nearly the only person I’ve see that acknowledges the need for marriage reform, caveat covenant marriage in Louisiana

                  That’s a big deal,

                  My argument here is not that Jim is wrong. He’s not at all,

                  People don’t seems to be interested in making the sacrifices necessary and while people don’t seem to be very happy, this doesn’t mean the other system would be better in modernity

                  It could be tech and way of living, crammed into cities (80% of people in the US live in cities when it the ,past it was the opposite) makes people sick no matter what they choose

                  This suggests that population decline, deurbanization so long as borders can be kept should fix the problems, Population equilibrium is met, folk religions replace universal religions (which are a bad idea for anyone but the elite) and it stabilizes itself

                  The only hitch is maintaining a healthy homogeneous society, if you can’t do that you die and are replaced with mongrels

      • John Sterne says:

        I dont know when my woman says youre not the god of me and I say yes i am she sure calms down. but when she asks why why why and i say because the lord put the yoke on your neck and the whip in my hand she gets all bible quoting hamster spinning

    • torpedo says:

      > I don’t believe that and never will.

      You do not have to.

      It is sufficient if you merely publicly profess that you do.

      Religion isnt a method of determining facts about nature and it never was meant to.

      It is a method to influence the instinctive behavior of the masses, to make them do what you want them to do without thinking.

      WHO CARES whether Jesus died for our sins if repeatedly saying that makes a society work as intended?

      > why you have to have an unprovable supernatural belief mixed in there in order to make it work.

      If you mix it in, it works. If you dont mix it in, it doesnt. As long as you can make it work, make it work. Understanding why exactly it works isnt really that important as long as it works.

      > What you need is a society that openly and explicitly enforces rules that are in harmony with nature

      You cant produce such a society if you refuse to brainwash them into doing it instinctively without thinking.

      • John Sterne says:

        dont waste your breath jims is just trying to make you his bitch through religion just laugh at him reasoning with priests is pointless

  8. bruce says:

    If physical discipline of children is moral, then isn’t physical discipline of wives moral?

    • some guy says:

      pretty sure jim has a whole post on how it should be allowed but not usually actually used.

  9. Dixon says:

    So if one wants family what should they do in the meantime? Act completely alpha every minute for the next 20 years and hope she doesn’t take half your stuff?

    • jim says:

      That is the plan.

      • simplyconnected says:

        Wasn’t the way to “win” defect-defect to defect faster and harder than the other party?
        Is “acting alpha for 20 years in the hopes she doesn’t take everything away” a cooperate-defect sacrifice men have to make to sustain civilization?
        Is the sacrifice worth it? Is the current system worth propping up?
        Is that sustainable given individually it’s best to defect?

        Work hard to try to be one of lucky ones who make it to the other end (produces children with a father) while waiting for the whole damn thing to crash and burn?.. . trying to not look down at the cliff below?

        • peppermint says:

          You were told to act beta by the same people who told you to eat carbs and use people’s preferred pronouns.

          • simplyconnected says:

            Acting alpha is definitely good stuff.

            I have a neighbor who is what I can only describe as a male model, with a betaish attitude, and a girlfriend that be charitably described as plain, with a bad attitude.
            They are getting married and I bet they will stay together, because she can’t do better (but he can).

            If an average man, with a good attitude, gets an average or above average woman, I do not see how he can make it a stable arrangement when a more alpha dude shows up and she reevaluates and thinks she can do better.
            Attitude helps a lot, but I see stable pairings when the woman can’t do better. This seems to lead to a lot of wasted good genes on the female line.

            Another problem. In Europe vibrants have been spread all around. If you have a nice alpha attitude you will come across lots of men with similar alpha attitude but a lot less to loose. Why would a man who has his life in order risk an encounter with someone with very little to loose? Which man will the women choose when they see these encounters?

            • John Sterne says:

              any woman hooked into a modernity social circle is a huge risk. If you are going to take the risk of children go to a community that honors this so she knows if she leaves you she leaves it all and so no one will tell her that a good idea and she will be happy there too.otherwise eschew that and go to war when you win the war take slave bitches from the left they will obey then as they will have no choice in time they will become sane and happy again and love you

    • Dave says:

      A Samurai conquers his fear of death by meditating at length on its graphic details — severed limbs, organs punctured, blood pouring from every orifice, etc.

      Until the patriarchy is restored, men should perhaps conquer their fear of divorce by imagining the screams, soon muffled by gurgling blood, as his knife slices through skin and cartilage. Keep such thoughts to yourself of course, but the more you think them, the more you’ll take on the visage of the stone-cold killer chicks lust for.

    • Simon says:

      You do not need to “act” alpha. Acting alpha is inherently beta. Better for you, and civilisation, to simply be alpha.

      • 7817 says:

        Not possible for every man to be Alpha generally, but might be possible for every man to act alpha towards his woman. From what I understand, that’s Patriarchy.

        • Simon says:

          Please do not say act alpha. This is perhaps the core of the rot of modern society. Men do not know how to be men. They think it’s an act. Know who you are, know what you are; you do not need to act, you will simply be; and your wife will follow.

          • jim says:

            As a dancing monkey, I tell you being the real thing in this society is hard, and indeed, completely illegal. If I was the real thing, would be in jail by now. Got hauled to the cop shop for dancing a little too convincingly.

            For starters, we need to make honor killing of adulterers either legal, or a not very serious offense.

            We also need to legalize violence against white knights – provocative behavior needs to be deemed provocative.

            When the maximum sentence for killing adulterers is eighteen months, and white knighting counts as fighting words, then you can tell people to be alpha for real.

            • Simon says:

              I refuse to be a dancing monkey. What we do in life echoes through eternity, so I will not be a dancing monkey.

              I like the dictum be the change you want to see in the world. Your wife should know implicitly and/or explicitly that adultery will result in her soul making its destined journey sooner than expected, that separation is not an option, etc. If you cannot accept the consequences of enforcing these, perhaps you should reconsider marriage, and your worldview.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                My observation is that our people are worse at reproducing than blue pilled betas.

                The blue pilled betas marry the 35 year olds and some of them want three kids (for their own reasons) and get them.

                Most of our people quit the game as not worth the blind. Perhaps I don’t have a good view on it, but I think I do.

                This actually does not make much sense. The risks involved in resisting the cathedral today are less than the risks involved in being loyal to a more or less functional society if you were born in Europe in 1896, 18 years before the Great War.

      • John Sterne says:

        HMM sounds like good advice to a beta but of course genetically speaking its not true

  10. Jew613 says:

    Jews & Judaism is better off because we have a religious textual basis for Patriarchy. While most Jews are not fully observant of the law the demographics are in favor of those Jews who are and support patriarchy, honestly its a soft patriarchy but its the best option at this time. This video of the Lubavitcher Rebbe addressing feminism may just look like an old man talking about women’s proper role, but to Jews it is a holy man laying out the correct path. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw3Y7LrI4vI&t=3s

  11. Ron McCormick says:

    Missouri Synod Lutherans and Presbyterian Church in America are two Christian groups I know of that publicly and openly state that married men are the heads of their families and their wives should submit to their authority. They can only say wives should be submissive because they can’t back up their belief with coercive law. That is a power reserved to the state. They can use excommunication as a sanction.

  12. John Sterne says:

    jesus jim what a load of crap lost count of how many ridiculously assertive sentences of quantum leaps into the ether you made. all right its mare important you’re trying to justify a larger truth that things are broken so ill just strt with one of the first assertions that jumped off the page that birthrate drop is caused by female emancipation its not that this is strictly untrue but so many other things came along with female emancipation that to pick only one is to miss most of the problem. As i said its true but whats also true is you could change it tomorrow and if all sorts of other things didnt change it wouldn’t help and more importantly it wouldn’t make for a better more sustainable white civilization.
    for instance men left the home first they left the farm and sought outside work so instead of a family working together—- oh wait no thats not what happened first, first thhe nuclear family left the village and came to america for a better life so no grandparents to make child rearing kids while working and trying to enjoy your family and life all at he same time- no non non wait why would they leave that idyllic life in the rural village with the thirteen children im sure both parents were thrilled with the thirteen little kiddies and grandpa dead by 40 could it have been some disruptive economic impact socialism must have driven them out- no think it was capitalism actually and capitalism that kept driving them through stage after stage of atomization. Now we all lve us some capitalism but gotta admit its hell trad life. and that reason shit is pretty hard on the myths that reinforce trad life.
    heres an idea why dont we stop trying to lie to ourselves about the embarassing bits and trying to force fit the parts we liked like the gothic cathedrals and just start the fuck over and get real. religions dead not even a fucking puerto rican is stupid enough to believe in god anymore you want to peddle a religion youre going to have to try sub saharan africa. youre going to have to deal with this capitalism problem you might even have to subject it to culture. you cant as you put it synthesize a tribe there is a tribe and the real tribe goes all the way down so start with the real tribe race and ethnicity and work from there now start with your priorities no not fucking the 8 years olds whore that are hot for you what do you want whats your goal jim are you a techno futurist like land do you just want intelligence any intelligence to win even if its jews or machines? or what a capitalist jew like molberg just want whats good for the (((patchlords))) I mean a civilization can prioritize almost anything and one as competent as our race is might be able to still remain hegemonic whatever it decides. We could go deeper still than our genome and look at the source code of all life on earth the prime directive is each DNA is to survive at any cost and replicate by any means possible and with extra resources consider supporting the next closest iteration to the extent you are not funding your own destruction. – yeah i guess our race about covers it. so back to what do we want to do once we have obeyed the prime directive? I vote be happy. yeah i know no voting cause moldberg says only the jews get to decide cant have goyim voting they might not vote whats good for the jews. well fucck moldy i still say lets design a civilization that is hardened against competition and makes us happy. guess what capitalist jews destroying my civilization and genociding me as a species for their profit doent make me happy. no it doesnt make me a commie jew leftie either it just makes me think capitalism is not the goal of my civilization it may be a tool i use to harden my civilization against say niggers and commie anf cappy jews but its not like the point the point is i survive and its worth surviving.I know thats ridiculously complex for nrx but I think whites can handle it if they stop letting jews tell them what they should do

    • jim says:

      > the first assertions that jumped off the page that birthrate drop is caused by female emancipation its not that this is strictly untrue but so many other things came along with female emancipation

      Female emancipation came at different times in different places. Most dramatic indicator is this one If women are emancipated, cooperation between the sexes collapses, and both sexes are unable to reproduce due to defect defect equilibrium.

      Similar data from Africa and the middle east. The “demographic transition” is the emancipation of women transition. Rich or poor, war or peace, boom or bust has little effect. Saudi Arabia and Iran affirmative actioning women into university has huge effect.

      Similarly in a very different place at a very different date.

      Different dates and times, different cultures, different technology levels, but one cause always has the same dramatic effect. Nothing else matters, emancipation collapses family formation and birth rates every single time.

      Without external coercion, cannot maintain cooperate cooperate equilibrium. Without cooperation, cannot bear and raise children.
      .

      • John Sterne says:

        Jim I agree its a necessary condition and the most important ingredient, it goes without saying its been one of the lefts best weapons. But my point was because of all sorts of other factors we couldn’t actually change that one thing and even if we could it wouldn’t be enough. every aspect of leftism including female autonomy happened in stages interacting with other leftist projects along the way. And maybe even more importantly simply interacting with human developments both biological and cultural.As i have said before and you are old enough to have watched it with me, leftism is a sense was an inevitable conclusion to problems that just happened. In other words things happened for instance because technology disrupted the old ways and the most obvious ideas on how to respond to the new problem we now think of as leftism and overlay a pattern over. And yes its also true that at any given point in history we could label this crew left and that right but ahh not really all of them saw themselves as progressives. rightists dont I hope preserve the old simply because its old they hopefully are preserving what they think is the best solution making the term rightist a misnomer. I have said repeatedly we rightist because recent soviet history defend capitalism reflexively as if its irrelevant whether capitalism actually serves us and only important that the left was once anti capitalist. many of our generation were once fairly “liberal” on racial issues despite seeing ourselves as conservatives if like myself we were actually conservatives in the 60s/70s. In fact we thought of liberal race ideas as supporting conservative meritocracy and enlightenment american ism. We probably were not southerners with little experience of blacks and thought it quite possible they only needed a fair chance, certainly it seemed worth a try the cost seemingly reasonable and the alternative seemingly impossible. Yes it was simultaneously true that jews were manipulating the entire civil rights and we were being naive about the jews as well the point though it was reasonable or at least easy to think it was reasonable to be a “conservative” in favor of civil rights. If you were not you were still are essentially in favor of a constitutional crisis and declaring all men are not created equal the constitution bunk etc. well it may well be but it would be really hard in 72 to declare america a communist country and be seriously considered a conservative. If i were a serf in russia in 1900 or an irish servant in britain with a high IQ and no prospects Im not going to think some inbred morons declaring themselves inherently my demigods makes a lot of sense and when they need me to fight their family wars and man their businesses Im going to seize my opportunity it may seem I do that because some commie jew incited class envy but thats not the virus thats the symptom I take back my personal power because i can and Im a lifeform its what Im programmed to do !00 years later my grandson may have become a neoreactionary because new information. I really dont see how this afghan style subjugation of women could actually work in the world as we know it today. as you point out even in places like islam is coming apart as modernity sets in.Thats not to say maybe we ought to change everything else that would need to be changed to subjugate women. But rather that any intelligent solution to what ails us cant be some kneejerk reaction to modernity while stupidly insisting we keep the bits we like. we have to understand the whole picture and make tough choices. I use capitalism as a glaring example because while i love me some wealth and get the usefulness of capitalism to produce it. Its far more responsible for the deconstruction of western civilization the socialism in fact socialism cant even exist outside a capitalist frame. al the way down is our biologic which for whites and most life is both capitalist and socialist depending on situation, so lets let go of our 70s anti soviet idea of cap/soc and get to the biological root.They can both be strategies to satisfy prime directive, they both have downsides under certain conditions.Ok as neorightists we now mean not anti leftists but realists. what do we want to do, do we want to subjugate women because we just like subjugating shit or because we think its the only way to satisfy he prime directive to survive and replicate enough to rinse repeat? Im going to pause here and say Im not so sure whites wouldnt be better off with not growing their population from here and rather expelling the nigger rces from our continents and enjoying the luxury of space defended by superior technology. But maybe there is an secondary or tertiary order of reason to subjugate women, i think we agree there is its the biologically evolved natural order and so will make women and men happier. But all evolved apes have different approaches to this larger truth whites have never really had a culture that considered women beasts. even when it was the technical law it was not the usual practice but more of safety mechanism in case of those who could not be relied upon to culturally adjust according to particular situation. situation for instance is going to vary a lot by class before industrial revolution, part of whats happened is our entire white population is pretty much living better than kings, so their women are living the more emancipated lives of aristocratic women. yeah yeah yeah we could change this say roll it back to what 1500 1700 ( sorry i dont realy subcribe to your neat little dtes because queen anne i mean at all times in euroman history we can point to women as emancipated for all intents and purposes as todays, england the NRX ideal has had almost uninterrupted female rule forever, dont like greek or roman history read the decameron shakespeare, its not just women its our animals our children our foreign guests and ourselves we attempt to fine tune to a greater degree maximum freedom for maximum results and its worked until outsiders bent on our destruction exploited what has been our edge and made it our achilles heel. we cant just dial back to some trad christianity anr afghan social policy we nee to reassess the world as it is what went wrong and how whites can again regain an edge, I do think women will in that solution be technically subjugated I dont think for a minute we could ever succeed with an afghan model it will be more like they voluntarily submit to their biological reality again happily and for that to happen we are going to have to completely redesign white civilization not in a adversarial reactionary way but in a cooperative way that begins by thinking about what is going to make us happy. what degree of capitalism or whatever else do we need to maintain absolute planetary hegemony and what can we afford to exchange in return for life being satisfactory to the white people. newsflash bezos billions dont actually make me happy, I like his service though but he is getting a free ride i need to think about the art of the deal with capitalists. but this would go for all the actors in our civilization I like art and understand like capital controls art controls can destroy the intended purpose, but on the other hand artists that use that freedom to destroy civilization need to get renegotiated. but cooperatively renaissance artists didn’t crete the great art because the state had a gun to their head but because they also took joy in their civilization they were in it with their people. Jim this is why all of you NRX have to understand that white nationalism is not always about national socialists haters and low cog trash looking for an esteem boost its a necessary condition for white civilization nay for whites continued existence. the fact is we are a hot house race, we need a asfe operating base, frankly i think we should have made the entire planet a white planet about 1900 when it became apprrent the rest of the species was not needed. in the end we will have to it a waste of resources to maintain dominance over the lesser races. but for now the nly solution is to start by simply asking our guests to please go home, right there you have cut off 40% of the vote for leftism and the jew brains of the outfit. I suppose those jews who wish to renounce their jewness declare themselves white nationalist and submit to the white centric cultural norms that will make their continued ability to identify as jews impossible could stay. If we dont do this womens emancipation is going to be the least of our worries the asian question will be the big problem and make the jew question laughably small in indsight

        • jim says:

          > leftism is a sense was an inevitable conclusion to problems that just happened

          Nothing inevitable about it. There have been holiness spirals before, and there will be holiness spirals again.

          Different priestly factions declare different things holy in order to differentiate themselves from other priestly factions. Power struggles ensue, and what gets declared holy depends on who wins. Will man boy sex be declared the most holy thing in the world tomorrow, or the worst thing in the world tomorrow? Who can tell? If people knew what was going to be the next big left wing cause, it would already be the next big left wing cause.

        • jim says:

          > If i were a serf in russia in 1900 or an irish servant in britain with a high IQ and no prospects Im not going to think some inbred morons declaring themselves inherently my demigods makes a lot of sense

          Serfdom was abolished in Russia in 1860, and its abolition was as big a disaster for the serfs of Russia as the abolition of slavery was a disaster for the blacks in the United States.

          It is extremely rare that able, industrious, and virtuous people are unfairly locked out of upward social mobility. Russian serfs had plenty of opportunity to climb the social ladder.

          It is extremely common that evil people manipulate poor people by promising them that they can become rich by smashing and grabbing other people’s stuff, but after the smash and grab is done, the poor people find themselves worse off than before.

          Getting the masses on the street by promising them smash and grab, while holding the cops back, whether in Russia or in Ferguson, is just theater. It is caused by leftists taking power, it is demonstration of victory by one conspiracy of priests over another conspiracy of priests. It does not cause leftists to take power.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            Napoleon III’s redesign of Paris demonstrates that a *lot* of mob democracy actually was a local phenomenon. In America, gradually pushing blacks out of DC with affirmative action jobs in Maryland has also reduced the influence of the Jesse Jackson wannabes. Homosexuals have a lot of political power just because they’re attracted to dense cities for sex, and they stay and work for the civil service jobs. “All politics is local” makes a lot of sense to explain all of this.

            Street protests aren’t just theater. Lots of people living near each other to walk to work every day instead of commuting by car leads to political power in a republic. It’s what politicians call “ground game” and it truly works. Marches are the most influential spectacle possible and tubby, squatty little suburban cucks with beer guts and chicken legs aren’t going to change this anytime soon.

            Russian serfs went through hell for about a century before finally achieving urbanization. Living physically close to politicians forces them to respect the will of the people.

            Curiously, the intellectual class that benefits the most from legitimate order needs cities the least, the “republic of letters”. My working theory is that leftist intellectuals seize power by making meritocracy so strict that only nasty cheaters make it into elite universities, outright negative returns rather than diminishing returns to difficult entrance exams. This is how the thug class, the underclass student protesters, steal power and authentic traditional authority away from actual philosophers.

            Maybe the philosophers should hang out with the sophists more. The money people are better at sniffing out cheaters. It was a temporary phenomenon of rapid industrialization and urbanization (of the non-political type) that shifted the meritocracy game such that so many cheaters won power, but that time has passed.

            Weirdly enough, it is the right wing that is obsessed with good school districts always far away from the cities and which has a naive belief in meritocracy. Conservatives are their own worst enemies and the left just has to show up in the right position, confused but confident, and osmosis and gravity and history all just line up in their favor.

            • jim says:

              > Russian serfs went through hell for about a century before finally achieving urbanization. Living physically close to politicians forces them to respect the will of the people

              The emancipation of the serfs did not happen because of Russian serfs crying out for the emancipation of the serfs, but because of London intellectuals crying out for the emancipation of the serfs. Had London intellectuals been crying out for land rights for gay whales, gay whales would have received land rights.

              The emancipation of the serfs was just a priestly fashion accessory.

              > My working theory is that leftist intellectuals seize power by making meritocracy so strict that only nasty cheaters make it into elite universities

              Not seeing this meritocracy. The left has been dumbing down the entrance requirements to elite universities since 1870.

              When they removed analogies from the SAT, they told us that the typical ivy leaguer is no longer able to handle analogies.

              • Anonymous Fake says:

                If meritocracy weren’t rigged, naive and docile Swedish Americans who always work the hardest without any complaints would utterly dominate the elite institutions and the Supreme Court would be majority Lutheran. All court decisions would favor nice beta males who play by the rules, the engineers and accountants of society who yield such a high return to fair play that they more than make up for the con artists in their wake.

                I’m saying this isn’t happening and it’s obvious now. The rank and file ordinary Puritan is the biggest loser, no longer useful, and industrialization is passing into history so there just isn’t a need for as many engineers and accountants. The elites are beginning to look and smell funny.

                Forget absurdities like SAT analogy questions. The real test is paying off the right authority figures to rack up the highest score and cut down your political rivals’ scores. If the SAT were taken at face value, there would be entire schools of Swedish American cucks averaging 1550 or whatever and dominating the establishment. This, put bluntly, doesn’t ****ing happen. So we have guilt culture cafeteria Catholics and reform Jews on the Supreme Court instead, and they’re running the place.

          • peppermint says:

            » It is extremely rare that able, industrious, and virtuous people are unfairly locked out of upward social mobility.

            this is what fuels the alt-right

            • jim says:

              > > It is extremely rare that able, industrious, and virtuous people are unfairly locked out of upward social mobility.

              > this is what fuels the alt-right

              OK, it was rare until leftists started massive social engineering. The dumbing down of the SAT indicates that it is no longer rare.

            • Anonymous Fake says:

              Indeed. It makes you wonder just how rigged things are when objectively brilliant math PHD’s without (((connections))) somehow never make above 1450 or so on the SAT (raw, unadjusted SAT scores might matter about as much as raw real climate data, not one bit), and why they’re dirt poor non-tenure professors while airhead business bimbos always seem to find great careers. The naive grinder outer party Puritan is being liquidated.

              At some point, the top heavy cheaters are going to run out of true believers to milk, due to the maturing industrial economies no longer needing so many nerdy science types. The postmodern parasite poseurs who won power due to the demand for legitimately talented modernists will soon be like vampires who have run out of villagers. In a lot of ways, women and their preference for anything but beta males (alpha or omega doesn’t matter) are ahead of the arc of history.

              • jim says:

                A side effect of jacking the SAT to improve the scores of “underepresented” groups (without however reducing the scores of a certain overrepresented group) is that a whole lot of obviously very smart people get mediocre SAT scores.

                • Anonymous Fake says:

                  I suspect the legitimate elites are deliberately allowing the universities to become postmodern demographic shredders for obnoxious minorities who hit puberty earlier and thus menopause earlier (education relatively cuts off more of their reproductive life), and yet what is so perverse is that high stress preppy K-12 education can be what triggers an r-selected metabolism and life strategy in the first place. This is just one of many causes of how Swedes and other naive strivers become Africanized/Arabized, in some sense at first, and eventually the literal sense. They become culturally r-selected, but infertile, and thus they need immigrants and they choose the most r-selected immigrants available to replace themselves.

                  What angers me so much is that the right wing largely feeds this system and the left just shows up. The right will grill their kids in school because they’re obsessed with “good school districts” and real estate values tied to their children’s performance in school. Actual learning and socialization become an afterthought and the cultural Marxists fill in this vacuum. The elites of the right, and believe it or not that includes bloggers like you, need to communicate this. Education is no longer valuable because the top 10% of talent are no longer so useful to a newly industrialized economy such that they make up for the damage done by the “top 1%” cheater elites.

                  And just like abortion, using deliberate waste of time education as a scheme to sterilize troublesome minorities is ultimately immoral. It’s a Frankenstein monster that turns on its master.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  >They become culturally r-selected, but infertile, and thus they need immigrants and they choose the most r-selected immigrants available to replace themselves.

                  Anonymous Conservative isn’t a serious thinker – don’t take him seriously.

                  Talking about r vs K other than in the context of differences between racial and ethnic groups is just stupid because within groups his hypothesis is flatly false – leftists act more like K and rightists act more like r.

                • peppermint says:

                  》the legitimate elites are deliberately
                  haha no

                  》allowing the universities to become postmodern demographic shredders
                  (1) college is great (2) everyone should go. It’s automatic.

        • jim says:

          I really dont see how this afghan style subjugation of women could actually work in the world as we know it today. as you point out even in places like islam is coming apart as modernity sets in.

          “Modernity setting in” might have something to do with the Cathedral bombing the crap out of groups that enforce the proper roles of men and women, and enforce cooperate/cooperate equilibrium between the sexes.

          • John Sterne says:

            Or iphones and jet planes and urbanization. women on farms dont emancipate themselves. I actually do own a farm as well as a NYC house but im not saying we can go back in fact im saying we cant simply do anything including coming up with simplistic reasons begging simplistic solutions if nrx is to be an actually serious thing it needs to be a lot more honest about its biases which i share and about how really difficult the problem is. I guess Im now Wn because i think thats massively simplifies the problem in a HBD grounded way there is no reality more real than HBD so start from the lowest common denominator of reality and keep your problem from unnecessary force multiplying.

  13. Glenfilthie says:

    There are so churches that adhere to traditional family values, I am a member of one. They’re around, you have to look for them. I don’t think you’ll have any luck forcing women to do anything. The divorce and rape courts are filled with guys getting raped and divorced for trying to dominate their women.

    Women have to ACCEPT their family roles. Which – I think many of them well once they’ve brought the roof down on western civilization.

    • peppermint says:

      Women want to accept family roles. Taylor Swift has tons of songs about marriage.

      But they also want alpha seed, and alphas don’t pick one and leave the marketplace until they’re 35, because they don’t start a career until they have a masters degree.

      Execute the academics.

    • jim says:

      > There are so churches that adhere to traditional family values, I am a member of one.

      Bullshit.

      Your church hates you, hates men, hates fathers, and hates families.

      Your church hates God in his identity as as God the father, replacing him with Jesus is my boyfriend.

      Your church celebrates divorce and single motherhood. Its marital sacrament is false, without implication or commitment to permanence.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        No BS. I have seen those that do all those things and wouldn’t have anything to do with them. Fact is, my wife just got back from a women’s conference stressing the importance of Godly women, and how they are to conduct themselves. From what I read of it, I couldn’t see one thing wrong with it. In my church they walk the walk. I am there for the people, more than the scripture, so to speak. Finer people I have never met.

        Nevertheless, Christianity is not to blame for our crazy women. The church did not corrupt them, it was actually the other way around. There is nothing at all wrong with the bible as it now stands. If you replace your faith with chithouse ideologies as the liberals did, I strongly suspect you’ll end up in the same lunatic asylum as they are.

        I will be interested to watch as our little congregation grows. Word is spreading and more people are coming in these days. We already had one femcnut take a run at the pulpit and she was soundly rejected. She decided to learn us all a lesson, I guess, and stormed off in a snit. There are bound to be other SJW incursions in the future and I will be interested in seeing how our group fares.

        • jim says:

          If your church has a “women’s conference” it is your enemy and hates you.

          Women don’t do large group socialization successfully. The natural order of human groups is that you have a group of males attached to each other, and women and children are attached to those males.

          Three women is a competition to see which two of them will gang up on the third.

          What did she learn that Godliness consisted of in a wife? What are the sins characteristic and common among wives?

          • Glenfilthie says:

            They don’t do large group association?

            LOL.

            And yet, our gals group together in large numbers and socialize like the charming women they are. They plan and execute small community charity and support projects, and they take part in the community too. Again, I couldn’t see one thing wrong or bad about it. Not trying to start a pissing match, I’m just saying what I’ve seen.

            Why does all that offend you, Jim?

            • peppermint says:

              Have you tried asking one of them how she feels about the others, and comparing with discussing with a man how he feels about the other men at his job or group?

              • Glenfilthie says:

                They raise and care for each other’s children, P-Mint. I dunno if that means anything to you, but to me – it speaks volumes.

                • jim says:

                  So, what do they teach are the chief and most common failings of women and wives?

                  If it is not interrupting and speaking over their husbands, if it is not dishonoring and disobeying, if it is not attending church bareheaded, you have a problem.

            • jim says:

              You are deluded. Women are not doing that stuff. Your enemies are manipulating your women against you.

              They are not getting up to that stuff by themselves, any more than “Black Lives Matter” was.

              • Glenfilthie says:

                I dunno Jim. From where I am sitting, I am seeing the beginnings of a revolt. Younger women are seeing those cat ladies and old lesbians and they don’t want that for themselves. They want husbands, they want home schooling, and they don’t want their kids getting into drugs, premarital sex, and all the other stuff that goes with shitlib culture. For me it’s great – I feel like I’m right back in the 1950’s.
                Personally I hope the revolt spreads – and you boys see a bit of it too.

                • jay says:

                  If premarital sex occurs. Then shotgun wedding unless the father absolutely refuses to give her to the suitor who must still pay bride price.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          “Nevertheless, Christianity is not to blame for our crazy women. The church did not corrupt them, it was actually the other way around.”

          Women have always been crazy and self centered. The problem isn’t the flood waters; the problem is people have been sabotaging levee repairs.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Not so. The pioneers that came west brought practical, smart, hard working women that thrived in conditions that would probably kill you.

            During the world wars, they kept the civilian side of their countries going while their men were off at war.

            Agree that a lot of our women are batshit crazy these days… But from what I’m seeing here, maybe the boys aren’t doing that well either…

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              “The pioneers that came west brought practical, smart, hard working women that thrived in conditions that would probably kill you.”

              And? Aborigines can survive in the Outback but no one doubts they are dumber then paint thinner.

              “During the world wars, they kept the civilian side of their countries going while their men were off at war.”

              women’s workforce participation/share of workforce

              1940 28% 25.2%
              1945 37% 29.2%

              “But from what I’m seeing here, maybe the boys aren’t doing that well either…”

              Yes, now consider what is different between the two situations. One is the result of constant and systematically hostile forces while the other is the result of constant ego stroking and the removal of control.

          • jim says:

            One such levee being the requirement that women be veiled in Church.

            • Mitch says:

              Jim, I cannot believe that you continue to blatantly ignore the relative success the Orthodox Church of Eastern Europe has had on these questions of feminism in the church. Have you been paying any attention to the revitalization of the faith in that corner of the world at all? The only one of the patriarchs that seems pozzed is the Ecumenical Patriarch, which while not ideal, is not the end of the world as long as the rest of the church stands strong.

              Does this look fucking pozzed to you?
              http://orthochristian.com/112513.html

              • jim says:

                What is the orthochristian position on “marital rape”?

                Wifely obedience?

                Women covering their heads in Church?

                Woman in positions of authority in front of men in the Church?

                And when I ask what the position is, I don’t mean the official position kept in the basement in a locked cabinet behind the water heater with a rusting lock that ceased to function a generation ago, I mean if a woman attends church, what gets preached at her?

                • Mitch says:

                  While I cant say that I know their position on marital rape, I do know that they encourage veil-wearing and that a decent amount of women follow it when they go. Its not required though, so I am not surprised to see some of them not doing it. That same site I linked you to has a number of articles showing their absolute and utter opposition to women priests as well. As for wifely obedience, hell, the article I linked you to is pretty damn close to your textbook example of a “Christian husband leading the obedient wife”.

                  I am not saying there is no pozz, I saw an article about an “Orthodox Center for LGBT Studies” at Fordham University. So yes, the pozz is there. But we could say that for anything. In comparison to all the others, this one stands relatively strong. This probably has to do with it not being in the West.

                • jim says:

                  > I am not saying there is no pozz, I saw an article about an “Orthodox Center for LGBT Studies” at Fordham University. So yes, the pozz is there. But we could say that for anything.

                  And that is the problem. They are all pozzed.

                  > In comparison to all the others, this one stands relatively strong

                  Sure. But ‘relatively strong” is not strong – is not the Christianity that existed within living memory. Supporting the Orthodox is like supporting George Bush because he was a substantial improvement over Bill Clinton.

    • bruce says:

      Do they veil their heads in Church? All of them (not optional). This practice was universal until the twentieth century. It is a simple, plain command. Paul anticipates (and rejects) their objection to it.
      This practice demonstrates that they are in subjection to man who is in subjection to God (it also allows the woman to symbolize the Church as the spotless bride of Christ -holy things are veiled, not revealed.)
      I am not aware of many denominations that follow this practice. A few Latin mass Catholics, maybe a few Eastern Orthodox??, a few traditional Anabaptists.
      They could institute this practice as mandatory in their Churches. It’s not like corporal punishment where the authorities would automatically get involved.
      If they don’t veil their women, they don’t respect you and your authority.

      • peppermint says:

        Perfect. If I ever bring my woman to church, she’ll be wearing a veil.

        • glosoli says:

          If every Western man started attending church and insisting his woman wore a veil and kept silent, we’d win the battle very quickly indeed.

          So do it men.

          • peppermint says:

            The churches that currently exist are controlled by the enemy through taxes, the nature of priests to say what they need to for promotions, and hatespeech laws (hatespeech from pastors has been illegal since the Civil Rights Act).

            Giving them power is suicide. We must remove the tax incentives and build new churches at the very least.

            • glosoli says:

              Yep, start our own is the answer.

              • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

                Yep, denomination #43,001.

                churchrelevance.com/qa-list-of-all-christian-denominations-and-their-beliefs/

                When you get half as successful as the World Mission Society Church of God headquartered in Bundang, South Korea, let me know, I’ll join.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        At ours they do wear veils or sometimes hats. I don’t know if it is a better g deal or not.

        • bruce says:

          What denomination? I’ve been to just about all of them and the only ones I’ve seen practice this are Latin Mass Catholics. I hear some Orthodox do as well.

  14. glosoli says:

    Just read the bible.
    God dictates that women are subject to men.
    He dictates marriage laws and other laws concerning male and female relationships.
    He dictates rules that make society cohesive and patriarchical.

    The height of foolishness to ignore what is good and true and just and think about something else.

    And we’ll never get close to a good society anyway if we ignore Jehovah’s laws and commands.

    Listen to these two chapters, especially 28, and you’ll see why Planned Parenthood are running amok, it’s because God curses the nation (including the fruits of thy bodies):

    http://www.earnestlycontendingforthefaith.com/King%20James%20Bible%20Audio/Deuteronomy%2026.mp3

    http://www.earnestlycontendingforthefaith.com/King%20James%20Bible%20Audio/Deuteronomy%2028.mp3

    So, either do it right, obey the laws, make a covenant with God, and He’ll bless you, or think you’re smarter and remain cursed.

    I suspect, sadly, that like Pharaoh, humanity is too stiff-necked currently to be saved. Maybe in a 100 years we will have woken up again. Amen.

    • Oog en Hand says:

      The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom. Wager of Pascal…

      Political Correctness:

      Not being able to see unpleasant truths, not being allowed to say unpleasant truths.

      Unpleasant truth No. 1:

      HELL IS ETERNAL!!!

      • peppermint says:

        Pascal’s Wager is an atheists’s argument made for the purpose of not causing trouble in a culture with a dying god, and St. Anselm’s is a naive Christian academic’s argument that makes god ridiculous, as academics want to do.

        Gods existence only makes sense as part of a weltanschauung, which is deeper than an individual’s up or down answer to Christ or atheism, the only acceptable answers in the West. The currently dominant weltanschauung is neither atheistic nor Christian. It is deeply superstitious.

      • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

        Hell, the half-dead daughter of Loki who rules over the underworld—a figurative illustration of the grave—is forever.

        And there is nothing unpleasant in realizing that.

        Now ask yourself, if you dare face unpleasant truths, how did a Nordic Hell get into European translations of a Jewish magic book?

    • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

      Just read the bible? Alright.

      “And ye are those forsaking Jehovah, Who are forgetting My holy mountain, Who are setting in array for God a table, And who are filling for Meni a mixture.” (Isaiah 65:11)

      Jehovah, the Jewish deity, hates God, a non-Jewish deity. Just read the Bible.

      And do ask yourself how ancient pagan European deities like Hell and God found their way into European translations of a Jewish magic book.

      • glosoli says:

        Your translation of the bible is clearly erroneous.
        Isaiah 65 is very clear.
        Perhaps you have been hugging too many trees today?

        Be glad that Christianity made Europe great. Not just in terms of power, but justice and faith and love.

        Before that Europe were savages.

  15. TJ's Ghost says:

    Jim: “Anti patriarchal Christianity is a self contradiction”

    Jesus: “For I have come to set a man against his father.”

    Jim: “mission of promoting cooperation within the family”

    Jesus: “If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

    Jim: “have an old age surrounded by children”

    Jesus: “He who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

    Christianity is to family values what a BMW E46 is to a boat. Sure, you can modify a BMW E46 to float like this guy did, but it’s still not a boat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifBuJiTXdqM Cars are for driving on land. Christianity is for people who despise real life and want saved from reality with an afterlife fantasy.

    It’s time to get a boat if you really want to float.

    And if you want a pro-family, pro-European religion, it’s time to abandon the invasive Jews First (Romans 1:16) cult.

    • glosoli says:

      You (like many others) do not comprehend that Jesus had a very specific mission at the time He was with us. He’ll have a very different mission next time He visits.

      Like now, people were drifting away from God and His laws.
      He knew that they had to return to God to rebuild the faith.

      In doing this, He knew there would be inter-family conflict, but that ultimately the family would be strengthened the world over. As it subsequently was.

      It is entirely supportive of family and patriarchy to follow God’s will, on earth as in heaven. Obviously, it’s God’s natural set up, and God is always coherent.

      • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

        Yours is a perfect demonstration of my point, that the words of Jesus can be creatively interpreted and twisted to mean whatever anybody wants them to mean, just like a car can be made into a boat.

        Christianity was originally an other-wordly salvation cult that despised this world and the cares of this world—including family.

        • jim says:

          That is gnosticism, not Christianity. Now perhaps Christianity was originally gnostic – that is what the gnostics tells us, and may be it is true.

          Paul, however, is not gnostic, unambiguously telling Christians to invest in their families: He clearly intends to build a church that grows in substantial part by biological expansion. The gnostics vanished – maybe they were heretics and false to the original intent of Christianity, maybe only those Christian Churches that supported the family survived.

          Paul has a foot in both camps, and Christianity has a foot in both camps, which adds weight to the gnostic story, but Paul’s Christianity demands family, and that one performs one’s obligations to family.

          • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

            Paul’s Christianity demands family? Now that’s funny!

            “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” -St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7:1)

            “Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.” -St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7:28)

            • glosoli says:

              Oh, you’re one of those who carefully selects and misrepresents quotes out of context from St Paul.

              Such a losers game to play. Sad.
              Back to your trees, they miss your hugs.

              • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

                glosoli, you are a liar. Out-of-context has an actual meaning, and I did not take anything Paul wrote out of context. You’re just raging that a couple quotes from St. Paul utterly destroys your false narrative about the Jew Testament being pro-family, which it is not.

                Back to my trees? Do you despise the forests of Europe with your middle-eastern desert-cult addled mind?

                • jim says:

                  Paul says enough things that you can torture is text by using one phrase to abolish all the others.

                  Paul writes enough on family that we know what his position is, and it is unambiguously pro family and against priestly celibacy – celibacy is an option, and that option is not for everyone, and not recommended for Bishops.

                • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

                  Does that mean you’re going to “torture” a pro-family position for the Jew Testament from the singular exhortation (found in two places) that a Bishop not have a harem, while completely ignoring the many examples of Paul’s and Jesus’ anti-sex and anti-family advice? I thought so, as you have below.

                  By your lights, Karl Marx is a capitalist, because he once called communism state capitalism.

                • glosoli says:

                  ‘You’re just raging that a couple quotes from St. Paul utterly destroys your false narrative about the Jew Testament being pro-family, which it is not.’

                  I see that one of us is raging.
                  One of us hates something good and true, whilst longing for barbaric days of old.

                  Relax, those days are returning, and when they do perhaps you will reflect on the glory of Jehovah’s ways and laws.

                • TJ's Ghost says:

                  There’s glosoli again, promoting Jewish solutions for naughty Goyim. At least we know where your loyalty lies.

                • glosoli says:

                  If you had just one tiny iota of understanding of the bible, you’d know why the Jews would love to ban Christianity, burn the whole Torah and the New Testament, and destroy all of that history.

                  The whole bible is literally anti-Semitic. Jehovah literally curses them. Several times. Almost wholly terrible people.

                  The one God who created everything is not Jewish.

                  You’re a very sad young man, a lonely sort of guy no doubt, possibly German, who likes to blame all of your woes on the Jews. And you somehow think the bible is pro-Jewish, so you hate that too, and you project that hatred onto God himself.

                  Rarely has such blatant ignorance of a text been so clearly displayed as by your comments, but at least your motivation is clear now, you’re just another Jew-hater.

                  Ah well, you won’t be the last.

            • jim says:

              Paul also tells us, commanding the Church to select and appoint Bishops:

              1. This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
              2. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
              3. Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
              4. One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
              5. (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

              Which implies that a Bishop should set a personal example of family and patriarchy.

              Yes, you can drag some fragments out of context, and use them to turn the rest of the text upside down and back to front, but Paul was no gnostic.

              And here he is saying much the same thing again:

              1. To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
              2. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
              3. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

              Which again implies that a Bishop should set a personal example of family and patriarchy.

              • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

                Thanks for demonstrating the thin gruel of a “pro-family” Jew Testament which consists of:

                1. Quote the single (found in two places) exhortation against a bishop having a harem.

                2. Ignore the several examples of Jesus and Paul railing against sex and marriage in the most certain anti-sex, anti-marriage, anti-child terms. It’s as if they do not even exist. Poof!

                • glosoli says:

                  You make yourself look silly by lying.

                  Jesus on marriage:

                  ‘4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’

                  Some are born to be single He also says. Big deal, that’s true. Go forth and multiply God said, much bigger deal.

    • Roberto says:

      Jesus’ message of “you need to hate everything” sounds quite hardcore, actually.

      You know, as I go over this exchange, I wonder to myself: what is TJG afraid of? what are his desires in life? what does he hope to achieve by doing the things which he is doing?

      Let’s see if I can guess TJG’s psychological profile.

      First, it is clear that TJG has a spiritual side to him. Otherwise he would not be so emotionally invested in discussing the Norse gods. They must speak to him on a very deep level. This is not a ‘Neo-Pagan’ who is in it for the trollz and the LARPz. He’s for real.

      Secondly, it is glaringly obvious that TJG is convinced — rightly or not — that Christianity is the cause of much suffering in his own personal life, past and perhaps present also. Given his focus on Jesus’ supposed disdain for sexuality, he probably ascribes some of his “issues” (past or present) with sex to Christianity.

      It seems that his motivation stems more from his own personal, individual circumstances than from a dispassionate, cool-headed analysis. It is notable that he is not very concerned with collective ideologies such as WN. Yes, he appeals to WN sentiments, but that is more of a smokescreen for his *real* desire to stick it to Christianity.

      If I were to devise a strategy to defeat TJG, I would not use shaming. He appears to be a rather atomized and lonely individual, so calling him e.g. “treehugger” is just not going to be very effective.

      There is reason to believe that TJG is very much afraid of the “immanence of death,” and the more he proclaims to not be afraid of it, the more it is clear he is afraid of it. (This is an old cheat code I’m revealing here) For TJG, the pleasures of the material world provide an escape from his terrible fear of death. The connection to sexuality — perhaps hypersexuality — should be obvious.

      TJG can definitely be intimidated. Anyone seeking to bring him down should present a credible and imminent threat to him. Key word being “credible”: if you’re just going to yell at him angrily, you shouldn’t even bother.

      TJG seeks to persuade the people in this blog to turn against Christianity. Any success would motivate him to continue this activity, while failure — such as making people *more sympathetic* to Christianity — will surely make him abandon the mission and go elsewhere, eventually.

      That said, beneath the vitriol he enjoys debating with Christians; he gets an ego boost each time he believes that he has shown his rich and *superior* Biblical knowledge.

      It has been noted that people who lash out at a religion are often motivated by childhood trauma and yes, sexual frustration. That isn’t some unfounded Freudian bullshit – this is how it actually is. This is not to say that TJG is e.g. a “kissless virgin” or something. It is likely however that his teen-age years were spent in loneliness, so that even if he gets laid right now, it doesn’t really compensate for his sexless teen years – which he blames on Christianity. This is of course a wild conjecture, but seems plausible.

      His gripe being that Christianity is anti-family, it is fair to assume that TJG does not have a great family life, or used to not have a great family-life most of his life.

      TJG would like to see anti-Christianity spread in the world, because he identifies Christianity with various things which he hates *on a personal level*, and “healing the world” by striking at Christianity is a way for him to try to heal his own wounded self.

      You may think that my conclusions are far-fetched, but then think yourself: what would motivate someone to spend this amount of energy into quoting/referencing dozens of Biblical verses just to show how bad Christianity is? At the very least, TJG is not a very well-adjusted individual; but going beyond that broad observation, it seems likely he really believes that he has the truth (Norse gods) on his side, that Christianity has hurt him and made his life miserable — possibly miserable in the sense of lacking intimacy — and that it is hurting other people too, and that what he needs to do, and wants to do, is to destroy Christianity so that the world (a reflection of his own personal life) would be free of the bad things which he identifies with Christianity.

      There is also a clear element of revenge here, obviously. Furthermore, it is an issue of “making justice”: TJG wants the world to finally, at last, *recognize* how bad Christianity is, because — so he feels — it might give him a sense of comfort if everyone could feel sympathy towards his own personal pain by sharing his own convictions.

      In other words: he wants you to hate Christianity, because he wants you to feel, understand, and sympathize with *his pain*.

      Is that correct, TJG? Or did I miss the mark by a kilometer?

      • The Cominator says:

        TJG will most likely respond by accusing you of being a jew…

        • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

          Was Jesus a European or a Jew?

          Was Paul a European or a Jew?

          Why are you unwilling to face up to simple facts?

      • The Cominator says:

        I don’t know why anyone would go on an NRx blog to continously attack Christianity, NRxers are often not Christians.

        We are just people who know that religion abhors a vacuum and know that both progressivism and Islam need to be stopped… and Christianity would be better.

        • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

          I agree that jerry-rigged Christianity has done ok sometimes for Europe, especially when it completely ignores the original anti-family, anti-sex, anti-child, anti-European Jewish influence in the Jew Testament.

          But the title of this blog is about replacing or fixing Christianity. To replace or fix Christianity, we have to know what’s wrong with it.

          I’m showing you what’s wrong with it.

          Why is that a problem?

      • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

        > it is fair to assume that TJG does not have a great family life

        Lie.

        Which is what your ilk always do.

        Why is that?

        • Roberto says:

          It is likely that for the better part of your life (not necessarily including the present day), you had struggled to form a family or — which is really the point — have *any* kind of lasting intimacy at all;

          that you blame this personal difficulty to gain intimacy specifically on the “Jew Testament,” possibly as a result of growing up in a very Christian environment;

          and that this is (in large part) the source of your extreme sperging-out in this blog.

          • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

            It’s likely that you personally are a Never-Trumper, molest sheep and are AIDs Pozitive, which I derived from the same sort of psychological profile that you used–divining a pile of horseshit.

            Which brings to mind how you’re completely incompetent at actually discussing any relevant topic here on the blog.

            Guess what that makes you.

Leave a Reply