The Logos has risen

On Easter Sunday we recollect the victory of Christ.

Most times, people at Easter reflect on resurrection as as the promise of the next world, but this is the Dark Enlightenment. Let us reflect on the victory of Logos. A man can be killed, even an idea can be killed, but the truth will not stay dead.

Our officially unofficial State Religion of progressivism is hostile to truth and at war with telos, logos, and reality itself. Gnon is the personification of order, telos, and logos, while Satan is the personification of disorder, perversion, and lies. No one can be relied on to speak truthfully and candidly if under his true name connected to job that can be destroyed and face that can be beaten in. Statistics always lie. Anonymous anecdote is the most reliable source, and it is not all that reliable.

So, what do we do?

We know the truth, live the truth, and so far as is safe to do so, speak the truth. When others lie, and it is dangerous to contradict them, we withhold the appearance of assent, the form and appearance of consent.

The problem with giving assent is not just that we required to hate ourselves our ancestors and the accomplishments of our civilization, to make ritual public denunciations of those things, it is that giving assent to evil hurts one’s mind. It strips away the strength to hold yourself together. Hence the high rate of madness among leftists.

It is highly effective to conceptualize the establishment of cooperate/cooperate relationships as obedience to Gnon. Works with my wife, works with my contractors. This leads naturally to conceptualizing the disobedient wife, the contractor who fails to properly attach the tiles, the contractee who pays late or not at all, as agents or worshippers of the other guy. In some cases, EU, Epstein, and Hillary Clinton, literal worshipers.

Thus, in the context of establishing cooperate/cooperate relationships, demonizing the enemy as Satanists or agents of Satan, works, because demonizing them as Satanists establishes that you and the person you hope to cooperate with are adherents of a common tribe with a supreme alpha male in charge of that tribe.

Conceptualizing the ingroup as adherents of Gnon facilitates cooperation, because people are apt to demonstrate superior holiness by praising Gnon and proclaiming adherence to his laws. Hence I always invoke Old Testament law when commending the killing of unfaithful wives and their lovers or promising a contractor prompt payment and, when reminding my wife to honor and obey, invoke the New Testament and her marriage troth. So it is metaphorically accurate to conceptualize in this fashion even when it is not literally accurate.

We are biologically adapted to cooperate on the basis of shared faith, and old type Christianity is the most functional religion for cooperation.

If you are blue pilled, you are not likely to get laid or marry a fertile age woman. If you are red pilled without being darkly enlightened, the red pill will make you ill. You need a red pilled ideology with the empirical red pill.

If you take the red pill, while adhering to blue pilled moral values and political beliefs, you are apt to wind up black pilled, behaving self destructively (“Men going their own way”, “Men’s rights activists”), or committing suicide.

To internalize the red pill and yet remain mentally healthy, you have to believe that Gnon commanded that female sexuality should be under male authority, that female consent to sex is morally irrelevant. The red pill implies that female consent it is a mere fitness test, not something women genuinely want, hence their seemingly strange behavior with regard to rape and sexual harassment laws. To notice that, and yet remain sane and psychologically healthy, you have to believe that Gnon ordained female sexuality to be under the control of husbands and fathers, that rampant sexual immorality is not men looking a women with lust in their hearts, but women making their own sexual choices.

When men complain about rape, they complain about Rotherham and Cologne. When women complain about rape, they complain about handsome white high status wealthy famous college athletes raping poor innocent coeds, revealing that the real cause of their complaint is not the horrible horrible rape, but the horrible horrible lack of rape.

Hence a system where the complainant is the woman, and the criterion is the woman’s consent, fails, in part because female consent is opaque, and most opaque to the woman herself, in part because they fail to complain about the events we expect and want them to complain about, while actually complaining about failed fitness tests. All rape and sexual harassment complaints are fake, as near to all of them as makes no difference, not because rape and sexual harassment does not happen, it happens a lot, but because rape and sexual harassment is not what provokes complaints of rape and sexual harassment. For laws against rape and sexual harassment to have the intended effect the complainant has to be the husband or father, and the criterion has to be his consent, not her consent. Rape and sexual harassment laws fail to stop the behavior we actually want stopped, while endangering good men.

If you accept blue pilled ethical values, while observing red pill reality, then you are assenting to evil, to evil that hurts you, and this assent will tend to black pill you, and drive you crazy.

The red pill is facts about the world, but is implies ought, and ought implies is. If you accept red pill facts, blue pill moral beliefs will make you reluctant to accept red pill facts, and if you manage to accept the empirical truth of the red pill, while trying to hang on to blue pill morality, it will make your mind sick.

The concept of the logos is the reason and reasonableness of the material world, the will of Gnon working through material cause effect, that morality follows from cause and effect. If one sees the way the world works, and endorses evil as good, it is going to twist your mind up. If you see cause and effect as operating as the red pill describes it, then cause and effect is contrary to blue pill morality, from which you can conclude that world is all screwed up, and possibly kill yourself, or conclude that the world is working in accordance with the will of Gnon, who created Eve has a help meet for Adam, and that blue pill morality is Satanic.

If you do not believe that female emancipation was a very bad idea, was immoral, either you have not actually swallowed the red pill, or else, if you actually have swallowed the red pill, if you find seemingly strange female behavior intelligible and entirely predictable and are aware of fitness tests, hypergamy, and the opacity of female consent, the red pill is going to make you ill.

As a general rule, in most societies at most times, conformity to the official belief system strongly correlates with sanity and good conduct. Obviously in our society, the reverse is the case. Lefties tend to be evil and crazy. I don’t think it is because crazy people are more likely to accept a crazy belief system, because craziness inclines them towards many possible crazy belief systems. Rather, the need to continually deny what is in front of one’s eyes is driving people mad.

One can deduce is from ought, in the sense that one’s rational self interest is to ally with and befriend good people, and to avoid or drive away bad people, but the problem with this rational deduction is that though it provides a distinction between good and evil, it does not provide a compelling reason for oneself being good. If one announces commitment to good on purely rational considerations, one might be announcing this commitment for the purpose of getting someone to cooperate, whom you intend to defect on. One is more likely to succeed in establishing a cooperate cooperate relationship if one frames good conduct as adhesion to a shared tribe led by alpha male, the supreme alpha male, and that ethical behavior is that behavior that follows from the way the world in fact works (by their fruits you will know them) is because the way that the world works is a reflection of the will of that alpha male.

743 Responses to “The Logos has risen”

  1. RedBible says:

    Maybe it’s just me, and that I haven’t read a huge about of your blog, but I feel that this might be one of my favorite articles you done. Also, Happy Easter.

    That said, I feel that I don’t fully get how one is supposed to apply the principle that “Women don’t complain about rape, rather the lack of rape” in life and seduction.

    Is it really as simple as “Once you’re alone/isolated with the woman, Proceed to sex her, and continue forward regardless of what comes out of her mouth” or is there something I’m missing? Obviously one need to act masculine and not gay/effeminate. I’d also assume that there should be some level of “build up” that has happened before “doing the deed”.

    I get that Jim’s blog is not as focused on the WQ as it is on other political issues, but since basically every man who teaches “game” does so under his real name, hard to talk about certain things, even if they personally know the truth (which I don’t think most of them do, but that’s a side point).

    • I think lust is usually visible on women, either as a playful attitude, or as something like ecstasy, as if melting away (half-closed eyes etc.) or stuff like faster breathing and so on, in those cases resistance to sex is just a playful test. And my conquests – which is to say, not terribly many – proceeded from women being in such a visible state. This could be seen as playing a the game on easy mode.

      Well, it is possible that there are cases when they do not look lustful and are still lustful, or cases when they say “no!” in a serious and stern voice and yet still want it and will be grateful for it. But determining whether it is still just a shit test or if it is real, and you will get a kick in the nuts and a police report, is hard, it is playing the game on hard mode. You could reason that if a man gave obvious signs of his sexual interest and then a woman was willing to get alone with him, then from that on all resistance is considered playful, no matter how serious it sounds. Because likely every woman ever knows and understands what being invited to a man’s home for a drink means, especially after he has expressed sexual interest.

      But deciding how to proceed in such a case is playing the game on hard mode. I generally avoided doing this.

      Partially because I always wanted a relationship with the girls I approached. I was not too interested in just racking up notches. And in the first type of case the relationship is going to be much easier to handle than in the second kind of case. In the second kind of case the relationship is likely to be a constant stream of heavy-duty shit tests. Tiresome.

      Relationships that are easier to handle generally start with the first case, with women being in a visible state of lust and perhaps the most obviously playful token resistance only, or, indeed, something very much like “enthusiastic consent”.

      Everybody has to decide how much risk they gonna take. Those who want to rack up a lot of notches will likely encounter some risks, some hard to decide situations. Those who want a lasting monogamous relationship with one girl can play it safe and only get only one of those girls into bed who quite obviously seem to want it.

      • I should also add that during most of these times, the problem of cheating was not on my mind, I have only learned from reading the Manosphere about it. That angle made it more complicated, as a girl who was overly enthusiastically consenting to get in bed with me might be a bad relationship candidate, as she might do the same with other men as well. But on the other hand a woman threatening to break a vase over your head if you dare touch her boobs does not look like she is offering the beginnings of a great relationship either, as I would prefer my relationships without such brutal shit tests. So from that on, I tried to meet girls who were quite obviously into me, but were also quite obviously not into most other men.

      • The Cominator says:

        “think lust is usually visible on women”

        If they are really at the moment having lustful thoughts their pupils dilate.

      • It is by far more dangerous to not have sex with a woman you end up alone with. If you are alone with a woman, and chicken out of passing her shit tests, she will feel frustrated and wronged for reasons that she does not understand, and that is where fake rape accusations come from.

        I have seen a couple of ludicrously hard shit tests that only Genghis Khan could pass, but passing them was less dangerous than failing them, and the women in question ended up being very loving and loyal. Most shit tests are far, far easier than that. Extreme ones are very rare.

        I have never been accused of sexual impropriety by a woman I’ve slept with, but have been accused of sexual impropriety by women I never even -tried- to sleep with, when I had the mistaken blue pilled belief that a man and a woman could just be friends, just be alone together without anything happening. In hindsight, I can tell they were hoping on a primitive level that they would get blasted like a kentucky shale deposit, and felt very mysteriously angry and vengeful when it didn’t happen. “hell hath no fury…” and all that.

        • You mention screaming and running away in that other comment… well, I mentioned grabbing a vase and threatening to break it over my head for a reason, it happened. I noped out of the whole thing and just went home and never called and no problem happened, but perhaps partially because it was just some chick from the bar, we did not know each other, no contact details, no phone number or even a full name. Whether this would have led to a false rape accusation if we are of the same social circles, like college, I do not know.

          Come to think of it, the near-anonymousness of these bar pickups, basically just first name and not even always a phone number, had its advantages.

          • Anonymous bar pickups insulate you from that. If you were in college, had the same social circles, it very well might have.

            I’d lean on the side of shit test, but back off from real sincere fear. I’d say your instincts should tell you what to do, but maybe for a lot of men they don’t.

            “I’ll touch you somewhere else then”

            “I never liked that vase much”

            “Hit me with that instead, I like that vase too much”

            • Bilge_Pump says:

              “Hit me with that instead, I like that vase too much”

              Imo willingness to put up with a woman’s obnoxious insane crap like that is a form of blue pill. Being so horny that you’re willing to endure a woman’s insufferable shit tests when really she needs to be punished…

              It doesn’t matter if you get laid in the end. That shit is stupid. I don’t want to fuck some obnoxious annoying childwoman who’s threatening to hit me with something. I’d rather kick her face in and throw her into the gutter.

              • jim says:

                Women want to provoke physical conflict that results in sex. Knowing the real motivation behind a shit test, I find them amusing.

              • The “obnoxious” antics of kids, women, and pets are cute and entertaining, unless it’s your own kid, and that kid is doing something harmful to itself or others. Would not put up with a girlfriend threatening to break a vase on my head, but a chick I just met, well, it’s all part of the romance.

        • Alchemist says:

          >>I have never been accused of sexual impropriety by a woman I’ve slept with, but have been accused of sexual impropriety by women I never even -tried- to sleep with,

          ^same here. ‘Hell hath no fury….”

      • Atavistic Morality says:

        My personal advice for your concerns requires courage, but the success is guaranteed if you are able.

        Make sure everyone understands you’re willing to break a neck, and truly be willing and capable to break a neck. You’ll never hear any serious accusations regardless of what happens, whether from men or women. Never in my life, and there were justified occasions.

        Si vis pacem, para bellum.

        • jim says:

          I can confirm. Zero accusations of sexual harassment, while around me innocent men were getting accusations, one accusation of rape after failing a fitness test that Genghis Khan and General Butt Naked would have had trouble passing, which accusation went away after I courteously and respectfully amogged the cops in front of her. The real motivation of the accusation was to get alpha males in conflict to test alpha.

          • eternal anglo says:

            What was this shit test that General Butt Naked would have had trouble passing? I’m having trouble imagining such a thing in a modern suburban context.

        • Anonymous says:

          >truly be willing

          This is the hardest part for me. How does a guy not willing to do violence become a guy willing to do violence?

          • jim says:

            Lust, gluttony, and wrath come naturally. What is hard is keeping them inside when one should not let them out.

            Every male is willing to do violence. Some males, however, are not brave.

            No male is peaceable by nature. Some are peaceable because virtuous, some peaceable because weak, and some peaceable because afraid.

            Daniel Boone was an impressive example of someone brave, but peaceable because virtuous. Unfortunately, those stories were tossed overboard as they erased white history, preparatory to erasing white civilization, and then erasing whites.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            I have always been an aggressive, vicious little bastard, but I was largely surpressed in response. I got a lot of it back when I joined the military, but mostly I got ready to commit serious violence for myself when I got into the gym, started hitting the iron, and got huge. It is a lot easier to be large and in charge if you are large, and a lot harder if not.

    • If women cared about consent the way the blue pill describes it, women would not prefer to have sex “in private”, which means alone with a much stronger man, behind locked doors, out of earshot of other people. If women cared about consent, would prefer to have sex in front of an audience that could intervene if the much stronger man was mistreating her.

      Having sex while totally in the power of a much stronger man is women’s preference. As a man, fucking in front of an audience does not bother me very much, I could fuck on the pitchers mound of Yankee stadium in front of 50,000 screaming fans. The blue pill misinterprets this as “female modesty”, but even the whore who is dressed like a whore wants to fuck in your room and not on the barstool in public.

      What happens once the doors are closed and locked varies. If you are the supreme chad in her eyes, she has already submitted to you in her heart, and Trump’s immortal wisdom applies. If you are “seducing” her, there will be a back and forth of shit tests that resembles a romance novel, where token resistance, as thinly implausible as the excuse that got the two of you are alone, is acknowledged and brushed aside, and the fact that she said no a couple of times before having hot volcanic sex is never remembered.

      Serious female resistance to mating involves a lot of screaming and running away, like if jumped by a naked hobo covered in human feces and brandishing a rusty knife in one hand and his stiffy in the other.

      • ten says:

        As a not very proficient player, when in the situation of being in her apartment or she in mine and the obvious context being sex, being confronted by the fitness tests initially was extremely confusing. The first time i just got too sick of it to keep playing i told her “this is your safe word, if you use it i’ll stop, if you don’t use it i won’t care about what you say anymore”.

        While not a smooth approach at all, rather kind of clueless, brute force and autistic, noone ever used the safe word or complained afterwards.

        Guys i have told this story most often call me a rapist.

        • Atavistic Morality says:

          I call you chad, if you told me that story IRL I’d have clapped.

          Smooth and normie is overrated, I love brute force and autism. And if it works, it works.

        • BC says:

          >Guys i have told this story most often call me a rapist.

          The girls you tell about it probably ask for your number.

        • jim says:

          I have never given a girl a safe word. They don’t really like it.

          • SJ says:

            Giving her a safe word can lead her to believe she is ultimately in charge. We all know how that plays out.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          No means yes, yes means harder.

  2. eternal anglo says:

    Amen.

  3. >If one announces commitment to good on purely rational considerations, one might be announcing this commitment for the purpose of getting someone to cooperate, whom you intend to defect on.

    Yes, and the common solution for that is to signal that you have such high moral standards that you would never even think about defecting. This is the basis of that which gradually develops into holiness spirals. It all begins with signalling basic reliability. Then human competitiveness results it getting out of hand. Look! I am more reliable than that guy!

    Because destructive holiness spirals do not necessarily imply atheism (there was a recent article on Unz arguing how Robespierre was absolutely not an atheist), it implies that at some point on the spiral it involves first misrepresenting and then lying about what is the will of the supreme alpha male, God, how he intended the world to work and how it factually works. Which implies a sufficiently tough Inquisition could stop the spirals, generally at the point where they necessarily start making up false theology.

  4. Anonymous says:

    > If you do not believe that female emancipation was a very bad idea, was immoral, either you have not actually swallowed the red pill, or else, if you actually have swallowed the red pill, if you find seemingly strange female behavior intelligible and entirely predictable and are aware of fitness tests, hypergamy, and the opacity of female consent, the red pill is going to make you ill.

    What a disgusting thing to post on Easter Sunday, when the Son of Mary completed His holy mission. Was it God who said “Fiat tibi secundum Verbum Meum”?

    No. It was Mary’s fiat that incarnated the Word.

    It was Mary’s asking at the Wedding at Cana that began Jesus’ public life of miracles and His long road to the Cross.

    If you truly do believe in God, you should show the same respect for the mother of God that Jesus did.

    • The Cominator says:

      Imagine unironically being a papist.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      @Anonymous

      Your tradcuckery needs to go fuck itself, FBI shill.

    • “It was Mary’s fiat”

      Holy shit lol. I think this guy is being ironic (Who said “woman, be silent. my time is not yet come”?) but anyone who seriously believes this shit needs to be burned at the stake.

      As I like to joke, it took thousands of years for God to send us His son because in all that time he couldn’t find a single woman pure enough.

    • jim says:

      Jesus, being wholly man, loved his father and his mother, and in obedience to Gnon, honored his father and his mother, but Mary was an entirely ordinary woman, and Jesus was fine with a society in which women were property and polygyny was routine.

      There were a lot of things terribly wrong with Judaism in the time of Caesar, because they were holiness spiraling their religion, as the progressives holiness spiraled Christianity, but their position on women and on graven images was entirely sane. They were Old Testament on those matters.

      They also had unilateral divorce at male discretion, which Jesus was critical of, but polygyny, no problem.

      • Allah says:

        What’s wrong with unilateral divorce at male discretion and graven images?

        • jim says:

          The possibility of divorce at male discretion gives women an incentive to manipulate men into divorcing them, because they perceive, accurately or inaccurately, someone more alpha than their husband as interested. Reflect, for example, the story of Mohammed’s marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh. She was married, but was after Mohammed. This damaged cohesion among Mohammed’s band of brothers. It is said that he issued to command on female modesty in response to her successful and immodest manipulation. No jiggling! Commanding “No divorce” would have been more effective.

          Graven images, as correctly interpreted by Jews at the time of Jesus, does not mean you cannot do a nice statue. It means you cannot worship a symbol created by a mortal.

          Thus for example Pontius Pilate put up shields in his palace that displayed the words of the divine emperor, in similar style to “thoughts of Chairman Mao”, what Marxists correctly call “Cult of Personality”. The Jews correctly interpreted these as graven images and made big trouble, even though they were texts, not images, and not graven, while they were fine with statuary all over the place, and fine with Herod issuing issuing coins with images on them.

          The ban on graven images as applicable in recent millenia means that whites should do Divine Right Kings under God, rather than God Kings. That is how Jews interpreted it in the time of Caesar, and they were correct.

          • Allah says:

            Yes, it’s even used as a loophole for prostitution, the “pleasure marriages” of Iran are an infamous example.

            Still, the mere possibility of interacting with men who aren’t their husbands or relatives gives women an incentive to engage in all kinds of misbehavior regardless of their marital status, so a ban on divorce is a band-aid solution at best. Seems to me it’s better to nip the problem in the bud and keep the wife at home.

            • jim says:

              Keeping Zaynab bint Jahsh at home did not work, because Mohammed needed to visit the home of his colleague and supporter.

              Making divorce difficult would have worked. Divorce only for female adultery, with killing the offenders being legal, or a minor offense under most circumstances, would have worked.

              Keeping women at home does not stop them from making trouble between their husband and his colleagues. When a woman sees two alpha males, she wants them to fight.

              It is socially required to treat the host as top alpha, and this reduces the problem, but when the boss drops in, the husband cannot help emitting tells. Drama ensues. The wife is at best going to manufacture drama to make both alphas pay attention to her, and may well do worse.

              For the elite to be cohesive, the elite has to have rules that prevent the elite’s women from making trouble between members of the elite. The drama created by Zaynab bint Jahsh undermined cohesion in the Islamic ruling elite.

              • Allah says:

                Well, further inside the home. Keeping women inside the home is supposed to limit or eliminate their interaction with other men, doesn’t work if you have one without the other. I can see the logistical complications here but my solution is to keep wives out of sight and out of mind. Obviously, killing adulterers goes without saying.

                • jim says:

                  Obviously the wife is going to be present, because she takes care of food and stuff. And if the guest alpha is ignoring her, there will be some drama to make everyone pay attention to her.

                • Allah says:

                  Assuming it is impossible to eliminate their contact with other men, one must limit it. How to go about doing that is up to the individual. I say there has already been massive improvement if this is the minutiae that is being ironed out.

                • jim says:

                  It helps, but it is insufficient. Women will find a way, and if you try to tighten up too far on male/female contact, lack of exposure to real life females is going to result in a male population with all the usual vile Islamic sexual deviations.

                  You have to let men have supervised contact with women, and women supervised contact with men, as in eighteenth century white society, and if you do that, you don’t want to give women an incentive to get up to all their usual tricks.

                  The Islamic practice of hiding women away is too little to achieve the desired result, and has unpleasant side effects. Eighteenth century England and twentieth century Timor Leste achieved results comparable to Afghan Islam without the adverse consequences.

                  If you throw a party, you want your wife there hostessing, and you don’t want female drama. Easy divorce is apt to result in wives generating drama.

                • Dave says:

                  I recall a scene in one of the Little House books where 14-yo Laura wanted to go see the new railroad being built and Pa agreed to take her, but Ma warned her that there would be dire consequences if she did anything to call attention to herself.

                • Allah says:

                  We were talking about wives, not unmarried girls. As for getting married, we should be able to just buy girls like we buy anything else. A lot of poor men will get used goods, if they want better they can save up for it, get lucky by networking, or ideally take from outgroups.

                  If you throw a party, you want your wife there hostessing

                  Come again? What is throwing a party and why would anyone want their wives anywhere near it?

      • The Cominator says:

        The Islamic solution leads to weird prison homosexuality, whites should adopt 18th century marriage laws without any modification or innovation.

    • Nikolai says:

      Can’t tell if this is a troll or a genuine simpevacantist. Either way you should read what the Fathers, Aquinas and the Council of Trent said about women and marriage.

    • info says:

      @Anonymous

      Implying that God serves at the feet of Mary. And awaits her command.

  5. yewotm8 says:

    “To internalize the red pill and yet remain mentally healthy, you have to believe that Gnon commanded that female sexuality should be under male authority, that female consent to sex is morally irrelevant. The red pill implies that female consent it is a mere fitness test, not something women genuinely want, hence their seemingly strange behavior with regard to rape and sexual harassment laws. To notice that, and yet remain sane and psychologically healthy, you have to believe that Gnon ordained female sexuality to be under the control of husbands and fathers, that rampant sexual immorality is not men looking a women with lust in their hearts, but women making their own sexual choices.”

    I’m not seeing how the belief in God’s will alone is not enough to prevent great distress at how badly other men are failing shit tests, and how terrible of a society I live in now because of it. Even if I handle my own business in a way that is in harmony with the will of God, I will still find great difficulty in doing so due to artificial barriers created by blue-pilled ideas, and I will have to witness my friends, family, and business partners continue to destroy themselves. I try with great effort to convince them of what I know, but it is with limited effectiveness as I am not as powerful or influential as the tee vee. I do find solace from having a coherent view of human behaviour, and of cause and effect, but it is not enough.

    • I am loyal to my friends and family and that is it. I have some sway over them, and care if they succeed or fail, but for society at large, I do not care if they are self-destructing. GNON wins in the end, sure as spring comes. Take solace in that, and protect your own.

    • Atavistic Morality says:

      In my experience that great distress only comes from false, artificial expectations. Living in the ought, instead of living in the is, just like leftists do and why they turn insane as Jim describes.

      You’re comparing the present with what “should” be or “could” be, instead of what indeed is and taking action accordingly. Regardless of the time or place you were living in, you’d find a lot of problems and life would be all about overcoming those problems, today isn’t different.

      The stoics had a lot of good things to say, and a lot of those good things were reflected in Christianity. We cannot wholly control our environment, but we can wholly control how we interpret it.

      You can revisit the life of any great man in history and see it as a sad and painful life full of blood and strife or a grand opportunity for glory. Whether it’s Alexander or Genghis Khan, they can be stories of conquest or stories of great distress. Even if you lived three hundred years ago in a perfectly sane society, starvation and lack of basic commodities at every turn could definitely be seen as great distress.

      Life means struggle, only death is eternal peace.

      • yewotm8 says:

        I suppose “great distress” was an exaggeration, and very feminine and attention-seeking. I’ll choose my words better next time.

        I meant that noticing the problem and how to fix it doesn’t make me feel any better, just by itself. My personal failure in influencing others to see things the way I do is what is frustrating, not the problem itself.

        I agree that the act of solving problems is what brings purpose and meaning to life. Once they are solved, there are always new problems. But it’d be preferable if my problems were solvable through competence in nerdier things, rather than interpersonal skills.

    • jim says:

      > I’m not seeing how the belief in God’s will alone is not enough to prevent great distress at how badly other men are failing shit tests, and how terrible of a society I live in now because of it. Even if I handle my own business in a way that is in harmony with the will of God, I will still find great difficulty in doing so due to artificial barriers created by blue-pilled idea

      All those things distress me also, but my individual success in resisting and evading those artificial barriers makes me feel a whole lot better.

      The badboy gets the chicks, and the badboy who is backed by the ultimate alpha male of the universe gets more chicks.

    • jim says:

      Deleted for appeal to progressive consensus, instead of argument or evidence.

      A paid shill for the Chinese government cannot mention the resemblance between Winnie the Pooh and Xi Jinping, or acknowledge anyone else mentioning, and a paid shill for our government cannot mention characteristically female misconduct, or acknowledge anyone else mentioning it.

      And you, in your response, could not acknowledge that my post was in substantial part about female misconduct.

      Any response by you to my post that fails acknowledge the major premise of the post will be deleted for being shill evasion of the woman question, even if you do present evidence and argument instead of appeal to progressive consensus, you have to present evidence and argument on the woman question. If you disagree with the post, you have to tell us what you are disagreeing with.

  6. Dave says:

    Someone asked what the alt-right needs Christ for, and I replied:

    We need the Christian God to keep our women in line, create strong families, and continue our bloodline. An alpha male tells all women to submit to and obey their fathers and husbands, and God is especially suited to this role because, not being Zeus, He is unlikely to cuckold His followers. Satan tells women that their husbands are abusive jerks who deserve to be destroyed in divorce court. If any woman speaks poorly of her husband or wants to leave him, Christians should remove this follower of Satan from her home, council her on true meaning of the Bible, and pray that she will turn away from evil and return to the light of Jesus Christ our Lord.

    We also must recognize that all government employees are in thrall to false religions and therefore agents of Satan. If they come to investigate the disappearance of a recalcitrant woman, we must respectfully tell them that we have no idea what happened to her. Lying to Satan’s servants is not a sin.

    Islam is right about women but wrong about everything else. If you say the Shahada, you probably won’t get a wife because you don’t belong to a tribe, and if you do get a wife, your great-grandchildren will be low-IQ, brown-skinned, in-bred, impoverished goat-fuckers. (That’s not my opinion, it’s an empirical fact.)

    Did I get it right?

  7. Aphelio says:

    How is MGTOW self destructive in a world where true marriage is illegal? To me, getting into a “gay marriage” is much more destructive, considering to do so is to legally and financially cuck yourself. Better to live childless than to die a spiritual death subjecting yourself to a woman in such a contract.

    If anything, marrying and having kids is a blue pill dream nowadays considering we don’t have the proper social institutions to back up proper male authority.

    What are you actually proposing here? Having kids out of wedlock?

    • Dave says:

      You could kidnap a teen girl, rape some babies out of her, be sentenced to forty consecutive life terms plus 400 years, and still die happier than the MGTOW whose genes go to the grave with him.

      Or you can do like Anthony Stralow or Ricky Martin and have biological children without marrying. Raising children could severely limit your earning power, but you don’t need a large income when there’s no wife nagging you for a new car. Yeah, I know those guys are gay, but you only have to pretend to be gay to do the surrogacy thing.

      • Atavistic Morality says:

        I imagine if you did kidnap a teen girl and rape some babies out of her, you’d get a wife for life actually, assuming you provide for her well. I wish we could do the experiment… but sounds very similar to the founding of Rome and the Sabine women.

        • Dave says:

          Ariel Castro and Phil Garrido did this experiment with the handicap of being old, ugly, and poor. There might be cases where the girl accepted her captivity, but we wouldn’t hear about them.

      • Aphelio says:

        Why rape a girl just to go to prison when I can enjoy my life with the knowledge I have? Genes aren’t everything. Why be a slave to genes when I have the capacity to overcome that desire? Sure, a woman and kids would be cool, but considering the social environment and lack of well behaved women I’m not up for taming a girl like a dog. It’s not worth the kind of effort required, especially when to do so you have to engage in a lot of illegal activities.

        To have a kid without a wife involved is not appealing to me. The point is that she takes on a segment of the work in raising them. I don’t know what the effect of bit having a mother has in a child, but I expect that it’s not good.

        • Dave says:

          In the long run, genes are everything. There’s nothing more pathetic than a feeble, unloved old man waiting to die.

          It’s best to grow up with both parents, but no mother is a lot better than no father.

          • Aphelio says:

            The myth of the lonely old man. It is primarily women who suffer from a lack of male authority in their life, not men with a lack of woman to rule over. From what I hear, being an older single man is great. Your smv is high, you have nothing tying you down, you’re often in good physical shape with hobbies, maybe a business, etc. There are other ways to leave a legacy.

            I agree that in the long run genes are a good investment, but not now and who’s to say your kids or your kid’s kids won’t be a disappointment?

            You see, there are a variety of ways to live with redpill knowledge and I don’t think disregarding law or being a single parent is realistic or worth it. I completely agree on the importance of a father.

            • Polifugue says:

              If being a lonely single man dying childless was great, you wouldn’t be posting about it, and neither would anyone else.

              I see plenty of MGTOW people online, and they always strike me as being absolutely miserable. Their life is all an “if only” proposition. From your post, I deduce that you do in fact want a wife and kids. Resigning your life to a maybe true maybe mistaken belief that you can never accomplish your dreams is spiritual and then possibly actual suicide. Single men often die young for a reason.

              Wouldn’t it be worth anything, your life even, to get the family and children you want? If someone offered you an obedient wife and kids if you did [x], wouldn’t you do [x], even if it meant breaking any and every law? The MGTOW life is a miserable cope, filled with sadness, deviant pornography, and gluttony.

              The best option is to learn game, to read Heartiste, Rollo, and the various postings by Jim, Aidan Maclear, and Alf from Garden of the Internet, and tame a manageable woman. Alf managed to find a good woman in the Netherlands, which is impressive. There are various religious groups in the US that would love to have someone like you, especially given that the average evangelical male is a soy-laden little wimp. Learn game, and if you can’t be as good as Alf or Jim, at least be good enough to network within a church. TV anchor Tucker Carlson got his wife through networking with her father, and not every father wants to see his daughter become a collegiate cum dumpster. If you just can’t, ask Dave.

              If you’re going to go MGTOW, go to Mount Athos and accept Jesus Christ. The men there don’t have children, but they at least have a band of brothers to keep them company, and they certainly don’t complain about society on the internet.

              • Aphelio says:

                Weak argument. We are on a blog essentially complaining about society, yet we both see it as useful rather than gay, otherwise we wouldn’t be here.

                I agree that many mgtow are sad beings. They are stuck in the anger phase. As for whether or not I want kids, I’d say I don’t know. At times it seems good and other times it seems bad. Some of the most intelligent men never married and others have. The general male consensus on marriage is that it is a necessary evil. Considering we live in a unique time where males do not need to commit, why lock myself down especially considering the lack of incentive and unnecessary risk?

                Single men often die young because they lack purpose. Purpose can be found outside a wife and kids. The only different between a supposed redpill patriarch ideal and blue pill ideal seems to be that the relationship dynamic is different.

                Everything is cope. Reading this blog is a cope.

                Yes, there is a high level of degeneracy in mgtow with porn, drugs, etc. I stay away from that and don’t associate with the label although it probably most accurately describes my attitude.

                I know game and see it work, but relationships with women end up working much more smoothly when you don’t have some goal of trying to make them into the wife that her mother and father should have done. Maybe I’ll change my mind sometime down the road but that’s the reality of being male. You have time.

                I agree about religious institutions. They’d love any one of us.

                I have and do read all of those blogs and they are very interesting.

                I’m not full mgtow, just don’t like the idea of giving up my freedom for marriage or cohabitation.

                • Dave says:

                  In his book, “The Next Million Years”, Charles Galton Darwin explains your dilemma. We are equipped with a survival instinct, a sexual instinct, and a parenting instinct, but no procreative instinct, as procreation was until recently an unavoidable consequence of sex. We feel the desire to care for children only after those children come into existence.

                  If you can afford to mommy-track your career, go with gestational surrogacy. $50,000 per child is way cheaper than a divorce, and you get to keep the kids. Have at least three; you’ll still wish you had more.

              • Dave says:

                “If you just can’t, ask Dave.”

                I don’t know, would you introduce your daughter to a guy you met on a MGTOW forum? What about a recovering homosexual, alcoholic, or drug abuser? You’ll always wonder if he’s going to relapse, or inflict his wounded psyche on the wife and kids. The term “damaged goods” does not apply only to females.

                • polifugue says:

                  What I meant was for him to consider the advice you gave him in the first reply, surrogacy or the other option…

                  I wouldn’t introduce my daughter to a guy I met on a MGTOW forum or the internet generally. I remember you said you had a daughter in an earlier post, and I should have taken that into consideration when I wrote that.

                • RedBible says:

                  Hey Dave, I remember reading the comments you made a few weeks ago or so mentioning your daughter you want to see married off to a quality man. I thought about replying, but it didn’t seem to “fit” for me at the time. Anyways, I’ll be making a reply to the various things you said (related mostly to your daughter/family).

                  Any white man under 30 who knows what all the buttons on a scientific calculator do, please marry my slender, almost-legal-age daughter and have ten kids! I’m offering a substantial dowry.

                  As a man who “technically” would met the requirements you’ve asked for, I’m going to comment about what issues I see that give me a “gut feeling” that there might be more than I or others would want to bargain for.

                  Slender, almost legal-age, and Dowry are all good, but the fact that you didn’t say virgin strikes me the wrong way. Now maybe you’re newer to blogs like Jim’s, and that could explain why mentioning virgin didn’t seem as important to you, but if I’m going to “rob the cradle” might as well also get a virgin, even if less pretty and no dowry. But as I said, could be it just slipped you mind (No need to remember what the OT says about a father selling a daughter claiming her to be a virgin and she isn’t.)

                  My working hypothesis is no God and no afterlife…

                  If your Daughter knows that is what you believe, not going to make the job for me or any other future husband any easier.

                  …but I want lots of grandchildren in any case. The problem isn’t my faith or lack of it, it’s that I have no state-supported right to compel my daughter into early marriage. I can gently try to convince her, but when she turns 18, she’s legally free to go off to college and become a blue-haired feminist. She won’t get a dime from me if she chooses that path, but she could easily take out a student loan, do porn, or be a sugar baby.

                  My sister, aunt, and great-aunt never married or had children. Two months after my daughter’s 18th birthday, it will be 100 years since any woman married out of my family name.

                  If “gently try to convince her” is the best you’ve got as a defense against her becoming a feminist, then I’m not sure that if I or an other man invoke the “Jimian Way of Controlling Wives” on her and that you’ll have my or their back. Yes, the law doesn’t like it, but if you believe the law is god, then no one can help you for fear that you won’t cooperate when the time comes, since you’ll be more prone to defect/decline aid since the laws says so.

                  Also, The long history of women choosing no kids is a negative, but not a deal breaker, since women tend to conform strongly to what is shown to them.

                  My female relatives all went to college because their fathers expected them to. I expect my daughter to stay home until she’s married, and she seems OK with that, as she learns to cook restaurant-quality meals from watching YouTube videos.

                  The fact that she is potentially showing that she is okay with the home until married plan, suggest that she isn’t a lost cause by any means, so that’s going for you.
                  Also, learning to cook is a good skill for her becoming a future wife and mother.

                  So I want to end this by saying that what I said isn’t meant to be an attack (even if some of what I said is harsh), but trying to help you get an understanding of what a prospective husband for your daughter might be thinking/considering.

                • RedBible says:

                  Also, If Hypothetically I or an other man on this site was maybe willing to consider your offer, I know I’d want to move such discussions away from Jim’s site, less prying eyes.

                  Though how to best transfer away, not completely sure. Might require Jim’s help to swap emails or similar without others catching said info.

                • Dave says:

                  Oh, she’s definitely a virgin, and I know this because she never leaves the house. She doesn’t even have any girlfriends. Her spergitude relegates her to the bottom of the teen social hierarchy, and the other girls down there are fat morons or just plain nuts.

                  I recently explained to her that my aunt had a great life, traveling all over the world (Egypt, Algeria, Afghanistan, etc.), my sister has a boyfriend and pets in a safe white town, and she will have a tiny apartment in a vibrant city where violent death stalks her at every turn. Because the widespread law and order that her fore-aunts enjoyed was a fading relic of the white patriarchy to which they contributed nothing.

                • RedBible says:

                  Yeah, If she isn’t leaving the house, and she is kind of spergy, pretty decent chance she’s still a virgin.

                  Spergy girls are interesting thing. I’ve known a few spergy girls (through them being friends of my siblings, or my friends sister’s), some of them were not what I’d want to be around for even a minute longer than required, but the others… damn, still think fondly of them and wish I could have gotten to become closer to them. (There is one in particular that I Remember since she clearly was interested in me. She was friends with my sister. honestly I think that the only reason my sister and the other friends they hung out with never picked up on her having feelings for me was that they never even considered “looking at me that way” since there was an age gap. Man, she was soooo cute.)

                  I may have just made myself more interested in meeting Dave’s daughter…

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  Spergy girls with high-IQ genetics: very good. They have a much higher capacity for repetitive activities like cleaning, cooking, raising kids, and pleasuring you. Feature, not bug.

                • RedBible says:

                  @”Omar is just a Trump card now”

                  You make a good point, which makes Dave’s daughter sound like a good choice of woman to marry and make kids with.
                  (Still leaves the issue that even if Dave is open to having a guy that he met online consider marrying his daughter, one would not want to post doxx-able info about one’s self on Jim’s site, since enough “not nice” people visit and watch this site. I wonder if Telegram or Throw-away emails would work…)

                  I’m going to add that some of the things I said may have been “reading too deeply” into comments Dave made, since text based communication can sometimes end up leaving out nuance and detail that vocals or body language can clarify.

                • Your daughter sounds like my type and I’m looking to marry. I’ve got quite a lot of experience bringing shy nerdy girls out of their shells. Shoot me a DM.

                • Dave says:

                  Not going to doxx myself yet, but I live in the northeast USA, and my daughter will be legal age in late 2021.

                  It was a bit of work to pry her spergy mother out of her shell, but it got me a virgin wife. My biggest fear was that we’d have an autistic son, and instead we had our daughter. Then we had an autistic son.

                  Considering how spergs get left behind socially and have great difficulty finding mates, how were they not erased from the gene pool long ago? I think it’s because during a Jimian holiness spiral, society degenerates into a herd of lemmings stampeding off a cliff, and is repopulated by those left behind.

                • RedBible says:

                  So sperginess from what I’ve studied, seems to be connected to inflammation of the brain tissue. (Which seems to have some genetic tendencies) Anyways the points is that there are functions common with spergs that a (healthy) society tends to value, and would therefore allow a job and wife. Working with animals is one example (if they like animals), another is the strong sense of duty (Which can be useful for some jobs instead of them following their “feels”), Also can be more prone to invent something useful because of hyper focus on a topic/theme. the main issue is that now they are required to be in a setting with people ALL THE TIME. (stupid office jobs)

                  So Dave, I will say that I am in the interested/curious category when it comes to your daughter. I’ve set-up a disposable e-mail if you’d like to talk more on the subject. (I also think there might be a few topics that would be nice to chat with you about, but that don’t make sense to have on Jim’s blog, but that’s beside the point. I want to let you know that if at any point during online chatting that you for any reason you say “it’s off”, I’ll be cool and we can still respect each other.)

                  Since you might want to not use an e-mail more directly connected to you at this time, I’d recommend potentially using something like either protonmail.com or Secmail.pro since I’ve heard they are good email sites to use when wanting to keep things a bit more secret. (though I don’t remember if either of them require TOR to work or not…)

                  Hope you do well on finding a husband for your daughter.

                • jim says:

                  Protonmail accounts are good for discardable addresses used for short lived identities. Or so they say in their white paper, and their ui for creating an account seems to be designed to support that use case.

                  I recommend that you create protonmail identities, post them here, and then exchange longer lived email addresses.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Military types, and I mean the real fighting men, often have autism to one degree or another. Enough so that it is a joke that being in the infantry is sufficient for a diagnosis of autism. That level of focus when applied to killing other people is a real edge, especially when a slight difference in skill is reliably fatal. That alone would keep it in the gene pool.

                  If you think of all of the strict, formal social rules for interactions between peers in a warrior run society, its so that all of the murderous autists that run things don’t kill each other off over social misunderstandings. Especially once you realize that a significant amount of the difficulties that autists face socially is because they are using blue pill pattern recognition in a red pill world.

                • Dave says:

                  OK, try dave_the_sperg (the at symbol) protonmail.com. If any Feds hope to set me up for child trafficking, you’re wasting your time. She’ll get no privacy with any man until she’s legally married to him, and I won’t be driving her across any state lines for a meet-up.

                  Nor do I know anything about anyone on this blog except what they’ve posted here, so you’ll get no useful information from me.

                • RedBible says:

                  I’ve sent you an e-mail with redbible_sperg AT “site.com” (name was chosen for dry humor reasons, and since it’s a throw away anyways, don’t matter too much.)

                  The Fed comment is actually wiser than it might seem on the surface. It lay out some expectations that both defend him, as well as defend any man coming from here, since the expectation is that sex won’t happen for 1+ years, and only after she is of a legal age, that means that if the Feds are at least wanting to appear to follow a “rule of law” that they probably can’t get an easy prosecution.
                  Now if the feds are just looking to lock away a man no matter what, probably little one can do to stop that, without breaking the law… which would then give them their “reason”…
                  Still, I’d guess that lots of the feds still probably believe that they follow rule of law, otherwise might start going insane from “law” being arbitrary whims.

                • Dave says:

                  Jim, are you still involved in any sort of engineering? And if so, what sort of young white men do you see entering the field? Scary-smart kids eager to work sixteen-hour days to become great engineers, or lazy video game addicts who need everything explained to them?

                  Or are straight white cis-men being locked out of engineering entirely to correct race and gender imbalances? I gotta know, where da white boyz at? Come to think of it, I know exactly zero people born in the 1990s, so my ignorance is total.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Dave, I was born in ’89, but I’m in school right now, and a lot of the engineering students are engineerettes or minorities. Most of the white men in class are serious types, but there are less of them than I would expect as a proportion of the population. They are young and dumb, but young and dumb in the manner of young men, as I was once young and dumb. They are not super motivated, but they get by.

                • face the facts says:

                  two things.

                  1. this online sperghorse trading is one of the most disturbing things ive ever seen

                  2. three details gets you a person. i recommend jim nuke this whole thread.

                  von boyage.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Listen up, face the faggot, this is how civilized men organize marriages. Marriage arranged by the responsible men within the community, between the responsible men within the community. If that is disturbing to you, it says so much more about you than it does us, you fucking degenerate.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Jim, given that face the faggot is now white-knighting for a woman he does not even know or have ever seen and is interfering with a father and potential suitors, would you please mind censoring that post? White-knighting an attack on Dave and the men talking with him is an attack on all of us. Interfering with other mens’ women is enemy talk.

                • Allah says:

                  Progressivism is all he has ever seen and experienced in his life, he says arranged marriages are “one of the most disturbing things ive ever seen”. I would really like to hear what he thinks real masculinity is, as opposed to the fake masculinity of programmers.

                  Please elaborate, “face the facts”.

                • AJ says:

                  “I recommend that you create protonmail identities, post them here, and then exchange longer lived email addresses.”

                  Jim, can you shoot me a message at this address (in the namefield)? I’ve been reading your blog for a while and I’d like to ask you a question.

        • jim says:

          The revolt against nature and telos fails. People who do that are not happy or sane. They also have a high rate of suicide and all causes death.

          The gay lifestyle, the druggie lifestyle, and men going their own way does not work. It is our telos to impose our way on women, and women are never happy unless a man imposes his way on them and they bear children.

          Children were to me a great happiness. They are our immortality.

          “Men Going Their Own Way” and “Men’s Rights Activists” suffer a high rate of obesity, drug abuse, despair, and suicide.

          • Aldon says:

            >“Men Going Their Own Way” and “Men’s Rights Activists” suffer a high rate of obesity, drug abuse, despair, and suicide.

            Or they’re just faggots and trannies and coomers. They don’t have any discipline and commitment to pull off the celibate life (avoidng porn, staying off social media, finding a job that keeps them rooted in their community) so they become one of the above options.

            In actuality a man can only pull off celibacy if he has a place in society that’s not dependent on his ability to produce offspring in any way. Plenty men don’t so they fall into the above or criminality.

        • ten says:

          What are you?

          A configuration of atoms.

          A number of years ago, none of the atoms were the same, yet here you are still. Why and how?

          Because some of the atoms are a code, and some of the atoms process the code to regenerate the configuration.

          In a few years, the process will fail and your configuration will cease to regenerate. But every single one of your ancestors, billions and billions of generations, every last one without fail, succeeded in spawning copies of the code and the process, rising under the blessing of the lord of history to your present state.

          Don’t be more useless than your bacterium ancestors, their situation was considerably more difficult than yours.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          >Why be a slave to genes when I have the capacity to overcome that desire?

          It’s kinda funny how the mentally cuckolded so often dress up their ontological irrelevancy in airs of intellectualism.

          ‘why should i give in to the desire for greatness when i can overcome this instinct and lose instead?’

          ~

          It takes a certain level of intelligence to sophisticate stupidities; not too dumb to ignore the sophism, but not too clever to see over it either; just the right goldilocks zone of midwit. The ideal current year academic.

      • Bilge_Pump says:

        These days you can’t even “rape some babes out of” a woman. She can get an abortion. Even if she secretly wants your brutal rape babies her friends family etc are likely to convince her that your seed is no good.

        Not worth going to jail for. Would rather masturbate daily than get one good raping in and get shanked in prison.

        • ERTZ says:

          You haven’t explored all possibilities if you are in such dire circumstances that you consider rape to reproduce.

          If you are willing to pay with your death, a man can accomplish extraordinary, otherwise impossible things; this is even more useful because we all have to die, and many will know it beforehand (cancer diagnosis etc.).

          The publicly suppressed idea of the power of death is that a man must no longer care for legal, financial or reputational outcomes of his actions – if you die anyway, your are free in a way you never were before in your life.

          This opens many fascinating powers and possibilities, and one of them is achieving remarkable success at reproduction.
          A man may prepare for years, even decades, the means and methods that can allow him reproductive success: For example he could abduct young women of supreme genetic stock, put them in hold in a secure and secret location, impregnate them by rape, wait for up to 9 months, feeding and providing for them, and then release them.
          The babies will be born, and will be very well cared for, as their maternal families and the modern welfare state will make sure.
          The man then better vanishes (here:by dying) to escape social retribution, but it’s hard punishing a corpse – or soon to be dead man.

          If you were to come to the conclusion that your objective in life is attaining immortality through sexual reproduction with the finest, otherwise inaccessible (quantitatively and qualitatively) genetic stock of your choice, this strategy, if executed competently, offers a sensible way to bypass the limitations society strangles your pursuit of self-interest with.

          It makes for a late, but total triumph, the final insuperable victory:
          You out-reproduce all your competition – and they even must pay for it.

        • Dave says:

          She can get an abortion.

          You mean, she can decide of her own accord to give herself an abortion while she’s locked up in your basement. Not likely, and if she tried, you might have to decide very quickly whether to rush her to the hospital or let her bleed out, your freedom or her life.

    • jim says:

      > How is MGTOW self destructive in a world where true marriage is illegal?

      I have done, and continue to do, no end of illegal things. So far, they have seldom come to the attention of the state, and when they did come to the attention of the state, nothing so far that personal charisma, an expensive lawyer, and sometimes a payoff, did not get me out of.

      Among the illegal things, two old fashioned marriages.

      If you are personally alpha, and claim backing from the ultimate alpha male of the universe, people who merely claim backing from the state are apt to wander off looking for a more gratifying target to persecute. When a feeling of guilt can be induced in the target, that attracts them like flies are attracted to wet and rotting dead flies. That is what they are looking for, the gratifying sensation of inflicting suffering where the victim agrees that the victimizer is right to inflict suffering.

      When we re-legalize marriage, we will first have to reintroduce marriage as a matter of faith and morals, before we can fix the legal system. Once the laws cease to fit what is socially acceptable and respectable, then they will cease to matter, and changing them radically will scarcely be noticed.

      If go to your local library, and check the dates that the books in the Romance section were written, you will find that they are all new, even though the library is old. Every time there is a change in political correctness, the old romance books are burned and replaced. Progressives burn more books than the Nazis ever did. When we are in charge, there will be yet another book burning and replacement, which is far more urgent than merely changing laws.

      • >If go to your local library, and check the dates that the books in the Romance section were written, you will find that they are all new, even though the library is old.

        What are some good, redpilled old romance books? I tried to read Pride and Prejudice, after all 1813 can’t be too bad, but I found it boring. It is something written by a woman for women. Well, at least one of these two tends to be true of all romance novels.

        • jim says:

          From the male point of view, they are scarcely distinguishable, but progressives find the differences important.

      • Ryan says:

        I would buy a book about your exploits, if producing one wouldn’t risk your safety too much.

        If that’s too much to ask, the odd post with a highly illegal story from your life and the lessons to be drawn from it would be a good complement to your more theoretical posts.

      • Aphelio says:

        I see. So it’s not just proposing we have children out of wedlock, but that we disregard the rule of law when it conflicts with religious belief. Then if we get caught, we’re supposed to use lawyers, charisma, and possibly payoffs to get our way. To get a woman, we have to be criminals and also ensure she is in a position to never leave, defy us, or use the law against us. So inherently, this way of life would require that we essentially find a perfect victim (woman) in which we exercise our authority over, the perfect victim being a woman who has no family, college education, or social ties in progressive society because that’s the only way I can imagine you’d get away with dominating her fully. Otherwise, if she decides she’s had enough, she can leave with common law marriage enabling her to trade up, or her family would not approve of the lack of state marriage. Such women who allow this level of domination are usually of low genetic quality.

        Sure, there are ways to avoid punishment, but I’m not sure the risk is worth the reward.

        I agree about morals and faith before law changes.

        Can you really burn a book like Fifty shades of grey? I think it outsold the Bible or something and thus hard to erase. Also, are there really that many romance novels from the past that we burned? And what kind of romance novels do you want to burn? What narrative do we allow? Women want to read about all this messed up stuff. If we rid of it, then are we trying to convince men and women that women are angels like in pride and prejudice?

        • Atavistic Morality says:

          Before you can enjoy life, you must have the courage to live life.

          You are very afraid of what might happen, very unwilling to take action and very resigned to always dismal fate, meaning, you’re not very alive. With this mentality you’re not going to find success or happiness in your life, women or no women, I’m afraid.

          So don’t try to sell us your black pill shit like you’re going to end up living some sort of uber chad life full of riches and success. I can think of someone living the uber chad life full of riches and success, his name is Trump, and he has more ex-wives than you have notches. That’s what the uber chad life looks like, not being a pussy, not being afraid to fight for what you want.

          • Aphelio says:

            Agreed, yet part of living life is taking reasonable risk. You don’t do something just to do it. There has to be a reason and if the rewards for an action are not worth the risk, then you won’t take it. Thus, the only way a man today could justify the risk is to artificiallly inflate the worth of a woman and family. Very blue pill. Hence the reason why we are engaged in religion crafting. People need to believe it’s worth it when it’s not.

            I am quite content with my life without a wife and kids. Redpill knowledge liberates me from being forced into the traditional paths other men had to take. What you call fear, I call a rational estimation of incentives and risk. There’s simply no incentive for me to risk my livelihood for a wife.

            I’m not trying to sell anyone anything. I live in reality. I don’t know if I’ll be uber chad as a single man down the road. I don’t know if I’ll be a miserable husband trapped in a marriage with a sub-par woman. But I do know that given the current social environment that marriage and cohabitation are legally binding and that there is a lack of incentive with a lot of risk.

            Trump is Trump. I am not Trump and neither are you.

            • jim says:

              Police are alarmingly ineffectual even in enforcing basic necessary and just laws against assault and burglary. They are frequently even less effectual in enforcing grotesquely unjust laws, and even more so when the target can afford an expensive lawyer, and knows himself to be in the right.

            • Atavistic Morality says:

              That’s not what I get from your tone, you jumped like a spring into a very defensive position at the mention of MGTOW, so I do believe you’re trying to sell something to someone, but it seems you’re actually trying to sell it to yourself.

              If you did not have a very strong desire to have a wife, you wouldn’t have reacted as you did or argue they way you are. I know because I do not have a very strong desire to have a wife, thus I have no need to strongly defend nor do I feel offended.

              Just so we are clear, I’m not going to tell another man how to handle his women or lack of women, it’s always been my firm policy not to meddle into couples and such because it’s an easy and stupid way towards conflict. But I take issue with your tone and attitude.

              You claim you live in reality, I think it’s not that simple. Your eyes do not see a dismal fate, your mind imagines the dismal fate. Your eyes see reality, your mind imagines whatever else.

              Irrational optimism will always beat “rational” pessimism. Rational pessimism is setting up yourself for failure, then fail, then you get to claim how right you were, see, “I just knew it”. Rational pessimism means that you come up with a million ways which might or might not be, but you immediately claim are, of how and why you are going to fail, then you die. But hey, you got to be very “realistic”, you’re very right in your grave. Rational pessimism means you are working towards death, irrational optimism means you’re trying to figure out a way to live.

              You’re right, Trump is Trump, but his life IS reality. Where is the dismal fate? No dismal fate. I don’t know if you didn’t get the point or just ignored it, but what I’m pointing out is precisely the dismal fate is not so dismal and not so fated as you implied when you talked about women and marriage and whatever other consequences you imagine and claim will happen. They did not happen, thus, not reality as you claim.

              Reality is that if you are a blue pilled faggot and treat women like a blue pilled faggot and also fear the bureaucracy, you’re going to eat shit. If you are red pilled and do things right, you end up being President of the United States, public enemy number one to the strongest political faction in Earth and winning, several children, plenty of money, etc.

              You don’t want a wife, don’t have it brother, do whatever the fuck you want. But don’t come here to spread the black pill about dismal fate that is not dismal and is not fated, demoralizing and being destructive to other readers.

              • Aphelio says:

                Aren’t we all trying to sell ourselves something? You so fiercely stating your beliefs is an indicator that you are trying to sell yourself something. Otherwise you would be calm and the passion wouldn’t be necessary.

                I didn’t mention anything about being offended nor was I.

                What tone and attitude are you referring to? It seems clear to me that you are offended, not me.

                Yes, we cannot see everything, thus we must always think ahead and imagine various scenarios and weigh the probability of them. That is not illogical by any means. It is the natural rational process.

                I pick neither irrational optimism nor rational pessimism. I choose rational optimism. Rationally, a wife and kids is a bad bet and optimistically, this frees me for other pursuits. Your attack on rational pessimism thus does not apply here.

                If you don’t have a desire for a wife, and it’s not something you value so much then why use Trump as an example of unparalleled success? Do you want large sums of money, power, and women?

                Also, to use Trump as an example of how marriage can go “right” is quite a stretch considering you were bragging about how many ex wives he’s had. Thus the example of Trump disproving my skepticism falls flat.

                If you’re so unafraid of the beaucracy then feel free to express your redpill opinions outside of this blog or is there perhaps a rational reason not to?

                If facts and logic are demoralizing and destructive to the readers here then perhaps you’re all not the alpha men you’d like to be.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  No, I’m not trying to sell something to myself.

                  When Jim says something I don’t entirely see or agree, I don’t write a wall of text explaining how I’m right and he is wrong. He mentioned MGTOW, and you couldn’t help try to defend your choice of MGTOW, because deep down you know it’s wrong, and deep down you want a wife but you’re just too much of a coward for it. You’re like the faggots that immediately jump when called faggots because deep down they know something’s wrong with them.

                  Because I’m perfectly comfortable with my choice of not caring much about the bible or a wife, I don’t get defensive and cry to Jim when he mentions the bible or having a wife. You, on the other hand, you did, fast, immediate, like a spring.

                  You’re like a child who has been rattled and then starts to say “no, you”, instead of actually engaging in the conversation. You argue like a faggot reddit leftist, and like faggot reddit leftists you try to convince yourself and others that genetic death is the greatest thing ever. They are insane about climate change, you’re insane about women and marriage.

                  Trump serves as an example of marriage having not a single one of the consequences you imply it has, the example is valid, what falls flat is your entire childish non-answer here.

                  If you want to be a child and get into “no, you” and “what about you?” instead of engaging in the conversation, whatever, but fuck off with your black pill bullshit. R7 should hit you with the WQ multi-question because you’re starting to sound like a shill. It’s the first time I see someone retarded enough to actually demand from someone in the internet to talk about his illegal exploits as some form of proof, no thanks, gonna pass on the keyboard warrior thing.

                • Aphelio says:

                  @Atavistic Morality

                  You are emotional and are willing to type out walls of text. It is you and your name calling that is embarrassingly childish.

                  Ironically your serial monogamy is anti traditional. Every woman you sleep with adds to her n-count and worsens the problem.

                  If you’re going to pose as an alpha, at least make it believable.

                  There is a natural order, but Jim’s prescription for getting a wife and kids is idiotic. If you feel otherwise, then please do so and let us know how it goes or follow your role model Trump’s behaviors. But so far, it appears that you yourself is unable to even hold down a girlfriend due to lust and lack of stamina. Pretty beta to me.

                  I’m not an antinatalist. There is a difference between one who proclaims a lack of children is good and one who sees the anti male society we live in and decides to not get a wife, just because it appears you couldn’t tell the difference.

                • jim says:

                  Someone who scores, knows what women are like.

                  I can tell who scores and who is bluffing.

                  Further, everyone who scores is bold. You are afraid.

              • Bilge_Pump says:

                I don’t think having a wife is worth as much as you think it is. To me it isn’t “the dismal fate” to remain unmarried. Being constantly required to assert dominance over a woman, or forced to hire expensive lawyers and bribe the judges or whomever to get out of a jam, seems tiresome at best. Was the time you spent with that wench really worth the legal / extralegal expenses?

                • jim says:

                  Definitely.

                  A man needs to rule, and he needs a household to rule over.

                  And he needs someone to warm his bed and fetch a cup of coffee in the morning.

                  If I do not have a woman in my house, it gets overrun with rubbish

                • Aphelio says:

                  For a religion to reproduce, its followers need to reproduce. Thus, Jim’s followers have to necessarily ignore any rational argument against having kids or a wife because it is contrary to this interest. In other words, the goal of pushing their new religion is higher than truth and thus rational argument contrary to their goal is “black pill”, “degenerate”, “demoralizing”, etc. It’s basic group dynamics. For the group to survive and maintain cohesion, it needs to rally around some set of beliefs. When those beliefs are challenged, they need to be deflected in some way. I understand the game we’re all playing here but it’s disingenuous to state that what is being stated is truth rather than what it really is: a highly evolved meme.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  The rational arguments against having children are usually rationalizations for failure or fear of failure. The end result of the anti-natal meme is the extinguishment of the meme when all its proponents die off. It is self-defeatism on both a biological and ideological scale. Its like suicide, but on a more complete level.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  I don’t think having a wife is worth anything at all, since I’ve never had one. How could I? I don’t have the experience to judge.

                  You lost yourself somewhere in the text, I never claimed dismal fate in either case, the one claiming dismal fate is him. Dismal fate if you marry, dismal fate if you have children, dismal fate if you have a will to live.

                  Now let me ask you, have you married? From which experiences do you draw?

                  I’ve never been married, but I’ve had gfs, usually goes like this: I do my thing, sometimes they try to play tricks or dissuade me, I still keep doing my thing, they seem to love me for it and are very insisting on following along. Soon enough I get tired or I feel like fucking someone else, I tell them, they cry a lot, next. Sometimes they try to strongarm me into keeping them around, I remind them I like to break necks and set things on fire, the end.

        • jim says:

          > So it’s not just proposing we have children out of wedlock, but that we disregard the rule of law when it conflicts with religious belief

          The rule of law is a Cathedral lie. We are always ruled by men.

          And we are currently ruled by evil crazy men, plus quite a lot of evil crazy single childless women.

          Laws cannot rule. However, if the sovereign claims to rule under God by Divine Right, the claim will go considerably better if he plausibly claims that his law is the application of Gnons’s law to our present place time.

          • Aphelio says:

            Agreed. But I’m not convinced the risk is worth the reward. All you have done is work twice as hard for the same result men before us got for free.

            Also, history is cyclical. Once you achieve power, the men will weaken and once again we will fall into insanity.

            Although I respect the traditional solution of religion, I think our modern problems need modern solutions, unless you want to bring us back to pre modern human life.

            People are leaving Christianity, religion, etc. And the internet has given everyone the freedom to criticize everything anonymously. Ironically this blog is an example. I find that religion as a solution is like throwing wood on a burnt out fire expecting the flames to somehow ignite again.

            • jim says:

              Men never get anything for free. It is always a struggle. That is inherent in being a man. That the state and the officially unofficial state religion is hostile to whites and males is just one more thing.

              You were born to fight, and each of your male ancestors was a winner. Don’t let them down.

              Irrational optimism does not win every time, but rational pessimism loses every time.

              • Aphelio says:

                fair enough.

                Our ancestors were a combination of warriors, farmers, tailors, blacksmiths, sheep herders, etc. They were normal people, not extraordinariy beings free of criticism. Having kid didn’t make you a supreme being or a winner. A plant’s instincts is to grow, like a human’s instincts is to reproduce. It’s not some magic. Let’s not insert unnecesarry romanticism.

                I’m a rational optimist. I remain rational and focused on the positive. What I see here is plenty of irrational optimism posing as truth. That’s the problem with religion and ideology. It will always conflict with truth.

        • “So it’s not just proposing we have children out of wedlock, but that we disregard the rule of law when it conflicts with religious belief. Then if we get caught, we’re supposed to use lawyers, charisma, and possibly payoffs to get our way. To get a woman, we have to be criminals and also ensure she is in a position to never leave, defy us, or use the law against us.”

          Yes.

          There is no debating an antinatalist. Your beliefs are viscerally and obviously against the natural order, like a sick zoo animal in a concrete cage eating its own vomit, telling itself that the vomit tastes good and there are perfectly rational reasons for lapping it off the ground, throwing it back up, and sticking its snout right back in.

          • Aphelio says:

            I’m not an antinatalist but the prescription is stupid. Personal observation tells me that the prescription is stupid and not worth it. Sure, redpill works, but still not worth. The only way to convince men it’s worth is to lie and assign godly status to men that play your game. Lying to get support is textbook blue pill.

            • alf says:

              Well a bit but mostly no.

              What you want to do is have your own little universe in which you do stuff you enjoy most, if not all of the time. The kind of universe MGTOWs say they want to create, I guess. If you succeed at that, women will be attracted to you.

              Women want to complement your life, its in their nature. They clean, they cook (if she gets good at it it’s like eating in a restaurant every day), and they throw their arms over your shoulders saying you’re the greatest man in the world. And, of course, they bear your children, who are great and make you immortal and stuff. There is just no substitute for a good woman.

              Yes, women shit-test. Sometimes, especially in the early phase of the relation, grossly so. But my impression is also that men tend to try their luck with women above their league, which naturally evokes nuclear shit-tests. Date a woman in your league and you’ll find the shit-tests are tailor made for you to pass.

            • ten says:

              Every single story of the world begins with a man, his woman, and their child.

              It is the only story that matters, and all other stories only matter by how they relate to it.

              When you say “it’s not worth it”, you are the zero impulse, the final end of everything, the thirst for annihilation. You say you are not an antinatalist, but your actual position is the one that would undo not only childhaving but all of creation if it had the chance, it is the absolute diabolical anticosmic stance of total suicide. “Someonoe else will take care of it” doesn’t fly. Maybe you could have some other calling that would make the choice to not be part of the actual story of life, but you do not make it seem so.

              “Rational optimism”, where’s the optimism? What does your life matter if it is a dead end? Are you optimistic about that end? A freakish and again diabolical thought.

              Some are indeed so cursed that this is the only path for them, but spare us your attempts at cheering yourself up as you fade into the void.

              “damn i really, really like heroin. this isn’t that bad a way to go. rational optimism”

              • Aldon says:

                Wouldn’t be surprised if he was a faggot or coomer.

              • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                Shaming the childless, even beyond celebrating fertility, is healthy for a society. It puts the incentives right, and even the biologically infertile can be encouraged to adopt children.

                However, evolutionarily there has always been a sizable fraction of men who had no children, or whose children had no children. There must be some optimal policy that accomodates this as a way of letting Nature run its course, without creating too many social problems. One way is external inputs (mail order brides) and outputs (send bachelors to colonize Africa). In a closed system it’s not as clear what the best policy is. If China had not had the Africa option it might have been at war by now.

                • Mike says:

                  I wonder how women in the workforce affects the dynamic between men and women. In the past women just stayed at home so it didn’t matter. Now a decent amount of households have the woman making the most money. I would think that if your wife makes more money than you it would be more difficult for you to remain in control.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  This isn’t about a sizable fraction of men who have no children, this is about a huge faggot celebrating genetic death in the public square.

                  Like I told him, if he doesn’t want a wife or children, just shut the fuck up about it. Crying out in the public square that it’s the greatest thing ever and no one should ever have either because some delusional and insane dismal fate demands hanging from a post.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  I thought he was trolling and was asking about something else, general strategies for dealing with the nonfertility phenomenon we do want without getting the one we don’t.

                  But if he was speaking seriously then, yes, it should go without saying: whip anyone through the town streets who emits that devil talk. This is madness beyond the reach of words and you don’t reason with it, you first crush it and see about the rest later.

            • Not Tom says:

              Sure, redpill works, but still not worth

              Haha what a fag. You’re that Doug Smythe guy aren’t you? Rambling on about “rule of law”. Total closet case.

              • Mike says:

                Lol he was just using stupid terminology, he clearly was talking about the modern positive law that makes traditional family and marriage effectively illegal, not the Lockean “rule of law” that constitutional conservative retards talk about. Of course you can disagree with him being afraid of positive law that deserves to be disobeyed, but he wasn’t talking about rule of law.

            • Having kids is telos #1. God promised Jacob that his descendants would number among the grains of sand in the desert, and that was the highest honor God could give him. If you deny the fundamental telos, you have invalidated all of the rest.

              Denying that immortality is worth the effort is so insane and sick that there is no debating it. It is as insane as advocating the end of all life in the universe.

      • Xdaf says:

        Illegal? How hard then, should one push a reluctant spouse for s3x?

        • jim says:

          Have sex with her regardless of whether she is complaining and resisting. It is just a fitness test. Remind her that Saint Paul said that spouses should not withhold sex from each other, and that she promised at the wedding ceremony to honor and obey.

          Obviously you should do your best to ensure that she is not reluctant, but do not let her weaponize that. Play with her like a toy until she comes around, but if she does not want to play, play anyway, and if she does not come around, have sex with her anyway. Resistance is merely a fitness test, and you only have to pass it once. Unless, of course, someone more alpha than yourself is on her mind, in which case you have bigger problems.

        • Pooch says:

          Dread game. Ignore her and lift. Focus on yourself.

          • jim says:

            Dread game will not be believed after one attempts gentle methods to have sex with her unsuccessfully. At all.

            Hence the need, when seducing a woman, to act indifferent to her charms, until the moment comes when it is appropriate to ravish her, and then, when you know the time has come, go right ahead disregarding her pro-forma protests.

            • Face the Fascist says:

              Does behavior change post ravishment? What objections to sex, if any, have merit?

            • Paul Dempsey says:

              “A woman sometimes scorns what best contents her:
              Send her another; never give her o’er;
              For scorn at first makes after-love the more.

              Take no repulse, whatever she doth say;
              For ‘get you gone,’ she doth not mean ‘away!'”
              Shakespeare…

  8. Encelad says:

    In which sense EU is a literal worshipper? I recall about the Tower of Babel aesthetics of the Bruxelles parliament and a weird EU poster with the literal tower of Babel and stars upside down… But that’s it. Is there anything I am missing?

    • eternal anglo says:

      Satanic Opening Ceremony For Gotthard Base Tunnel In Switzerland (2017)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNT1A_hESds

      • I'm familiar with the satanscene says:

        Wow.

      • Atavistic Morality says:

        Not even an hyperbole lol

      • Encelad says:

        Oh right, I almost forgot that one. The mainstream media didn’t have any persuasive explanation about that show, they were just scratching their head puzzled as everyone else. If I remember correctly, eventually we were told it was a representation of Krampus, symbolizing the struggle of Man against Nature for building the tunnel. But if it were so, the celebration should have been one to convey a hopeful feeling, not leaving a sense of dread and despair. And beside that, postmodern art never communicates positive messages, thus the victory of humankind against troublesome Nature was an unlikely explanation.

        • A symbolically significant part of the traditional Alpine Krampuslauf costumes is that the devil should wear chains, as a Christian symbol of binding the devil. This was probably a Church addition to a ritual that likely had pre-Christian, “Horned God” origins: https://youtu.be/mojrfw7SJ14?t=33

          • Encelad says:

            Interesting. In contrast with the chained devil, the horned figure in the tunnel ceremony never appears vanquished. In theory, the message of the play should be that the workers sacrifice themselves to “defeat” the Nature: “We suffered but eventually we triumphed over the uncaring universe”. But that is not the feeling it evokes in me. Instead, it looks to me that the workers’ sacrifice is represented as a mean to “appease” the Krampus/Nature, rather than defeating it. Something like: “We are damaged this mountain, and we met the wrath of Nature because of our greed”. Which is coherent with the gist of postmodernism that men are unworthy, humanity is evil and civilization abuses the Earth.

            • info says:

              @Encelad

              The truth is buildings are fugly since architecture is modernist post-modernist. And modern civilization is environmentally destructive and polluting.

              Unlike the civilizations of old which were wonders of beauty.

              So even when we are more advanced our civilization is fundamentally broken on many levels.

              God or Gnon is not very happy with our treatment of his creation.

      • Yes, the Sacre del Gottardo, written and directed by theater director Volker Hesse. You see… if I was asked about this even 5 years ago, I would be dismissive about it, it is just the usual kind of crazy modern art, nothing special. Because to talk about this sounds like talking like the folks who talked about satanic lyrics in the Rolling Stones, it just sounds like an extremely low status, chemtrails and tinfoil hats thing to talk about, you see?

        But the reality is, there are rational reasons to worry about stuff like this, because art and religion pushes the same buttons. A rock concert, a theatre play, and a Mass functions essentially the same way, some people in the center perform something, the audience watches and to extent participates etc. in this sense it is not wrong to talk about Woodstock or the Burning Man as religious ceremonies.

        I mean, this was talked a lot about already in the late 19th century. Religion seems to be dying, so some said let’s try to replace it with art. If people no longer want to be morally inspired by sermons, they might still let themselves to be morally inspired by music and poetry.

        Similarly, in the last few decades a lot of people of a varied set of convictions realized that people pay a lot more attention if you don’t just preach to them but get on a stage with an electric guitar. Like, the neopagans realized nobody cares about a blót but if you put out some good folk-metal of a Turisas type, that they pay attention to. I am sort of wondering that is how Christianity should make a comeback. Something like a Christian version of Turisas or Rammstein, with loud guitars and drums.

        So for all these reasons, because art and religion are like next to each other, it is right to worry about stuff like this. It is just tough, because if I go googling this satanic ceremony thing, every website that notices it is of the chemtrails type. It just feels like a very low status crowd to associate with. Dissidents they are, all right, their heart is the right place, but they aren’t too bright.

        • jim says:

          > if I go googling this satanic ceremony thing, every website that notices it is of the chemtrails type.

          If you notice that Hillary Clinton is connected to gurus and artists that heavily use Satanic symbolism, blood pentagrams and the head of a sacrificed goat, “Hey, you are one of those low IQ paranoids”

          But, for the Dark Enlightenment, the biggest tell is not n degrees of separation between the political elite and in your face satanic imagery, it is that namefags dare not speak the truth. That is Satanic. They are not rebelling against God, because they don’t believe in God, and are quite sure that they are holier than him anyway. They are rebelling against nature. That is the significance of the Tower of Babel symbolism.

    • jim says:

      There are a bunch of videos on the internet of the EU putting on celebrations with Satanic symbolism. The Tower of Babel is not the only one.

  9. BC says:

    The downside with describing our foes as satanists in the Satanic cult panic in the 80s. Lots of innocent people locked up during that period.

  10. Sol Cohngoldsilverburgstein, III says:

    Odd to go from Happy Easter to discussing rape.

    The Easter Grinch ruined it for us along with our jobs and civil rights. That is my truth. Because it is just the flu.

    It is easy to avoid rape accusations, just get married, stay married, reproduce, and be loyal. Be your own “Alpha Male”.

    • jim says:

      Nuts.

      In the guise of Christian conservatism, you are giving us the blue pill advice, that women only make accusations against wicked men, because women are wonderful.

      If a woman senses her husband is weak, or has a higher alpha on her mind, she will not want to have sex with her husband.

      If he is weak, a rape or domestic violence accusation will ensue. And it is a lot more likely to ensue if he does not compel his wife to perform her marital duties.

      Women just don’t like men they perceive as insufficiently alpha around.

      The woman feels bad, concludes that something bad must have happened, and uses socially approved language to express this badness. In her mind, she is telling the truth.

      Women and dogs get nervous, difficult, unreasonable, and irrational, if they don’t feel they are being adequately supervised by male higher authority. This is the primary cause of sexual harassment, domestic violence, and rape accusations. Marriage and fidelity does not protect you from it. In fact fidelity increases the risk, because it is likely to be perceived as lack of pre-selection.

      • Sol says:

        Most rapes are done by niggers and sand niggers. They treat their women like dirt and cheat on them.

        Fewer rapes are done by whites per capita and they tend to be loyal family Christians.

        I agree though that the man must lead his family. I don’t think a woman needs to be coddled as a child but should be supervised. A woman’s best place is in a family under the guidance of a Christian man.

        • Aldon says:

          >Most rapes are done by niggers and sand niggers.

          Yeah since they know they’re at war with Whitey and target Whitey’s women as an act of war. It brings shame to the men and ruins the women since any self-respecting man doesn’t want women of his own kind to do miscegenation.

          They aren’t afraid of the White Man since they know the White Man won’t exterminate or brutalize them no matter how hard they misbehave. Jim Crow had all the state imposed brutality necessary to keep Kunta Kinte behaved.

          • Allah says:

            We just really like white girls.

            • face the facts says:

              understandable considering your races lovecraftian genetic origins.

              doesn’t mean we don’t need to intone the killing words.

              the saud invasion of london is esp offensive. many will perish!

    • Sol says:

      I’d like to also post that if you are not planning to have a family, there is no point to getting married or being involved with a woman at all. Women are evil manipulators and will destroy your lives if you let them.

      Under no circumstances should you marry with a woman who has someone else’s kids. You’re a cuck if you do. They will never show you any respect at all.

      Also, I don’t get this code you guys use with red pill, black, blue, white. Why not say what you mean in plan language. You might get more converts without all the talk around.

      A lot of this woman’s lib/abortion/destroy the family agenda is right out of the Marxist playbook. And I really can’t understand how the same conservative evangelical Christians support a tribe who has openly stated they want to destroy their white legacy. Explain it if you can.

      • jim says:

        Women are not evil manipulators. They are just apt to measure alpha, just as men are apt to look at signs of fertility. Unfortunately, fitness tests are stress tests. They are indeed manipulators, but once you understand what they are up to, very lovable in their proper sphere, when men and women perform the Gnon commanded roles. Fitness tests are necessarily disruptive, so you don’t put women among groups of men that they can disrupt. And in their proper sphere, you give them what they really want, which is, because fitness tests continue, not what they think they want.

        > Also, I don’t get this code you guys use with red pill, black, blue, white.

        Then learn it. Read Heartiste. Read me. We have knowledge that men need to survive, to get laid, to get married, to stay married, to have children. Get off your ass, stop playing video games and watching porn, read the red pill literature, lift iron, loose weight, and eat meat and butter.

        • face the facts says:

          the fake masculinity stuff is nonsense. no “red pill” guru ever described biz because they have no biz.

          there is only one spectrum and it is slavery spectrum.

          coincidentally not coincidentally all the online people are weird code money dweebs.

          larping as free men

          • Face the Fascist says:

            Oh you’re on the spectrum all right.

            • face the facts says:

              poke nrx and uncover a programmer. prove me wrong faggot.

              • Right, because you are supposed to have no respect at all for the kind of men who made it possible for you to do what you are doing right now, namely interacting with the Web.

              • Dave says:

                Yeah, force spergs to stop breeding, then go back to pencil and paper when your computers and smart phones mysteriously stop working.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Given how paper plants work in this day and age, without spergs he’s going to be short the engineers to run those plants and won’t even have the paper. Mechanical, chemical, industrial; it takes many disciplines to run a modern plant. Let alone things like power or water treatment. Sitting in candlelight, drinking unclean water is his natural state and he wants to go back to it, dragging the rest of us along.

              • Face the Fascist says:

                You know what? What I wrote was rough. This is a rough crowd. I can tell you’re angry and dismayed. I appreciate your point of view, that heterosexual relationships with women are slavery, and welcome your future contributions to this community, even if most here don’t agree.

                • face the facts says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for presupposing that violently unpopular changes imposed from above by the state religion were just the spontaneous choices of the mass of people.

                  A host of your very similar comments silently deleted for the same reason.

                  Now if you want to present an argument that the violently unpopular changes imposed from above were not violently unpopular changes imposed from above by our officially unofficial state religion, but represented the spontaneous desires of people due to modern technology or some such, I will allow it.

                • fayyyce the faxxx says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Try making an actual argument, or presenting actual evidence.

                  Or even an opinion that does not presuppose the truth of some blatant falsehood of progressivism.

            • face the facts says:

              “Coming from someone on the spectrum that has worked hard to overcome my social insensitivity”

              hahaha

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            Fake masculinity my nuts. I’d take any of the regulars here that pass the red-pill test with me into a fight rather than a dozen of you “mens” rights nu-males. You tuck your balls so far back that you piss on your ass when you sit down to pee, and shit on your balls when you take a dump. You wouldn’t know real masculinity if it was fucking the woman who hurt your feeling so bad that you did the reproductive equivalent of crawling into a hole and crying yourself to death.

            • face the facts says:

              you know so much about me, wow. very impressive. especially how i tuck my balls behind my ass when i pee.

              i respect you now.

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                That gotcha, didn’t it? You types are so fucking transparent. Must be related to how hollow you are inside. Cry more, faggot.

  11. Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

    > I think lust is usually visible on women,

    There is a spectrum, but it doesn’t matter much. Normal women are lustful, certainly lustful enough to do business, essentially all the time. They are looking for a pretext, not a reason, to have sex. I would like to think all men past a certain age understand this but some comments here show otherwise.

    The analysis of alpha as being on the General Butt Naked scale is incorrect, though, partly from failure to fully incorporate the actual level of female horniness and partly from not recognizing the hard-wired evolutionary impulse toward assortative mating and selection on IQ. Social scientists who actually bothered to measure it found higher assortativity (I think this was for marriage or reproduction, which are what matter, not casual sex) by IQ than by height. In reality, General Naked is edged out by a less violent warlord with a PhD in engineering:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_McCune

    • The Cominator says:

      As far as iq goes women like men SLIGHTLY smarter than they are but not more than one SD. They HATE guys two SDs above them.

      But women mostly care about status and physical characteristics.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        That’s the same self-defeating mentality as not recognizing how much they generally want to sleep with you. Women LOVE 2+ SD above them, but they need social proof of it above the IQ level they can personally discern.

        I had 20 years of sex slaves from women who like SD’s to spare. You’re a smart guy, don’t lower your options from wrongly assuming the women don’t care.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          I am with You on this one. The girls who get to see my mind at work love it, whether they are the +2SD engineerettes at school or the average girls at work or around school. In fact when I think on it, they are more intimidated by a smart man than a violent one. Their power lies in manipulation, which is more transparent to a man with the pattern-matching abilities of high IQ. A violent man in safe once she starts fucking him, but a smart man may never be truly safe. Interesting thought, and one that definitely merits further exploration. It may be the reason behind the impulse to show off by answering questions in social situations.

          Women hate social awkwardness and love men who are socially adept. Spergs mistaking their social awkwardness for a sign of intelligence are just being obnoxious spergs. Coming from someone on the spectrum that has worked hard to overcome my social insensitivity, the idea that autistic indifference to social cues should be normal and high status sounds like the same self-serving bullshit as the body positivity, healthy-at-any-size crowd whining about fat acceptance and fat shaming.

          • The Cominator says:

            “Women hate social awkwardness and love men who are socially adept. Spergs mistaking their social awkwardness for a sign of intelligence”

            Social awkwardness and intelligence are of course not the same (and the true geniuses, which I don’t claim to be, are often well rounded) but being 2 SDs above average or more brings social difficulties of its own as well…

            • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

              No social difficulties from high IQ (vs sperginess). It gets you out of many jams in dealing with stupid people, and if you have to spend a lot of time around them you can (a) take steps to move to a more high IQ environment, and (b) multitask, such as solving puzzles in your head while talking to them. Men and women are not really made to spend time chit-chatting with each other, so if you are looking for “soul mate” intellectual-social compatibility rather than reproduction, good genetics and patriarchal/sexual dominance you are playing the wrong game.

              • The Cominator says:

                Lot of things to respond to here and I’m not a good writer so if my response seems disjointed and clunky I apologize.

                I have sperginess but even without sperginess stupid people are harder for much smarter people to connect with. Sperginess (and I don’t deny this) of course makes it much worse. Progressivism (which became much more militant and intolerable around 2010-2012 and even worse in 2016) being the reigning belief system when you know its all a horrible lie also makes it much much worse. I did a lot better socially when even in Massachussetts it was okay to safely make cynical mockery of leftist beliefs (and it actually was for a long time) but things just got more and more NPC like from that point on.

                I also strongly object to the idea that you can do (b).

                https://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyapozin/2015/01/07/theres-no-such-thing-as-multitasking/#790e1f172225

                I think there are a VERY FEW people who are truly good at multitasking but they are rare very rare. Most people who claims to be good multitaskers are just deluding themselves.

                Of course I don’t believe in bullshit like soul mates but there is such a thing as a woman who is genuinely pleasant to talk to even for long periods. Its unfortunate that in American society they have become increasingly rare but whether you were seeking a girl who was a pleasant conversationalist wasn’t the topic… The topic was do women like guys more than an SD higher on them in intelligence.

                From what I’ve seen not just with me (awkward sperg that I am) but observing other people are that the answer is overwhelmingly no. Generally when a really smart guy is with a girl who seems much much dumber its a bubbly socialite type girl who is a lot smarter than she appears. Generally its a girl who is smart enough to have figured out (at least partially) that feminist metrics of success are a lie and who does not try to appear as any kind of high powered intellectual feminist type. Girls in fact are far more likely to be with guys much much dumber than they are than the reverse. They are far more willing to forgive relative stupidity in a guy they are otherwise attracted to than the opposite.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  High IQ means (if not pozzed) better models of reality, sperginess is arguing about it. Avoid disagreements (or conversations!) that don’t involve equations or a close enough equivalent of that. Say things that are politically incorrect, yet objectively incontestable at the same time — it will get you laid, not ostracized, partly because of how intellectually and personally alpha you will appear in comparison to anyone trying to debate the un-debatable.

                  In dealing with unstable or significantly lower-than-your IQ women, it helps to say and ask things whose only possible answer is a number or yes/no.

                  Eschew subjectivity, enjoy pussy.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  Well, sometimes it can be that you’re actually being too sophisticated, witty and urbane so she just can’t play the banter game or don’t even understand what’s going on. For example, your jokes about Kant don’t make her laugh.

                  If so, you have to lower the protocol version, er, difficulty so that you two can connect properly.

          • Coming from a similar background, I think sperginess and IQ is confused simply because low-IQ spergs are invisible nonentities. Had such a classmate. He didn’t simply have low status, he was socially non-existent, not even worth bullying. The high-IQ sperg is a stereotype simply because they are more visible and somewhat surprising, the classmates are just surprised that this socially loser guy is not actually an utter loser in everything. While the high-IQ non-sperg is just generally seen as an obvious all-round winner.

            Add to it my hunch that peoples interests tend to develop in the direction of what they are good at, because everybody likes success, so the high-IQ sperg will likely develop rather exclusively in the intellectual direction because that is what he is succeeding at, so will logically and naturally identify with being an intellectual and their shortcomings as typical intellectual shortcomings. This is basically confirmation bias.

            It is sort of similar to how people thing strong guys are stupid, they aren’t, but if someone does happen to be strong and stupid, he will naturally focus all his got on athletics, as that is what he can succeed in. So a confirmation bias develops.

            I toyed with the idea that high IQ alone could lead to some social awkwardness, because it generates curiosity, so such a guy is more likely to read books than to practice social skills. However it was falsifyed by the existence of such folks as Richard Feynman, who had immense book knowledge and yet no problem with social skills. It seems someone intelligent and not spergy can pick up good social skills without having to invest much time into it.

            I can sort of confirm the girls like IQ hypothesis. Once had a girl just jump at me after watching me run circles around someone in a debate, there are girls who idolize writers etc. These, too, can be status displays and forms of mogging. With the caveat that they, too, have to be somewhat smart for it. It is rather impossible to impress the 90IQ hairdresser or factory worker girl intellectually because she does not even notice what is going on.

            • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

              Aspergers/autism is real, but it’s easy to over-diagnose it and imagine it everywhere or in oneself, as in Silicon Valley when it became a fad.

              The IQ90 girls, hairdressers and factory girls also like intelligence, it is a hard wired preference, and the likeliest means of social mobility for their children if impregnated (they are accustomed to assuming single motherhood as the end-state of sex). The difference is in the level of social proof involved. It needs to be stronger the further away they are from being to evaluate the differences (e.g., IQ 130 MIT graduate versus IQ 145 mathematics postdoc; they might know what MIT is but things like “postdoctorate” or “habilitation” are foreign concepts). The ones from working-class backgrounds that do not prize intelligence may also need proof of relevance; smart is nice but if you are not a doctor or professor or some other recognizable outlet for intelligence, and are just some average-salary schmoe, then it is less special than for a middle-class girl from a striver family who would have liked to go to college but was too dumb.

            • info says:

              “The high-IQ sperg is a stereotype simply because they are more visible and somewhat surprising, the classmates are just surprised that this socially loser guy is not actually an utter loser in everything. While the high-IQ non-sperg is just generally seen as an obvious all-round winner. ”

              This highlights the importance of sports to such people. Men need to be well-rounded as much as possible.

              Man is both body and mind. The 2 cannot be cleaved.

              Failing often in said endeavors are good at teaching humility rather than arrogance.

            • ERTZ says:

              Social awkwardness is driven by lack of experience/training and high IQ.

              High IQ is correlated with higher anxiety because such people have more ideas of what might get wrong, making them appear timid and shy – and exacerbating the problem because they avoid socializing and thus training.

              Consider you want to do a crime, say, robbery.
              There are risks, among other things for your reputation, just like with social interaction, which can fail, too.
              Low-IQ people like Negroes have not necessarily a higher drive for crime, but they just fail to see the risks, the things that could go wrong and the consequences – thus they lack inhibitions to act on their urges.

              Those with higher IQs see risks immediately and feel inhibition – which makes it seem like they are less criminal – but this is not generally so:They just understand at once that the risk-reward ratio is usually not worth it.
              But if such people are, for example, drunk, which suppresses their higher-order thinking, and with that their inhibitions, they are much more violent, criminal, risk-taking – act more like Negroes.
              This also leads to higher social dominance (and sexual success), because shyness is mostly cognitive processing inhibiting behavior (not a lack of cognitive processing), the shy person imagines many things that could go wrong. If that is switched off by the drug, inhibitions are lost because the higher-order processing is shut off (alcohol inhibits dose-dependently first higher order thinking, then more basic processes like sense of balance, then consciousness(sleep), then breathing drive (death)).

              The uninhibited behavior is aggressive and dominant – like in young boys who have not yet learned their limits – which looks like social dominance, high status behavior, power, self-confidence to women – which is why alcohol (and other drugs like benzodiazepines) often helps socially anxious guys to increase their dating success – by literally dumbing them down.

              This effect makes drunks/junkies and Negroes such dangerous criminals – they just fail to imagine most of the risks, have a mental tunnel-vision for the reward only, and thus no inhibitions.

              Usually, a price for higher IQ is therefore higher anxiety – more processing about what could go wrong happens, more terrible possible futures from one’s actions are imagined.

              But with theoretical (for example, read Robert Cialdini) learning and practical training, high-IQ people can become master socializers that quickly leave others way behind.

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                This is a very good encapsulation of my experience. Being a bit of a sperg and very intelligent, I had all sorts of anxiety when I was a younger man. On top of that I had the blue pill as my default social model, which does not do a good job predicting actual, real human behavior.

                Reading the androsphere blogs like Heartiste, Roosh, and the others got me the red pill model, which is a predictive model, and that helped. Then I used nootropic enhancement and fake it until you make it style interaction to practice socially. I also bulked up and put on about 30-40 pounds of muscle, which meant I was going to win pretty much any conflict that did not escalate into a firefight.

                With a good prediction model, good combat capability, and experience, the anxiety is not debilitating anymore. I can and often do become a social hub at school because I my intelligence allows me to excel in intellectual pursuits and no one is willing to challenge my willingness and ability to commit grievous acts of physical violence.

                In short, find a working mental model of the world, and do whatever it takes to shore up the points where you feel anxious. If it is physical threats, get big, strong, and learn to fight. If it is social, start small by flirting with the cashiers when you get groceries, where there is no significant social penalty to a misstep.

              • This definitely sounds very logical. But empiricism trumps reasoning and men like Feynmann who had very high IQ and were yet socially succesful and not at all anxious or inhibited exist.

                Reading “Surely You Are Joking” my impression is that he was sort of a natural optimist, whose high-powered mind would generally run on exploring opportunities, seeing more and more ways how to win and so on.

                You and I might be natural pessimist or naturally depressed, whose minds run mostly on exploring how many ways there are to fail.

                Your mistake is thinking all high-IQ men are like that. No, there is a real difference between the type who sees 100 ways to fail and the type who sees 100 ways to win in creative, unusual ways.

                While Yudkowsky and his cult are in many ways a joke, his cult (LW) back around 2013 or so was an interesting example of a group of high-IQ yet super-optimistic, “I optimized myself yesterday and will optimize myself even more today” type of people. They also have a large number of the mentally ill, trannies and just generally utter faggots, but it does not change the aforementioned facts.

                • ERTZ says:

                  I think experience/environmental programming can make a big difference, especially with 1st experiences or in childhood (in that sensitive time experiences may cause stronger psychological imprinting that influences later behavior in life):

                  Those bitten by a dog in their 1st interaction with a dog as kids vs. those having only pleasurable 1st experiences with dogs – the former fearing and hating dogs for life, the latter becoming a lifelong dog owner – as an example.

                  Guys that have a horrible experience from their 1st dating attempt vs. those who, by mere luck, have a very pleasant 1st experience with girls may likewise be emotionally and behaviorally scarred or encouraged for life in their relationship with and ease and success with dating.

                  This could, at least in a certain domain like dating and flirting, produce “natural pessimist or naturally depressed” minds you mentioned, for life.

                  (My 1st dating attempt failed, not even horribly, I just was rejected quite politely but publicly as a teenager – beyond my ability to control it, it produced an adrenaline rush, vertigo, a panic attack, sweating, feelings of pressure in my chest and abdomen, and sent me mindlessly wandering for hours around town without me having much recollection of it.)

                  The potential for dating and flirting anxieties/shyness/inhibitions should be evolutionary deeply rooted in men, because it’s a life and death issue:
                  Successful reproduction is, of course, an existential problem, as the threat of genetic extermination looms large – but men tend to have more than half a century of time to get it done.
                  I see two immediate threats that must have programmed men’s instincts in the ancestral environment with great caution:
                  1.
                  Trying to mate with fertile women is guaranteed to arouse the ire of other men – those at the top in hierarchy who claim a monopoly on the women,
                  and the lower ranked men who are driven by competition/envy.
                  So, just going publicly for the women and trying to mate with them (just being physically near them may cause aggression – openly or hidden – from other men) is an aggression against the interests of all other men – and met with counter-aggression.
                  Those guys who just tried to mate openly and publicly and not having inhibitions about it , without having the necessary social status, have probably been driven into extinction directly (killing, injury) or – through the works of envy, social sabotage etc. – indirectly.
                  Men who fear dating/flirting with women would then not really fear the women or the dating situation, but the revenge of other men.

                  2.
                  Females’ mate choice copying makes sexually successful men significantly more attractive to women – but the opposite is also true: Sexually unsuccessful men become vastly more unattractive, even sexually disgusting, to women.
                  (Women’s gossip seems to be a socio-sexual “intelligence agency” that exists to identify sexually successful and loser men by gathering and sharing information about who has had sex with whom, which men failed, who has won and who has lost in competitions etc. – to enable women to mate with the sexually successful men and avoid mating with the losers – and it has to be gossip – sharing of secrets – because sharing this information openly would incite envy and aggression and mate guarding and anti-cuckolding instincts in men.)
                  If this were not the case, men could just go from woman to woman publicly and ask each one for sex, until one consents. This not happening, it produces a strong emotional inhibition in men – it feels terribly wrong to try it, embarrassing, painful:
                  Because the sexual attractiveness of a man to all women is diminished with every rejection he suffers that other women learn of (almost guaranteed by the female gossiping instinct), being rejected by just one woman has a terrible cost in fitness for a man with all other women.

                  All this should result in approach anxiety being programmed into men,
                  in taking sexual advances very, very seriously, because it is very risky, dangerous, costs-incurring for men to fail.
                  This might explain why so many men try to spy on their sexual target to learn more about her, try to engineer an ideal first meeting situation that is somewhat under their control and provides advantage, try to meet the girl not in a public situation but in a one-on-one private one (so others cannot directly observe and spread information about his rejection), to improve the odds for success, try to be slow and indirect about it, delaying a long time before they act.

                • jim says:

                  The female instinct is to arrange to be socially isolated with her target – preferably in a situation where, in the ancestral environment, he could rape her.

                  Pulling works, but women want to be pursued. Hitting on a woman demonstrates confidence and high status, and hitting on a woman in public is demonstration of being top alpha. On the other hand women want to be pursued to validate their attractiveness, and being pursued gives her what she wants, and she then loses interest (because in the ancestral environment, if you did not then drag her off to your lair and ravish her, you were obviously not the top alpha.)

                  Observe cats in operation. The tomcat pulls, by taking a prominent position and yowling, thus demonstrating that no other tomcat can drive him off and he can drive all the other tomcats off. The female then approaches, and then gives the tomcat a hard time This hard time may, and frequently does, escalate to the tomcat violently “raping” her, except that it is not exactly rape type rape, since the female cat clawed her way through the mosquito netting to get to the tomcat, and proceeded to hang out with him.

                  You have to chase, but you have to get the chick to give you the opportunity to chase, so you have to pull, but you have to pull and chase in a way that does not give her the validation she is hungry for. Don’t give her validation until she does what chicks always want to do, gets on her own with you. Hence “make me a coffee”. You are likely to get more than coffee, but, like the female cat after ripping her way through the mosquito netting, she is going to give you a hard time with the coffee.

                  If you are worried about other men seeing you approach a chick, you are emitting beta tells. If you are worried about the chick’s rejection, you are not only emitting beta tells, but you are approaching her in a way that gives her validation for free. But, of course, you are rightly worried about these things. If you approach a whole lot of chicks, you are diminishing your status, and handing out a whole lot of free validation.

                  You will notice, that, as usual, for everything I advise, I also advise the direct opposite. It is complicated, subtle, and not easily expressed in words. There is a narrow path between one error and the opposite error, and it is hard to tell if you are on the path until after you have fallen off the path to one side or the other. But you also have to stroll briskly and confidently along the path.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim thank you I’m a sperg and the process is hard and not intuitive for me and this is the kind of step by step I need.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  Naturally, game should be very difficult to master, since it’s part of an evolutionary arms race. Should take years or decades of hard practice to master (very difficult, but not too difficult so no man could master it).

                  It makes therefore sense that it’d be too complex to describe in words, even in a book. But one can learn things that cannot be described in words by simply seeing it. The best example I’ve seen online of tight game in the wild is:
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAJ2M8gsCXY.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  Correction: of course game must necessarily be hard to learn, but no reason it should be learnable. From POV of women I imagine ideally it wouldn’t.

                  Just thought I’d leave a reference to game being “performed”. Some times things that are hard to describe in words can be instead demonstrated. I should mention the guy in the video was mentioned by Heartiste in one of his posts saying something to the effect of this guy being much like him.

                • @Jim

                  >You will notice, that, as usual, for everything I advise, I also advise the direct opposite. It is complicated, subtle, and not easily expressed in words

                  It is easier to express on a more strategic rather than tactical level. Basically it is to act like someone who has already a harem of 10 women, is interested in adding another one to it, but not overly interested, after all, he isn’t thirsty. And he is 101% sure the woman will be very happy if she would be added to it.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          Not sure why it capitalized “you,” but can you pick a nickname so I don’t have to write out your full handle? Calling you Omar just sounds wrong.

          • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

            I will change it. It was originally from an Ilhan Omar discussion but since it does not look like anyone will be playing that Trump card against her it’s out of date. The reporter who dug up the marriage story did report her to the FBI a few months ago and said they were interested, but obviously that is not going anywhere.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              Appreciated. Note, however, that “the squad” are a spent political force these days, with only AOC having any notoriety, and that due to her playing the game instead of sticking to her guns. Typically feminine behavior, falling in line with the social consensus of her peers, and her peers are now the establishment. Looks like her originators should have gone with a man. Oh, but that would be crimethink… hahaha. Noting more fun than the left being hoist on their own petard.

    • Oak says:

      What age range are we discussing? Because that makes a huge difference.

      Young girls don’t select for IQ for sex.

      They will select for status in a relationship, which is more important as they get older.

      But even higher IQ young girls will pick serial-killer over maths-prodigy.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tAAAVk1E_w

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        Controlling for amount of publicity, an equally good looking prodigy would get more than Ted. Do you understand how much pussy actual math prodigies get if reasonably macho? Alexander Grothendieck, who had everything in the world going against him in practical terms, was still a chick magnet with at least 5 children by several women. Grisha Perelman, the sperg nerd to end all sperg nerds, was getting letters from women all over Russia wanting to save him, and he was a scruffy 40-year old bachelor, probably virgin, with 6-inch fingernails and the social retardation to refuse millions of dollars in scientific prizes while unemployed.

        The STEM business at its top levels is the classic alpha male hypergamy where all the top girl grad students (or undergrads) marry prodigy hotshot postdocs and start reproducing eugenically in their 20s. See above about bringing spergy high IQ nerdettes out of their shells. A nerd woman who instinctively understands the idea of developing skills, has what it takes to build full spectrum “wife skills”.

        I was a prodigy as a kid, not as handsome as Bundy, though more thuggish-looking, and girls started becoming explicit about their interest and the reason for their interest around age 14. Obviously it escalates in college and there are physics groupies, math groupies and such. Scott Aaronson’s wife is reasonably hot, if that tells you anything.

        This isn’t prodigy specific or about super high IQ levels. Prodigy just provides you with easier social proof of having cognitive ability she values, than generic smart guy with a college degree.

        • Oak says:

          Controlling for amount of publicity, an equally good looking prodigy would get more than Ted.

          No way.

          Serial killers consistently get hotter, younger, tighter.

          58% of Harvard entrees are virgins, 25% leave as virgins. Obviously nearly all men.

          I know the correlation between IQ and elite university acceptance is getting worse, but compare that to felons and violent criminals.

          Women do not wait outside the MIT library. Yet Breivik has a harem, went to court to secure his human right to bang them.

          Nearly every trait that men respect in other men and that are conducive to civilisation do not arouse women. IQ is not an exception.

        • The Cominator says:

          “Serial killers consistently get hotter, younger, tighter.”

          The Ted Bundy types do…

          There are incel serial killers too.

        • IQ does not arouse women, it impresses women. There is a difference in the female mind between the theoretical men she would theoretically like to date and the men that get her pussy sopping wet. Both get lumped into “attractive”, so women will say that a man with a handsome face and a good job and a high IQ is “attractive”, but it somehow never works out that these men end up fucking her.

          Professors and geniuses get some pussy because women notice the respect and deference other men and women give them, and make themselves available, like scheduling special office hours with the professor, because she just can’t make the normal ones, new office hours being at a time when no one else is in the building.

      • SJ says:

        Girls don’t select they are selected at which point they shit test the approacher to gauge his fitness. High iq spergs often don’t approach hence they aren’t tested, or when they are tested they are socially unaware and hence fail the test.

        Women you are in proximity with will also often shit test you to gauge your fitness to forcibly have sex with her. Keep in mind that women’s tests are opaque to the woman herself. She has no idea that she is testing.

        Don’t confuse a woman lusting for a man who has passed fitness tests, or appears that he will pass, with a woman selecting. They are not the same.

        • jim says:

          > Girls don’t select they are selected at which point they shit test the approacher to gauge his fitness.

          The normal and strongly recommended process is that men pursue. But often enough, if you have performed alpha, a woman will approach you – usually with a disturbing fitness test, and sometimes when you are trying to work. This is pulling a chick, as distinct from pursuing a chick.

        • Oak says:

          None of that is true.

          Women give blowouts and brutal rejections that aren’t shit-tests all the time.

          • jim says:

            The considerable majority of blowouts and brutal rejections are shit tests, whether she knows it or not.

            • Oak says:

              The considerable majority of blowouts and brutal rejections are shit tests, whether she knows it or not.

              Agreed.

              But if a 5ft guy approaches a 6ft model saying he thinks she’s special and cares about her = female rejection.

              If Henry Cavill gives out his hotel room number on social media = female selection, probably no shit-testing.

              I guess the first could still be classified as a shit-test as if he then raped her at knife-point in front of hundred strangers and nobody did anything, she would probably mysteriously become pro-life and keep the baby.

              But that would still be a form of female selection.

              • SJ says:

                Guys with no game always claim game isn’t real.

                “but but if a deformed midget approaches a super model, tips his fedora, and says, ‘duurrrh I think you’re special’, she won’t have sex with him!!!! Duuurh.

                But if a really attractive masculine man with massive preselection announces his location a girl might go there to meet him duuurrrhhhh.

                Women are bad! Duuurh”

                You realize this is what you wrote?

  12. Shalom Shoahblatt says:

    Nuts.

    Your whole thesis along with comments indicate you don’t have a clue.

    The main problem with Christianity as an ideology, is it places Jews at the center.

    Jews have publicly stated their desire to stop the legacy of whiteness (genocide).

    You also sound like a rapist.

    I doubt if any of your followers that talk like you are getting much play.

    • jim says:

      So, what do you have instead of Christianity?

      Our existing State Religion? Islam? Hinduism?

      • Shalom says:

        What religion? I’ll try:

        The ancient Germanic tribes withstood the Roman legions. They practiced a form of paganism to unite their tribes in strength.

        Charlemagne converted the European tribes to Christianity by the sword. Convert or fall forever. Constantine used Christianity to unit a multicultural society which failed.

        A society exists because of race. Without racial unity, society falls. A religious ideology is a natural outgrowth of a racial society.

        • jim says:

          The Germanic tribes were able to resist the Roman legions because they had a live state religion, and the Romans a walking dead state religion.

          But paganism is now utterly dead. People who today call themselves pagans are blue haired lesbians who do not want to call themselves Satanists, and men who claim to be asexuals in an unsuccessful attempt to get the witches to allow them to beta orbit.

          The primarily forcible conquest by Charles the Great was made possible by the warrior priests of Charles the Hammer, who used persuasion, subversion, and force, but they were not backed directly by the army of Charles the hammer.

          Iceland lost out to Christianity by methods similar to that of the Cathedral. Christianity undermined the pagan order of warrior priests, with the result that Iceland accepted a Christian king more or less voluntarily with no significant violence. This resembles the methods now used by the Cathedral to converge the American hegemony. Persuasion readied the way to force. Force in Iceland was not significant until after they had more or less voluntarily accepted a Christian King.

          Look at today’s pagans – they are Cathedral converged and a thin cover for Satanism. The men are emasculated, and the women believe themselves to be witches.

          The Christianity of Charles the Hammer is within reach, via the Christianity of Charles the Second. We don’t have any records of what paganism was like when pagans genuinely believed and lived their paganism. The saga literature of Iceland is a memory of live and healthy paganism, written down by people who only nominally believed in a dying paganism.

          You want paganism? Where are the pagan temples? There is one on Epstein’s lolita island, which is obviously a Satanist temple from its architectural effort to induce fear, dread, submission, and hopelessness. Do you have any better forms of paganism around?

          The EU celebrations featuring Satan unchained? You might think that at least Epstein was not emasculated, but he was a pimp, a panderer, and a blackmailer, and all pimps are emasculated.

          When live state Christianity competed with live state paganism, it was clear which one was stronger, and, more importantly, which one was saner. Xenophon’s priests were a huge problem. Charles the Hammer’s priests a huge asset. Insofar as we have a record of live paganism, which we don’t have much of, it was just nuttier than Christianity.

          Christianity integrated the Greek logos, which was an effort by Greek philosophers to construct a sane paganism – but the logos of the Greek philosophers was never a live faith, while Christianity lived, and still lives if only as a mustard seed.

          Christians created science, industry, and technology. Maybe that was whites creating science, industry and technology, but the lack of science among Orthodox Jews indicates that religion has a connection, as does the death of science when Harvard got the upper hand over the Royal Society. We have a live, or at least only semi dead, religion, that worked for two millenia. We don’t have anything else live that works.

          • Pooch says:

            The challenge is no longer converting pagans to Christianity, but converting atheists to Christianity. We need a good answer to when atheists say “Prove that god exists.”

            • BC says:

              The challenge is no longer converting pagans to Christianity, but converting atheists to Christianity. We need a good answer to when atheists say “Prove that god exists.”

              Inform them they’ll have faithful wives and big families if they believe. They’ll come. Of course current version of Christianity doesn’t offer that.

              • Allah says:

                You’re teaching that one must lie for personal benefit. What is it about reality that you cannot speak the truth and have faithful wives and big families? Why must you lie?

                You know how it goes. One lie, all lies.

                • jim says:

                  Not seeing the lie.

                  Everything I have said on this blog is the truth the best of my knowledge, and what I tell people that I want to have cooperate/cooperate relationships with is also the truth to the best of my knowledge.

                • Allah says:

                  That was more of a general criticism of atheists advertising counterfeit Christianity to other atheists. As for you personally, you previously said “Simply go with the truth? I don’t think the masses can handle the truth”. What you’ll be teaching to those outside the inner party is not the truth. You are deceiving the masses, and telling your disciples to deceive the masses.

                  and what I tell people that I want to have cooperate/cooperate relationships with is also the truth

                  Wait, does this mean you lie to outgroups?

                • jim says:

                  The word “Gnon” addresses atheists in the same way, with the same meaning, as the word “Logos” addressed the Greek philosophers who were unsuccessfully attempting to fix up a broken and dying paganism. Is the Book of John fake Christianity?

                  This is not fake Christianity – this is real Christianity. Fake Christianity is pastors cheering single mums, telling dads that they are Homer Simpson, and telling sluts on the road to becoming cat ladies that God is giving them a season of singleness while they wait for Jeremy Meek’s next booty call. Fake Christianity is the Pope worshipping pagan idols to celebrate earth day, and who when the taxed on the issue of priests having sex with each other in a great big pile, pronounced Global Warming the great moral crisis of our time. Fake Christianity is lesbian pastors praising Jesus for being almost as holy as their enlightened selves, but unfortunately for him he lived in unenlightened times, unlike their vastly holier selves.

                  When I announce that the Logos is risen, I am doing the same thing as John did with the Logos. Nothing fake about John. Everything fake about the Vatican.

                • Allah says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive.

                  I don’t accept the converged definition of Christianity (the pope is not a Christian) and I am certainly am not going to accept a definition of Christianity from someone who seems mighty keen on Islamic terror on the bloody borders of Islam.

                  You presuppose, rather than arguing for, your definition of Christianity, which definition is hostile to everyone that calls themselves Christian.

                  Your argument presupposes that Saint Paul was a moron, therefore anyone who is not a moron is a fake Christian.

                  No, Saint Paul was not a moron.

                • Allah says:

                  That’s a shame.

          • ten says:

            European paganism did not supply default cooperate-cooperate equilibrium, not between roman territories, where the religion was stale in the ruling class, not between barbarian territories, where the religion was live in the ruling class, and not between roman and barbarian territories.

            Whenever plunder and genocide seemed like a good idea, it was carried out, with periods of peace and exchange in between.

            In the context of paganism, God is a metagod, a god of godhood, where a regular god is either a) a anthropomorphized particular mode of cooperative biocultural transmission (ie, of genes or memes) – war, love, tech, farming, some more complex ones, like the aryan thunder god – the pantheon gods, or b) a locale of transmission, a tribal or natural god, such as the lesser hindu gods.

            A metagod is an abstracted general God of uniting around cooperating gods, a unipolar centre of cooperation. Roman pagans had since long attempted the introduction of a general metagod, but dyaus pitar didn’t do the trick, because instead of abstract primacy, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”, he had social primacy, and was the king of the gods, and kings while generally obeyed can just as well be disobeyed.

            The germans probably introduced the Odin metagod of mind around this time. Their etymological equivalent of Zeus and Jupiter, Theiwaz->Tyr, doesn’t seem to have been one, because he wasn’t particularly popular. With no written history, it is hard to say, but it seems to have had a lot of effect, leading to the gothic and anglosaxon expansions etc. It fell out of favour because of its unreliable and treasonous nature, which is the way it was described in the end, when the germanic pagans only remained in the fringes of their world, and the thundergod had regained its popular primacy.

            Different modes or locales of forward transmission do not necessitate or lead to cooperation. Can cooperate, can fail to cooperate. A unipolar metagod does, and the jewish->christian establishment of a supreme metagod required suppression of the lower gods to the status of saints, to avoid the pagan king-god malfunction, and the suppression of graven images of the metagod, which does not have an anthropomorphized face, enforcing its otherness and primacy.

            This did the trick, and the violent inclusion of pagans under the banner of the metagod, while not creating permanent coop-coop, to a qualitative extent was a one-off burst of violence followed by a far lessened base level of defect and a far increased base level of cooperation – a push to change the cybernetic system from one balanced state to another, and greater.

            The point of this rumination, which i suppose will be of limited interest to many here, is that introducing a necromantized european paganism will not do the trick. All of the living paganism lives in christianity: the saint cult and the high festivals, and the renaissance revival of the pagan gods IS paganism, as it lived on. Stripping away the christian metagod, if it even works, if it is possible (i think not), will change the coop-cybernetics back to the previous, worse balanced state.

            I should speak of Christ instead of his father in the field of a post dedicated to him, but here i respond only to the idea of “reintroducing paganism” and why it, if possible, would be a bad idea.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            “Where are the pagan temples? There is one on Epstein’s lolita island, which is obviously a Satanist temple from its architectural effort to induce fear, dread, submission, and hopelessness.”

            I would love to better understand you here. Intellectually. Can you point me to an “analysis” of the Little Saint James temple?

            Because looking at that building, it’s true that I do not want to find myself inside there alone. The impulse to avoid the place is automatic. (I’m also curious to know what’s in there, true, but only in the company of ten or twenty Delta Force fellows.)

            But I lack the “vocabulary” to understand or express why it is that I feel that way. Maybe it’s just all the horrible crap that allegedly went on in there. But if there are triggers and cues just in its physical form alone, I’d love to better understand what those cues are, so that I can be wiser to notice them elsewhere.

            • jim says:

              Standard operating procedure for designers of religious buildings and religious rituals. You build the building to induce the sensation that one is in the presence of the deity being worshiped. Cathedrals are primarily built to induce the sensation of being in the presence of the Christian God when viewed from the inside, rather than the outside, though they generally do an OK job from the outside. Postmodern buildings, the presence of minor demons, evil spirits, and the ghosts of the evil dead. The temple on Little Saint James Island is built to induce the sensation of being in the presence of the prince of demons when viewed from the outside. I have not seen an image from the inside.

              As for vocabulary, we have lost the vocabulary, in part because postmodernists are ashamed to speak of what they are doing. Kind of like the red pill community had to invent a new language to talk about the nature of women, because all the old words had been destroyed and given new lying meanings.

              Our language is decadent, because old words have been lost or their meanings deliberately destroyed. We all speak newspeak, to prevent dangerous thoughts from being expressible.

          • The Cominator says:

            There was not one form of paganism or even any static form of Roman paganism, paganism had a flexible and evolving cosmology and worldview…

            The ancient Gods of Rome from the time of the Etruscan kings and the early Republic were not the knockoff Greek Gods.

            The most popular pagan Gods of the late Empire was possibly Sol Invictus (probably based on the Egyptian Ra). The most popular God with the legions was probably Mithras (because it was a mystery cult and being initiated meant you had some level of prestige as being a fighting badass).

            The one consistent feature of pre-Christian paganism in Europe and the Mediterranean was that it to some degree required blood sacrifices though in the Roman form after the Second Punic war there were never human sacrifices (but even before that human sacrifice in Rome was probably rare). The Romans were pretty brutal by modern standards but it seems the legionaries viewed the Carthragian mounds of the burnt remains of their own children sacrificed to Baal with a horror similar to that experienced by American troops who overran Dachau (I’m not endorsing Holocaustianity but its a historical fact that the revulsion made a powerful impression) and never again did Rome ever have a human sacrifice afterwords and they banned it amongst their subject peoples.

            So unless you look at “paganism” through the lens of Christianity it makes no sense to label it as anything like a consistent religion. As a Christian you can say that its very similar because they all worshipped demons via blood sacrifice… while giving some credit to post second Punic war Romans for prohibiting human sacrifice and imposing the ban throughout the Empire.

            • ten says:

              it was static enough and uniform enough to maintain base functional deity roles and mythological function over several millenia across several fully separate groups with nothing but oral tradition.

              Not knockoff greek gods, the same aryan gods gone separate ways and separately evolved since the split.

              There are massive amounts of consistent features over all europagan groups other than human sacrifice, and human sacrifice works, it is not a thing to reject out of hand – except that its absence is preferable to its presence.

              Cultic sites, ethymology, mythology, social function, priest class attributes and duties (for example celibacy, the inclusion of which in catholicism is a pagan atavism, and makes more sense when the role is that of a mystic and ritualist, not a shepherd) are consistent but not uniform across europaganism in all known spheres.

              Human sacrifice works in the sense that you have to kill at least one enemy to seal the deal, but maybe you don’t have to kill two. Also Christ on the cross.

              Sol Invictus and Mithras are artifacts of roman paganism dying, attempts at replacing it or its organic replacement respectively, not attributes of the pagan religion.

          • alf says:

            The Christianity of Charles the Hammer is within reach, via the Christianity of Charles the Second.

            I’m just not seeing it Jim, I’m not seeing it… Just because something works on paper does not mean it works in practice. I’m afraid I’ll be of limited assistance in this endeavor.

        • Mike says:

          >The ancient Germanic tribes withstood the Roman legions

          The only reason the Germanics withstood them is because they lived too far from Roman supply lines and in an inhospitable forest. Germans got sodomized every time they ventured out of the forest and almost every time the Romans ventured in. All you have is Teutoburger Wald larper.

        • Aldon says:

          >The ancient Germanic tribes withstood the Roman legions.

          You don’t read history books. Just nationalist fantasy.

          The ambush at Teutoberg Forest was dependent on a German tribesmen who was taken and learned Roman knowledge. That was what allowed the victory for the savages rather than being crushed like the ones crushed by Caesar and Germanicus.

          • The Cominator says:

            The Romans could never hold much territory in Germany for long. The ambush of Varus wasn’t exactly the only incident.

            • Mike says:

              Very true, except for it had nothing to do with muh Germanic superiority and muh Pagan oaks and everything to do with Germany being one giant forest that was well outside of Roman supply lines. Germany to Rome was like Central Asia to China. Never was going to be possible for them to keep because it was just too far away and too inhospitable. Attempts to keep it conquered only overstretched the empire and led to vast expenditure of resources for no purpose.

              • The Cominator says:

                Tend to agree on this point but perhaps it was a number of factors. Britain was also like this but the Romans were with difficulty able to hold it (though Britain hurt the empire in general it spawned more usurpers than anywhere else)

                • Britain was great farmland, so the will to conquer and hold it was there. It is unnaturally warm considering that Moscow and London are at the same latitude, and rains all the time (both due to the Gulf Stream). It is also an island, once taken, not going to be taken back. Germany, being a gigantic, thick, tangled forest, was terrible farmland, which would have required a ton of work to make habitable. Rome decided against Scotland for much the same reason.

                  Second was that infinite barbarians constantly poured in from the East, requiring a massive military garrison to defend the borders. The Rhine was a natural border, but there is no defensible place deeper in Germany that the Romans could have settled up to.

            • Aldon says:

              The Romans made few attempts at a deep conquest of Germania since it overall had little to offer them.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            “The ambush at Teutoberg Forest was dependent on a German tribesmen who was taken and learned Roman knowledge.”

            Oh, well then, as long as we keep Chinese, Jewish, Indian and Arab kids out of our universities then we’ll be fine.

    • Mike says:

      I know we aren’t seriously entertaining him, but Confucianism/Trad Japanese Shinto seemed to work alright if you want a serious answer.

      • jim says:

        Much to be said for Confucianism, but the role of ultimate alpha is played by the emperor, and rather often you get an emperor who sucks. The Christian equivalent is divine right King under God. Works a whole lot better, and is more suited to white people.

    • RedBible says:

      Conan also sounds like a rapist, and I find that I’ve seen way more women then men pull out this gem of a quote:

      “Conan! What is best in life?” “To crush your enemies — See them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!”

      Also, fixing Christianity to be ultra pro white is easy. Just declare that the Anglo-Saxon whites are the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel, and that those that call themselves Jews today are a mongrelized race, and so are no longer true pure blood Israelites, and Boom, the Bible is now super pro white.

      • The Cominator says:

        British Israelism and Christian Identity already exist but the theology has not exactly impressed most christians.

        • RedBible says:

          Has not impressed most Christians, since they follow the “true” version of Christianity, that “just so happens” to follow the beliefs of the unofficially official state religion on all core doctrinal cases, like that whites and niggers are equals and only racism can explain why they aren’t, etc.

          Too be fair, most of the British Israelism and Christian Identity websites out there are far too blue-pilled on the WQ for them to be a good religion as is.

          • Mike says:

            It hasn’t impressed most Christians because it’s an obvious artificial larp. British Israelism and Christian Identity didn’t exist till the 1900s. Why are they needed when Christianity without them worked for 1900 years?

            • The Cominator says:

              This. Moderate ethnonationalism (you do NOT want extreme ethnonationalism, extreme ethnonationalism led to the horrible world wars of the early 20th century) is easily justified by the bible and especially the old Testament.

              You can reinterpret Christianity for that by emphasizing the babel story and other parts of the Old Testament to say that clearly god favored a world of seperate nations, borders and people… most Christians in the Southern US for instance still believe in this idea.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                Recall that nationalism itself was a somewhat artificial fashion in 19th century Europe, presumably intended to replace the King as final authority.

                I would, however, say WW1 and WW2 were horrible because of progress in technology, industry and social organization. Simply put, it was possible to field larger, more destructive armies for longer. The Napoleonic wars might be the first large-scale example of this trend.

              • ten says:

                Nationalism is “that doesn’t belong to you, so we have the right to take it” and an excuse for destructive rebellion. Bad.

                Antinationalists like to say it is an excuse for chauvinist defection and predation. I think it can be, but doesn’t need to be. If it can be, also bad.

                It is also the drive to order things in manageable units, optimizing cooperation. Good!

                Balancing and moderating these aspects of nationalism is a non-trivial problem, but also one that can’t be done away with, because organizing like with like and separating unlike from unlike is natural and human.

                • Mike says:

                  Nationalism is tricky. One the one hand, desire for living with one’s own kind is an obvious and eternal human want that will never go away. In that sense, nationalism is innate to the human condition.
                  On the other hand though, it was quite common in ancient or medieval states for unlike people to rule each other well. For example, Baltic German nobility within the Russian Empire ruled over many Russians or Balts while still ultimately being subject to the Tsar. The English nobility larped as French people for hundreds of years and the English people did not hate them for it. Qing and Yuan China were ruled over by “barbarians” (the Mongols and Manchus) from the view of the Han Chinese.

                • Aldon says:

                  Nationalism isn’t the same as having a tribe. Men can’t have tribal loyalty to a group much bigger than a set amount regardless of race. You think the Chinese see other Orientals as their brothers, especially the Japanese?

                  It takes a theology Christianity for men to achieve such. Movements like Americanism, Communism, Race Nationalism, etc. were all attempts to achive the unity of purpose brought by Christiandom but centered on men rather than on God. They all failed or led to dysfunction to no surprise.

                  To put it another way: The difference between Blacks and Whites is that only Blacks are foolish enough to think Race Nationalism would work.

                • ten says:

                  It is indeed tricky. When russian czar, german lord and baltic peasant make up a well behaved unit, nationalist upheaval seems like a stupid idea. Or socialist finns against their partially swedish ruling class, etc etc.

                  When albanians wage low intensity war against serbs with occasional yet unceasing abductions and murder rapes, nationalist upheaval seems like a smart idea. Or when prussian poles brutalized prussian germans.

                  Same with somalis, blacks and arabs – the amount of stick necessary to make them behave is not an amount of stick whites should have to live with just for the pleasure of having swarthy neighbours.

                  As for the chinese, whenever they find themselves sort of few in number oriental brotherhood does seem to spring from their heart in no time. The local japanese, koreans, chinese and thais absolutely have a thing for each other, they run asian diaspora cliques just like i would expect them to

                • jim says:

                  If you have small number of whites amidst a large number of asians, there is a group that has a club, or frequently attends each other’s parties, but the group works because it is smaller than the Dunbar number.

                  How do you scale that to Serbs subject to low level warfare by Albanians?

                  Easy, there is a group of Serb elites smaller than the Dunbar number. Our problem is that our elite is treasonous and hostile.

                • Aldon says:

                  ten:

                  The “oriental” brotherhood you speak of in America and other Anglo countries is just Far Easterners getting infected by the same trash culture (sluttiness and scowling in women, anti-White politics, consooming, etc.). Actual Chinese in the mainland don’t see Japs as their brothers regardless of their rivalry with Whitey.

                • ten says:

                  Aldon, yes that is why i qualified it with “low in number”. It is a diaspora thing. But i am not talking about the ones infected by westism, i am talking about our small contingents of asian small town restaurant owners and import wives; they seek each other out and form pan-asian cliques, because they in fact do feel more at home with their neighbour nations.

              • The Cominator says:

                “Recall that nationalism itself was a somewhat artificial fashion in 19th century Europe, presumably intended to replace the King as final authority.”

                This was the extreme ethnonationalism of the 19th century the kind you DON’T want. The kind that would say avoiding “brother wars” is for cucks. But some degree of nationalism is natural and has always existed.

                • Mike says:

                  Bullshit. Your ancestors would think avoiding “brother wars” is for cucks. I don’t see any evidence of medieval or renaissance Europeans not fighting each other because they were “brothers.” They fought constantly, whether it was due to religion (prior to Westphalia), disputed claims and succession, or just plain old power politics. And in the long run this ended up being good, because it created innovative and hardened people.

                  This notion of “brother wars” didn’t exist within the European mindset until post-French Revolution when people started larping “pan-European nationalism,” which is just as bullshit as “pan-Arab nationalism,” or any other “pan-nationalism.” The only way in which discouraging warfare amongst Europeans was real was the “Truce of God” from the Catholic Church, which encouraged peace within Christendom, and the Peace of Westphalia.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Bullshit. Your ancestors would think avoiding “brother wars” is for cucks. I don’t see any evidence of medieval or renaissance Europeans not fighting each other because they were “brothers.” They fought constantly”

                  We don’t entirely disagree but there was at least the concept that wars among Europeans and Christians were tragic and sinful even in the Middle Ages. It may have been a joke but at least it existed.

                  The Pan-Slavs of the 19th century for example did not think this way even a little.

          • info says:

            “Has not impressed most Christians, since they follow the “true” version of Christianity, that “just so happens” to follow the beliefs of the unofficially official state religion on all core doctrinal cases, like that whites and niggers are equals and only racism can explain why they aren’t, etc.”

            Where in Scripture is not all man valued under God. In the Image of God he made man. The African and the White Man is Imago Dei. There is no way around it.

            Equal under Law and equally responsible for their actions and having equal duties to the Almighty God.

            To treat each other as brothers they are obligated especially if they are of one faith.

            Gospel is for all Mankind for all Mankind is descended from Adam.

            • Mike says:

              Your answer is right here from Comintator: https://blog.jim.com/culture/the-logos-has-risen/#comment-2506088

              The only significant deviations from this ideal set in the Tower of Babel analogy is/was 1. The Roman Catholic Church, because it only has dioceses and no national churches.2. The Eastern Orthodox Church set within the Byzantine Empire in the past and Russia today. Both the Byzantine Empire and modern Russia were respected by the other Orthodox nations as the most important leaders of the faith. However, Russia and the Byzantines by no means completely controlled those other nations.

            • jim says:

              In the first book of Genesis, God makes Man.

              In the eleventh book of Genesis, God divides Man into Nations.

              During the Y chromosome singularity, agriculture and cattle herding made property rights necessary. Property rights were maintained by patriarchal patrilineal groups that shared a common Y chromosome from a very recent common male ancestor. This was insufficient to make large scale trade, and hence the merchant class, possible, because you need property rights that extend over a large geographical area. It was also insufficient to make cities possible. The patriarch was King and High Priest of his extended family group. The next step was Kings and cities. The first city was the first empire, and Gnon disapproved.

              The use of Tower of Babel and Satanic imagery by the EU implicitly acknowledges that universalism, far from being Christian, is Satanic and an act of rebellion against Gnon.

              Universalism is an attempt to return to the Edenic plane of existence, to ascend the tower of Babel into heaven, to immanentize the eschaton. This is not Christian, but Satanic. The demons were kicked out of heaven, and man kicked out of Eden. Large scale solutions to large scale cooperate/cooperate equilibrium run into scaling problems.

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              “Where in Scripture is not all man valued under God.”

              When God writes off Sodom and Gomorrah? Or when he commands Joshua to kill the entire population of Jericho?

              God certainly considers all mankind to have potential, but actual human beings are not interchangeable or equally valuable.

    • Shalom says:

      Unresponsive…

      I see three reasons you post as to why the ancient Germans were able to defeat the Roman’s. But, nevertheless they did. I attribute it to tribal unity of which religion is a part.

      You continue to miss my main point and that is that a people must have their own religion. Not the religion of some other tribe. As long as we practice Abrahamic religions we will always be subjugated to the Jew who openly say they want to destroy us.

      • jim says:

        Well then, what is your proposed tribal religion?

        Rhetorical question: You don’t have an alternative tribal religion, and it is no use complaining until you have a plausible tribal religion to push.

        So. Give us your proposed religion, and give us your position on the woman question. You are just a Cathedral shill. The religion you actually support is progressivism, feminism, and holocaustianity. If the tribe you pretend to be a member of is going to survive, has to solve the woman question, and since you hate it and want it erased from the face of the earth, you don’t want a religion that addresses the woman question, as old type Christianity did.

        Some of the Nazis tried to concoct one, but it never got off the ground, being too silly and corrupted by the usual vegetarian lesbian feminists, plus a small sprinkling of satanists. But mostly, just too silly.

        The peace of Westphalia, an interpretation by Christian princess of the command for peace on earth to all men of goodwill, gives room for each nation to have its own national Christianity. Observed present day paganism is in practice limp wristed progressives larping while they try to beta orbit witches, and there is nothing national about it. Not to mention their gods look suspiciously like Satan and demons. Blood pentacles, the heads of sacrificed goats, and all that. Satanists have a demonstrated incapacity to accomplish large scale cooperation, engaging in lies and treachery against those closest to them.

        National paganisms were assimilated to Christianity. Christians christianized tribal pagan rituals, and the national Christian rituals are the only tribal religious rituals that we have. If you want to revive them, you are going to have to revive the Christianity of which they became part.

        If you are not writing from an FBI office or Harvard ngo office, let us see you commit heresy against the wonderfulness of women. What do you propose should be the position of the national religion on the woman question?

        And did the gas chambers exist, and who wrote Ann Frank’s diary?

        • Shalom says:

          [*deleted*]

          • jim says:

            Passed holocaustianity test. Failed woman question test. Therefore probably not ngo, but almost certainly FBI.

            • Shalom says:

              [*deleted*]

              • jim says:

                Still dodging the woman question.

                I asked you what your position, and what position you propose for a state religion. Don’t ask me my position, when I have article after article laying out my position.

                If you cannot even acknowledge that my position is what it plainly is, you are writing from an FBI office with the likelihood that Human Resources will take a look at your output, and you therefore cannot mention my unmentionable crime thought.

                • Shoahblatt says:

                  On the WQ, I said before they are evil manipulators. Some start younger than others with their machinations.

                  Perhaps a fitness test but they are clearly incapable of determining which males should reproduce as evident in that state of our race right now.

                  Women place status on whatever media tells them to at the time. They go the way the wind blows. That’s no way for a people to survive.

                • jim says:

                  > On the WQ, I said before they are evil manipulators.

                  Women are not evil manipulators, but that is not quite the officially Harvard approved answer either, nor the FBI tolerated answer. That does not sound like you are a Cathedral shill, but still sounds a bit off. But it sounds like your own black pill, definitely not an official government black pill.

                  OK. What should men do about this problem individually, and what should we do about it collectively?

                  Also, what did I say to do about it collectively and individually. Can you tell us what I said we should do individually and collectively, or is that unmentionable.

                • Shoahstein says:

                  I think what your asking is how to take power from women and give it to men.

                  Most women respond well to shaming. When they behave badly, make sure to rub their nose in it.

                  You can also make them dependent on you through financial support or marriage.

                  Figure out what they want and then act like you have it.

                  Woman are vain and materialistic and can be rewarded through that.

                  They crave attention. Another way to dominate them by giving and taking attention.

                  But the goal is reproduction, not putting notches on your belt. That’s why I still say unless you want to marry and reproduce, stay away from them. You will be happier on your own.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts.

                  Men need women, and women need men. A man with no woman breaks, and a woman with no man goes nuts. Single woman hit the wall after having spent their youth, their beauty, and their fertility answering infrequent booty calls from Jeremy Meeks, and start going crazy, then they hit menopause, and go full crazy.

                  We need them keep our beds warm, to clean house, to make coffee in the morning, and we need them for children.

                  Relying purely on moral pressure, shaming, does not work. We have to not only socially require them to obey their husbands, but for it to be socially acceptable for husbands to spank disobedient and disrespectful wives.

                  The recovery of fertility that occurred in the 1950s reflected the social acceptability of spanking wives. They had plenty of shaming in the nineteenth century, and it failed disastrously, resulting in large numbers of women giving birth in the rain in dark alleys, resulting in large numbers of Oliver Twists, leading to the welfare state and child support replacing marriage.

                  Sex is too powerful a force to be controlled by mere shaming.

                  But it is not sufficient merely to empower husbands, as was done in the 1950s. You have to restrain women from sleeping with the highest alpha available. Miss Average has to virginally marry Mister Average. This has been repeatedly demonstrated to require severe paternal restraint of the sexual activity of daughters and shotgun marriage for immoral women. The late eighteenth century, very early nineteenth century Australian authorities showed what it took for woman who were fatherless or separate from their fathers, from which we may infer that at the time fathers applied similar levels of coercion.

                • Iconoshoah says:

                  Still me. You make an astonishingly good point Jim but any spankings must be done panties off.

                • yewotm8 says:

                  I’d always held the opinion that you shouldn’t strike women or children with a closed fist. Perhaps that is holding back too much.

                • jim says:

                  You can kill a man with a closed fist, though its hard, and you are likely to suffer an injury to your fist. Not that hard to kill a woman or a child with a closed fist accidentally.

                • BC says:

                  You can kill a man with a closed fist, though its hard, and you are likely to suffer an injury to your fist. Not that hard to kill a woman or a child with a closed fist accidentally.

                  Men tend to have an unconscious reaction to roll with the punches when they see a punch coming. Women and Children may have the same reaction but thier reflexes are far too slow or they don’t have the reflex at all. Though most single punch kills come for stunning or knocking someone out and then their head hits a very hard or pointed surface that kills them. Women and children have much less robust skulls die very easily from a head hitting concrete while unconscious.

                  I’ve observed some domestic violence up close and men generally pull their punches to avoid killing or serious harming their women.

                • Iconclast says:

                  Who said anything about a closed fist? We are not brutes here and to treat our women the way negros do would lower ourselves to those we detest.

                  The point is to discourage bad female behavior and encourage good female behavior.

                  Good female behavior is staying home, making babies, raising the family, honoring their husbands.

                  Bad female behavior is seeking career and adventure, getting abortions, lying in filth with negros, etc…

                  It is always preferred to use your mind, your wits and persuasion to win someone over and adjust their behavior.

                  Regarding spankings, perhaps some women may actually like that but you’d better know your woman and yourself. Otherwise you could be giving her even more power over you when she snitches.

      • ten says:

        Christianity is our religion. Christianity is european paganism clad in a biblical robe, with the highly functional social technology of abstract metagod installed, and with the highly functional social technology of Christ the victor of death installed, and with the highly functional social technology of biblical Read Only Memory of social technology installed.

        You are an iconoclast, wanting to tear down our own religion and ruin us, and you say “hail fellow white, everything you are is a jewish pawn, you have no power and jews rule your mind.” No. Jews do not rule us in the slightest, jews merely annoy us, have never ruled us, only ever annoyed us, while the book we got from them and the social technology we got from them works great and solved very great problems that we failed to solve without them.

        And as jim says, you do not present an alternative, except a cry of “our own!” as you try to pull us with you to a previous, lesser state of existence, where we would perish in the demon haunted dark, easily defeated by jews, asians, muslims, dot indians, and whoever might want to attempt it.

        No, scratch that – you don’t really want to do that at all, you just say it.

        • Shalom says:

          What you just wrote makes sense. Perhaps that is the best we can do for now. I don’t want to make it worse.

        • ” Christianity is european paganism clad in a biblical robe, with the highly functional social technology of abstract metagod installed, and with the highly functional social technology of Christ the victor of death installed, and with the highly functional social technology of biblical Read Only Memory of social technology installed.”

          This sounds like an instant classic. Well said.

  13. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    So the absolute madlad just cut funding to the world hell organization, and the chattering classes are quite besides themselves.

    Oy vey it’s like anudda shoah.

    • jim says:

      WHO is of course part of the “international community” – which is to say, part of the permanent government. They milk the fact that they are nominally a foreign organization to ignore the president, and Trump milked the fact that they are nominally a foreign organization to fire the lot of them.

      The Democrats are milking the crisis – it is extremely urgent to put people who go for a walk in the park in jail, and equally urgent to lent robbers and muggers out of jail. And Trump is milking the crisis. If he gets away with firing WHO, expect to see the permanent government cowed.

      • pdimov says:

        WHO (and others) aren’t “international community”, they are sinecures. As Spandrell observed, if you kill them, you’d need to figure out some other way of rewarding people.

        https://twitter.com/thespandrell/status/1250344169643503617

        • The Cominator says:

          They are cathedral sinecures for our enemies. Why would we want preserve sinecures for people who (at least in my case) we’d have shot immediately if we were in power.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          The sovereign should be the font of all honors. That is a core principle of NRx, and this is a step towards this. We don’t want, as Cominator points out, our enemies to have sinecures. Trump kills the enemy sinecure structure and can later start a new organization that he can staff with his people. Which does two things. First, it harms our enemies. Second, it shows that loyalty to Trump pays dividends, which goes back to the font of honors.

          • Jehu says:

            Yes, the font of all honors is another way of saying that the sovereign is in control of what is defined as high status, insofar as anyone is (some things are of course, inherently high status and low status and not even a KGB-level organization can change that and not for lack of trying). For this reason, controlling entertainment is probably more important even than controlling news media.

          • IMHO this is based on wishful thinking, as if Trump had real power. More likely he kills 1% of the total amount of sinecures, and then it is even money if the rest are cowed or enraged and fighting twice as hard back.

            Look. The POTUS is a figurehead position. Now there is a guy with actual nuts in it, who uses whatever powers he actual has and also uses the prestige aspect of this position, but it is still a figurehead position.

            There is a potential in this position to grab real power, but that has yet to happen. Generally speaking, I think if that happens, that will imply armed soldiers or the equivalent appearing in places they have never in the history of the US did.

        • Fred says:

          What Cominator and Theshadowedknight said.

          Rewarding people is buying power (in Clear Pill 2, Moldbug correctly reminds us that “power is made of social obligations”, something he called “largesse”). Buying power necessary implies insecure power (ie. you’re buying security by getting other power centres into the tent pissing out to prevent them being outside the tent pissing in, eg. by overthrowing you).

          So the “sinecure problem” is reducible to the “insecure power problem”.

          But you only need to buy support from people whose support you actually need. In the day and age of the machine gun, the only support you need is the military – it’s not clear what armies of overproduced-elite bureaucrats add to one’s security.

          • pdimov says:

            That’s a bit too abstract for me.

            Sinecures aren’t payment, they are rewards for loyalty. God Emperor memes notwithstanding, Trump will have to leave office in 2021 or 2025, and the customary way to reward loyal administration members is with a sinecure.

            The unspoken arrangement is, don’t touch your predecessor’s appointments, and your successor won’t touch yours.

            To add to that, tactically, defunding WHO allows Russia and China the opportunity to pick up America’s share of the budget, rendering it irrelevant. Although Bill Gates seems to have acted fist.

            https://twitter.com/Zemedeneh/status/1250573743329619968

            • Fred says:

              Is there a difference between “rewarding” someone’s loyalty and “paying” them to not rebel? (This is the sort of distinction-without-a-difference Moldbug loved barging through.)

              The unspoken arrangement is, don’t touch your predecessor’s appointments, and your successor won’t touch yours.

              Don’t see how this is relevant – this is only of any importance in a democracy where ceremonial power alternates between parties; we’re talking about sovereigns, ie. actual power.

              allows Russia and China the opportunity to pick up America’s share of the budget

              ok, enjoy

            • Not Tom says:

              The unspoken arrangement is, don’t touch your predecessor’s appointments, and your successor won’t touch yours.

              That sounds a little too much like demotistic idealism to me. It certainly doesn’t work if the opposition doesn’t honor that arrangement when succeeding you.

              More generally, it presupposes at least some level of civility and cooperate-cooperate equilibrium, rather than the Who, Whom? paradigm we are clearly in right now.

        • jim says:

          The “international community” are handouts and sinecures, but in large part in the gift of Harvard and the permanent government, rather than the president. If Trump kills WHO, he disempowers his enemies.

          The current head of WHO is a distinctly whitish mulatto from Ethiopia who is over the top anti American, anti colonialist, anti capitalist, and all that. His power base, his path to his current position, was ngos and “the donor community”. Governments, primarily America, hand out “aid”, and it gets dispensed by Harvard ngos.

          In Ethiopia, his supposedly Ethiopian Government organization was funded by, and largely run by, “donors”, meaning disproportionately Jewish and overwhelmingly Harvard connected people, dispensing other people’s money. Which heavy handed control, which was frequently conspicuously ignorant of Ethiopian needs, culture, and history, pissed off a great many Ethiopians.

          The “donors” viewed the Ethiopians as incompetent to run a health system, which they were. The Ethiopians viewed the “donors” as hostile, ignorant of Ethiopia, and corrupt, which they were. He was selected by the donors because a good deal smarter than the average Ethiopian, and also because ideologically compatible, and I plausibly conjecture that a whole lot of mutual back scratching went on.

          He has been appointing people on the basis of race and sex and ideology, most of his appointments being women, which is Harvard ideology, but in practice, all the actually powerful people in Harvard are white and male. What they actually want, but will not admit to wanting, is that non Harvard people get appointed on the basis of race, sex, and ideology, but Harvard people get appointed on the basis of connections and networking. They don’t want their sinecures to be affirmative actioned. So, in fidelity to Harvard ideology, but disregard for Harvard practice, he has pissed off Harvard as well as Trump.

          Hence the muted reaction to Trump cutting off this source of gravy. Harvard hopes it will be reopened under someone who makes unprincipled exceptions to their ideology in their favor, while firmly following their ideology where it hurts everyone else, but does not hurt Harvard.

  14. Cloudswrest says:

    Somebody on Twitter linked to this snarky New Yorker article on Madison Grant, obviously written by a prog. He’s quoting a lot of Grant’s crime think and going “ha ha”, “what a fool”.

    Some excerpts, straight out of Jim’s blog.

    He wrote that a major problem leading to Nordic “mongrelization” was the uncoöperative Nordic women, who had a habit of choosing the wrong men to mate with. Grant himself never married. He conceded, with regret, “It would be in a democracy, a virtual impossibility to limit by law the right to breed to a privileged and chosen few.”

    The following is classic “ha ha” libtard. Making fun of Grant’s “germ-plasm” phraseology. Remember, this was decades before the role of DNA was elucidated. What other term would Grant use?

    And what was the special attribute the Nordics possessed that made them so unique and sacred? Grant didn’t talk about it much, but it slipped out once in a while. The secret dwelt in a mysterious substance known as “germ-plasm.” Everybody had it, but the Nordics’ germ-plasm was the best. Grant and his co-believers could apparently use phrases such as “our superior germ-plasm” with a straight face.

    Article here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/26/when-w-e-b-du-bois-made-a-laughingstock-of-a-white-supremacist

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Never even mind Watson and Crick, people alive *ten thousand years* before Du Bois understood heredity just fine.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Things unknown when it is known to not know.

  15. Green Fields says:

    [*Deleted*]

  16. The Iconoclast says:

    Formerly Shoahblatt aka WhiteMan

    @Green

    To become a made man on this blog will take some time.

    Firstly, you have to go back and do some reading on earlier posts.

    You need a catchy handle, green won’t do, nor anything blue.

    You’re going to need to learn a lot of Alt-Right jargon and become a wordsmith.

    You have to OD on the Red Pill while keeping the Black Pill on slow drip so you don’t chimp out.

    Next you need to find an unsuspecting breeder and go full Neanderthal or at least talk about your exploits convincingly.

    I just want to know when we are going real world once this econocrash goes dystopian and we turn Jim’s Blog to Jim’s Raiders.

    I’ll be exercising my butt spanking arm until then with dumbells.

  17. Pooch says:

    https://abcnews.go.com/Health/antibody-research-coronavirus-widespread/story?id=70206121

    Based on random antibody testing in Santa Clara, there is at least 50x as many cases as reported. Extrapolated to the entire US, would give an actual mortality rate of .01%, in line with seasonal flu.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      COVID19 has a lot of asymptomatic carriers, that’s why all the quack graphs and models were wrong.

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      if this is true and holds up, it is looking more and more like we can conclusively say that Cominator was right.

      • The Cominator says:

        Panicmongering Karens eternally BTFO!

      • Fred says:

        4% is actually a lot lower than I thought – maybe it spreads slower than we think? Given asymptomatic spread though I doubt it.

        Here in Australia we had three flights a week from Wuhan for months so I will eat my hat if it’s less than 20% here by now.

      • Not Tom says:

        Right about what, exactly? Shows that they aren’t even close to herd immunity, and that even the somewhat half-assed lockdown measures (taken very early there) were actually wildly successful at keeping infection rates down.

        The math being used to come up with 0.1% mortality is nonsense, and impossible. Santa Clara has a population of about 130,000. Taking the very high end of the antibody estimate, about 5500 people have ever been infected. There are 73 reported deaths. 73/5500 = 0.013, or 1.3%. Exactly in line with prior estimations of CFR.

        In order for a CFR of 0.1% to be true, Santa Clara would have to have a 40% infection rate, not 4%. It’s even more ludicrous in New York. Population 8.4 million, 17,000 corona deaths. If every single New Yorker had caught it, and the CFR were 0.1%, we’d have only 8400 deaths. It is literally impossible for the CFR to be that low.

        (cue the reeeeeing about how the death counts must be wrong, even though we count them the same way we count any other disease)

        • Pooch says:

          Dude you really need to give it up. You’re starting to sound like a cathedral shill at this point. Santa Clara county has 1.9 million people. They are saying the lower bound of real infected is 48000 (1000 reported infected during time of sampling). 63 people have died in Santa Clara county. 63/48000 = .001 upper bound mortality. This is not the hill you want to die on.

        • Pooch says:

          You Probably want to actually read the article you spend paragraphs to dispute as well.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          @Not Tom

          “ were actually wildly successful at keeping infection rates down.”

          You have absolutely no idea what the infection rate is. Nobody does. Asymptomatic carriers, do you know what “asymptomatic” means?

          • Fred says:

            “What’s the infection rate” is to coronavirus quacks what the WQ is to enemy agents: it’s the unanswerable question that smokes them out.

      • Not Tom says:

        “kills less than the flu” is also looking mighty long in the tooth these days. We are at 37k now, which is already higher than many flu epidemics and very near the 40k commonly cited as the seasonal flu average. My guess is, by Monday that will have been demonstrated to be conclusively wrong for the average flu, and by the following week it will be wrong for even the more severe flu epidemics (50-60k).

        And then it will probably slow down a lot, not because of immunity, but because drugs are working and social distancing is still in place. My guess for a final tally would be somewhere between 60-120k, depending on how quickly things start to open up again and what, if any, preventative measures they decide to take.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          @Not Tom

          You don’t know what the death percentage is because the total number of infected is unknown. Why do you keep supporting these fake graphs and models from the Cathedral?

          • The Cominator says:

            I think its time for him to start getting the CR treatment he can’t admit he was wrong and just keeps doubling down on his bullshit…

            • ten says:

              There’s no CR. (He actually finally buzzed off? Unless using gay handles)

              At the time when you (maybe, not a day just yet) made the correct call, you did it like galileo, and Not Toms counterarguments were sound.

              • The Cominator says:

                They were not sound. It was clear from the South Korean data and the fact that Cloroquine existed that the death toll was not going to be very high and that the disruption to the economy from a mass shutdown is something no sane society would even consider on a cost benefit basis.

      • jim says:

        Australian data indicates that to achieve herd immunity, you only need a majority of the small minority that are crowded and dirty to gain immunity.

        Santa Clara data indicates a very low death rate among their very large crowded and dirty minority. Santa Clara is probably approaching herd immunity after an insignificant number of deaths, if the Australian experience is any indication.

        So yes, just another flu season.

        As with global warming, there was briefly an arguable case that it might potentially get very bad, but people became strongly attached to that case, pushed it on weak data, and ignored the contrary data that was rapidly piling up.

        Now anyone pushing that case is up to no good.

        • The Cominator says:

          “Now anyone pushing that case is up to no good.”

          I think it was obvious from South Korean data that this was not going to be the 1918 flu and certainly nothing close to the black death.

          Disappointed somewhat in Trump for not arguing that early… but maybe the “Karens” were too strong.

          If Trump’s own base was united perhaps he could have resisted but there were too many “Not Toms” around.

          • Pooch says:

            Interestingly, Trump supporters are uniting across the country in protest of their respective states. So much so that Trump tweeted “Liberate !” for 3 states so far.

            • Pooch says:

              “Liberate (state name)!”*

            • The Cominator says:

              Yes the Democrats being retarded massively overplayed their hand by asking that the shutdowns be extended forever and at least probably saved Trump’s reelection (if they played this right they had him but luckily they fucked it up). I was very worried along those lines when this started going into mid April…

              Had the Democrats suddenly insisted on a quick reopening early and started being shutdown skeptical they could have had Trump own the economic damage, had they just sort of kept their mouth shut he would have owned at least part of it…

              Now they are going to own nearly all the economic damage.

              • Pooch says:

                I’m worried about the permanent economic damage done at this point. Even if Trump wins re-election, prolonged 25-30% unemployment is a distinct possibility. The growing anti-sentiment coming from the Republicans is worrisome too.

                • Pooch says:

                  Anti-China*

                  Damn phone

                • The Cominator says:

                  It would probably not be prolonged unemployment unless people started anticipating that the Democrats would win the election… that would depress any recovery lead to persistently high unemployment and feed into a viscious cycle that weakened Trump.

                  Luckily the idiot Democrats blew it by showing absolutely no sympathy (even fake) with the economic damage and by agitating to extend the shutdowns.

                  Republicans who try to extend this shutdown bullshit are going to end up lynched don’t worry about that. Resteraunts should open by monday in non blue state and bars etc in another week.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Oh Anti-China…

                  The Anti-China sentiment is real genuine and spontaneous… someone needs to be blamed for this and they were not forthcoming with information and perhaps this was economic warfare.

                  Cold/Economic warfare against China is now inevitable.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Depends on how the anti-China sentiment goes. If it crushes their economy and drives them into making changes to fix their fucked up culture, I’m all for it, especially if it embroils them in a war with their Asian/Indian regional competitors. Let the Indians and the Chinese solve each other’s overpopulation problem, while we trade with the Japs and laugh.

                  If it pushes the *US* into a war with China, fuck that its gone too far. I’m all for seeing them eat some crow instead of bat, given the diseases that keep emerging from their insane practices, but I don’t want the US involved in a war with them. It does not benefit Americans.

                • The Cominator says:

                  There will not be a hot war with China, there WILL be a cold war with them though. Nothing can stop that now.

                  Nothing can stop that now. The Democrats hate them for their numerous sins against progressivism. Trump’s voters just viewed them as trade rivals before… they thought China was “ripping us off” but they didn’t blame the Chinese so much as our own corrupt government. But now they view them as enemies who either tried to destroy our economy and sabotage Trump OR people who while they didn’t plan it lied for the same purpose.

                  The deep state and both sides of the popular spectrum are now united in hating China. There will be no hot war but economic and cold war yes. I pray we aren’t stupid enough to start helping out their Muslims cause trouble though.

                • Pooch says:

                  I’m not convinced employment will come back quickly and even if they do like you’re saying it will be in red states only which is half the country at most. That will
                  Keep unemployment high still. The worse and more prolonged the economy damage, the louder the anti-China sentiment becomes.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “I’m not convinced employment will come back quickly and even if they do like you’re saying it will be in red states only which is half the country at most. That will
                  Keep unemployment high still. The worse and more prolonged the economy damage, the louder the anti-China sentiment becomes.”

                  The worse the divide in unemployment between red and blue states the more political damage Trump’s enemies take. The Democrats actually had him if they played their cards right… but they are so retarded that they called for extending the shutdowns beyond now that they are going to own nearly all the damage. It should come back in red states quickly between the money supply and the knowledge that the Democrats still can’t win in November. No we do NOT want to keep unemployment high but to the extent it is kept high we want Trump’s enemies responsible.

                  A big divide in unemployment between blue and red states may well provide so toxic to the Democrats that Trump gets the political mandate he needs to take power proclaim them traitors and saboteurs and to have them all shot.

                  Anti-Chinese sentiment is going to be very high for a long time no matter what.

        • Pooch says:

          Boom.

          Glad to have you on board.

        • Pooch says:

          More antidotal evidence of both the amount of asymptotic carriers and herd immunity within the dirty sub population.

          https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/04/17/us/boston-homeless-coronavirus-outbreak/index.html

          • jim says:

            Approximately half the homeless population has antibodies for Wu Flu, which means that they are reaching herd immunity, and thus the filth of Democratic Party cities is less likely to infect clean uncrowded property owning middle class taxpayers.

    • RedBible says:

      There was an interesting comment on “the anime image board of peace”

      https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/253862815/#253886895

      If they data from that comment is correct, The virus started losing it’s steam before any of the “flatten the curve” measures were taken.

      • jim says:

        What I think is happening is that the virus spreads rapidly among certain groups and categories, such as people in old people’s homes, crowded dirty people in dirty places. When that subgroup of the population gets herd immunity, or in the case of old people’s homes gets herd immunity or piles up in the morgue, the virus finds it difficult to spread in the face of ordinary precautions such as social distancing, washing your hands, and always using a baby wipe when touching your face.

        The virus is not spreading much in Iceland, despite the cold climate which is favorable to it spreading through surface contact, because the population is low density. The virus evolved in a crowded unhygienic population, and is doing well in the inner city among crowded unhygienic people. It is maladapted to cleanly suburban, exurban, and rural people. If Icelanders were travelling on a filthy crowded subway, like New Yorkers, would spread like wildfire.

        • Pooch says:

          We don’t care about dirty people, we do care about old folks. It’s Becoming clearer and clearer the lockdown is going to be a massive overreaction to saving people in nursing homes with negative economic effects we aren’t sure yet how bad will be.

          People are rightly smelling the bullshit and protesting. Trumps guidelines are a step in the right direction but still mean ending it is many weeks away for most people. The cathedral continues to push a picture that things are much much worse then they are. Hoping you write another piece about what all this means long term.

        • The Cominator says:

          Jim agreed.

        • pdimov says:

          >The virus is not spreading much in Iceland, despite the cold climate which is favorable to it spreading through surface contact, because…

          … it probably doesn’t spread through surface contact at all.

          “When we took samples from door handles, phones or toilets it has not been possible to cultivate the virus in the laboratory on the basis of these swabs….”

          https://today.rtl.lu/news/science-and-environment/a/1498185.html

          “To actually ‘get’ the virus it would be necessary that someone coughs into their hand, immediately touches a door knob and then straight after that another person grasps the handle and goes on to touches their face.”

        • Iconoclast says:

          I understand Iceland didn’t go full lockdown and only limited 50 per gathering, fairing much better than other Western countries.

          That fact the cathedral has been pushing fear porn on overdrive 24×7 tells me there are many other things at play here.

          As always, follow the money.

          • jim says:

            Iceland does OK because low density, hence the subpopulation where R0 is greater than one, the subpopulation within which each infected person is likely to infect several more, is very small.

            Australia is also low density, though considerably higher than Iceland, and seems to have achieved herd immunity, implying that the majority of the minority among whom R0 is greater than one have gotten sick or recovered.

          • pdimov says:

            Iceland practices social distancing 24/7. As the joke goes:

            Medical experts: You should stay 2 meters apart
            Icelanders: baffled, move closer to one another

    • pdimov says:

      0.01% doesn’t sound correct. Did you mean 0.1%?

      • pdimov says:

        0.1% sounds dubious, too. The population of New York State is 19M. It has, so far, 17K deaths. That’s 0.09% mortality if everyone was infected.

        (I see that Not Tom has made the same point upthread.)

        • jim says:

          New York is padding its death toll, because the Democrats want to milk the crisis, and Trump is slowing down their milking, so they want the crisis to be as big and long as possible. So anyone who croaks in a hospital is apt to get added to the total.

        • Pooch says:

          NY state has 222,284 confirmed cases. The antibody sample taken in Santa Clara county infers that the actual cases are at least 50 times that which is a total of 11,114,200. A high percentage of the state yes, but most of the population of NY is the NYC metro area.

          0.01% of 11,114,200 = 11,114
          Reported Deaths = 14,636

          Considering NY added 3,700 deaths out of nowhere on the 14th, are obviously padding their numbers, and 50x is the lower bound of actual infections these numbers seem to be right in line to me.

          • pdimov says:

            >11,114,200

            At these numbers you’re bumping into the herd immunity limit. F.ex. you previously estimated R at 1.5 (like the flu) – this corresponds to herd immunity being achieved at 1/3 of the population, which is 6M and change (oy vey).

            But 0.2% or 0.3% is perfectly plausible. Lombardy for instance (population 10M, 11K deaths) fits too.

            • Pooch says:

              R is just some bullshit created by modelers who make bullshit models. As Jim says, obviously R is higher in in a population of dirty, crowded, unhygienic people (which NYC very much is), and lower in rural areas where neighbors are miles apart.

              But even if 0.02%, just yet another flu, not nearly as deadly as the Cathedral wants us to believe, and clearly doesnt warrant the economic damage being inflicted on the entire US.

          • jim says:

            > NY state has 222,284 confirmed cases. The antibody sample taken in Santa Clara county infers that the actual cases are at least 50 times that which is a total of 11,114,200. A high percentage of the state yes, but most of the population of NY is the NYC metro area.

            Metro area is crowded, and the subways are filthy. Looks like the virus can only expand under those conditions. The pattern of outbreaks suggests that with suburban car owning populations, each infected person infects less than one more person. Does not mean that if you live in the suburbs, the exurbs, or the countryside you are safe, but it does mean that your fellow suburbanites are unlikely to expose you to danger, that people in the suburbs only get it from contact with people in the city.

            The failure of many western airports to install thermal scanners hints that many western airports are not cleaned very often, and San Francisco takes its own sweet time to remove human feces in the streets, and, last I heard, was more concern to throw suburbanites in jail for walking in the park than to clean up its streets. They are milking the outbreak to let black muggers out of jail and throw white middle class males in jail, while displaying total lack of interest in China’s successful program of fighting the virus by spraying public areas with bleach and soap.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          @pdimov

          All mortality percentages of COVID19 are bullshit due to the fact that the number of infected is unknown.

          • jim says:

            Now, however, the mortality percentage is known. We have two random population samples of the number infected, and they both indicate a mortality rate south of a tenth of a percent.

            We also are now starting to have data on herd immunity. The pattern indicates you don’t need a large part of the population to become individually immune in order to get herd immunity. You just need a large part of the crowded and dirty population to become individually immune, and then the virus dies out.

            So, if we let it just burn, while implementing a program of cleanliness, we are looking at a total death rate of around 5% of 0.1%, not enough to make it a worse flu season than usual.

            Wuhan was a crisis because most of the population was crowded and dirty, and because they were putting everyone with breathing difficulties into ICU mechanical ventilators, which resulted in ICU being overwhelmed. Now, however, we realize that oxygen masks are for most Wu Flu patients a whole lot better and safer than ICU, so no danger of ICU being overwhelmed any more.

          • pdimov says:

            The number of infected, however unknown, cannot exceed the total population, or even 75-80% of it due to herd immunity.

  18. Pooch says:

    Yes. 0.1%

    • jim says:

      Australia demonstrates that you get herd immunity only after a small minority of the population has been infected, presumably the majority of the minority of crowded dirty unhygienic people.

      So, instead of four percent of a majority of the population dying, several million, if we had done nothing much except washed our hands and kept public places clean with windex spray, probably 0.1% of five percent dying, a bad flu season no different from any other bad flu seasons.

      ICU was overwhelmed because people who should have been given oxygen masks were instead sent directly to ICU. Now that we are giving everyone who has trouble breathing oxygen masks, and only sending them to ICU if they are in imminent danger of passing out despite the oxygen mask, ICU is largely empty, and we have mechanical ventilators piling up in warehouses. Those few people that arguably need to be sent to ICU don’t spend long there (usually because they promptly graduate to the morgue) so even if ICU was overwhelmed, which is no longer likely, would make little difference.

    • pdimov says:

      At the moment what seems most plausible to me is that the mortality depends heavily on how much virus gets into your lungs as part of the initial infection. If lots, high mortality; if not, close to zero.

      Similarly, the seemingly contradictory observed spreads can be explained by the virus spreading quickly when the environment is conducive (subway, other public transport, people gathering in closed quarters, a culture of speaking loudly and staying close to one another) and not when not. Hence why some estimates give R0 of 6, and others below 2.

      In addition, I think that most of those antibodies have been acquired in November, as part of a hidden first wave (possibly another strain with lower mortality).

  19. ERTZ says:

    I wrote a comment here:
    https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2020/04/10/chestertons-fence-and-institutions-that-protect-reproduction/comment-page-1/#comment-1080
    that I feel may be relevant to some of the ideas here as well:

    C.’s Fence, though a valuable tool for preventing decisional overconfidence, is useless if the environment changes so that the reasons for the fence not longer exist.

    >institutions that facilitate and protect reproduction are vital. A society cannot tamper with them and remain viable.
    The environment of human reproduction has already changed dramatically through the advent of safe, easy, reliable and cheap contraceptives and abortion. Sex and reproduction, and with it marriage, have been decoupled.
    This has rendered not only ancient social institutions like marriage obsolete, but also many of our sexual instincts:
    Until before the last few decades, every sexual instinct and behavior that lead to insemination was associated with reproductive success: Cheating, lying, pretending to be in love, rape, showing off, intense socialization (seeking out dances/parties/etc.), even prostitution. These old instincts still drive behavior, of course, people have a lot of promiscuous sex, but do not intend to burden themselves with children and actively prevent having them.
    They have sex not for reproduction, but because it’s rewarding, and so we get a lot of sex without reproduction, and thus a biological fitness failure from maladaption, just like we get the obesity crisis for similar reasons:
    Old instinct programs are ill adapted to a new environment that has changed quickly and dramatically.

    Marriage itself, the family unit itself, has become very likely OBSOLETE.
    This is something many don’t want to be true, because it is against their romantic ideals.
    But ask:
    Why exactly would people marry, or at least live together as a family unit of long-time partners?
    It’s unseen in all other primates. There is no compelling biological reason for it.
    There HAVE BEEN two reasons:
    Mate guarding for men (always being close to his female partner makes sure his children are really his own and he will not invest in another man’s genes);
    and protection and resource security for women (women are weak and need a protector and provider, even more so during pregnancy and infant care).
    These reasons have become OBSOLETE:
    Men don’t need to mate guard anymore, because the advent of DNA-based paternity tests practically abolished man’s risk of being cuckolded.
    Women don’t need any typical man’s protection and resources anymore, because the modern welfare state is a better protector and resource provider than the typical man (exception:the few very rich men).
    These two critical changes of social and reproductive technology have abolished the actual underlying biological reasons for two reproduction partners staying together for a longer time, and lead and will further lead to the abolishment of marriage and to single-parent families becoming the norm.

    >homosexual marriage is not the kind of change that one could support by arguing that, say, technological change
    >makes it viable now.
    Not so:
    Homosexual marriage now CAN, because of technological change, be a reproduction institution:
    I’ll not go into the details here as this information can easily be found elsewhere, but any two people – two women, two men – can today reproduce without having to use the chromosomes/genes of a person of different sex, because gametes can today be made from any two people’s cells/chromosomes, naturally or artificially inseminated, and implanted into a surrogate mother. Even a single person can clone itself, so technically “single-person marriages”, being married to oneself, have become possible, as weird as that sounds.
    Just for the sake of fascinating exemplification:
    A, say, boy can today have multiple fathers and mothers:
    A genetic father (his paternal grandfather), a clone father (who provided the nucleus), a legal father (who commissioned and raised him), a genetic mother (his paternal grandmother), an egg-mother (who produced the oocyte), a surrogate mother (who gestated and gave birth to him) and a stepmother (who raised him).
    CONFUSED? This is where we are now technologically, and in the future it probably becomes normal, cheap, safe – most people will want to have the best children and in the most convenient circumstances they can afford – so this will likely be the reproductive environment of the future.

    Why are homosexual MEN hated by heterosexual men? It begins with a disgust emotion.
    Why did this emotion evolve?
    In the ancient environment natural and sexual selection put intense pressures on men, among them the risk of attracting STDs – unlike today, an evolutionary death sentence, because STDs were untreatable and killed directly, made the man infertile, or sexually unattractive (many STDs make genitals look, smell and taste disgusting – cunnilingus and fellatio are not uncommon in many mammals, and evolved as a protection instinct against STDs – this is why people today like to do it in the first place).
    STDs were spread by homosexual men – because of their much higher promiscuity; then and now gays have much higher STD load. Now you’ll wonder how the gays’ STDs infected hetero men – the answer is: Bisexual men, which are more numerous than exclusive homosexual men, and quite the adulterers, who transferred the gays’ STDs on the heterosexuals’ wives and those then on the heterosexual men.
    (Homosexuality is actually only a rarer subform of bisexuality, the latter existing because it produces some reproductive benefits; bisexual men have higher ejaculation rates (twice as frequently as heteros) and have kids earlier (higher reproduction RATE (=lower intergenerational distance=quicker to evolve/adapt), but not more children), because they got children earlier in the ancestral environment, because they could practice sex earlier in their youth with other men which translated into higher sexual experience and earlier and quicker seduction of girls and women, just like it still happens today.)
    Hetero men who evolved a disgust for gays and got rid of them simply out-reproduced those who tolerated gays due to lower STD rates, and their sons inherited the instinct – which can be on a spectrum from mild disgust to murderous rage. So homophobia evolved as a fitness-improving emotion of hetero men.

    Homosexuality among males seems eerily common and beneficial for biological fitness if the STD-factor were removed – which is likely to happen from technological improvements!
    If risks for homosexual behavior were removed, evolution would not longer restrain genes for it, its reproductive benefits would lead it soaring through the population, everybody would be bisexual.
    THIS ALREADY HAS HAPPENED!
    In isolated communities on many Pacific islands people were exposed to practically no STDs – susceptible individuals to any that had once existed had long since died, leaving behind only those who were immune; small populations means that not many new mutations in STDs happened; any sexual activity was low-risk, and in such societies bisexuality was the norm when they were 1st encountered by Western anthropologists.

    By the way:
    Homosexuality is by no means unique to humans; almost all birds and mammals show similar behavior;
    male monkeys and apes, for example, show the same range of homosexual behavior as men: mutual caressing and masturbation to anal intercourse; one masturbating to ejaculation while being penetrated anally by another; as in humans, less than 1% are exclusive homosexuals (=nonreproductive), but bisexuality IS reproductive – in humans, about 5% of men in industrial countries are bisexuals, and monkeys/apes who have anal intercourse with other males have no lower rate of intercourse with females.

    • The Cominator says:

      “The environment of human reproduction has already changed dramatically through the advent of safe, easy, reliable and cheap contraceptives and abortion. Sex and reproduction, and with it marriage, have been decoupled.”

      Jim has refuted this many times… they were many ways of preventing pregnancy and inducing miscarriage in ancient times and the middle ages.

      A VERY high % of women in the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages (probably at least 20% and probably 1/3 minimum during the Roman Empire) did a stint in the oldest profession (not that they did it for life). Do you think they got pregnant all the time? Of course not.

    • jim says:

      The reason for a reproduction pattern based on stable pair formation is that the human brain takes a long time to mature, hence long extended childhood. Nothing that matters has changed in the past million years.

      Because of extended childhood, reproduction is profoundly difficult without cooperation between males and females. Prisoner’s dilemma ensues, which has to be resolved by external coercion.

      The rate of homosexuality varies radically between species, and radically between different groups of humans, and radically between the same groups humans at different times. No gay porn in the US at the time of the civil war, but no shortage of gay in England at that time.

      I conjecture that the problem is related to the deterioration of the Y chromosome in the mammalian lineage, which makes it difficult for evolution to create and maintain differences between males and females, due to the mammalian Y chromosome being subject to Muller’s ratchet, with the result that evolution uses ever more indirect, convoluted, and fragile mechanisms to maintain the necessary differences as long established mechanisms keep falling to Muller’s ratchet. These complex and fragile mechanisms have complex environmental failure modes. If we could figure out the most common failure modes, we could eliminate gay. But straightforward repression of gays seems to go a mighty long way.

      • >but no shortage of gay in England at that time

        In the upper classes. It was an Eton thing. Not a coal miner thing. There is some mysterious process, perhaps genetic, perhaps environmental, that feminized the men of the upper classes. Like how the warrior aristocrats in France eventually became ballet-dancing court nobles. It is also visible on the US elites: https://psmag.com/social-justice/half-lifts-workout-says-social-class-85221

        Perhaps it is something as simple as that as the priestly class defeated the warrior class, it was the sons of the aristocrat, former warrior class that first got educated in the priestly schools. Merchants came later. And the working class was largely left out, there was a limited number of places in these schools.

        Or something more complex. Eton was very gay, but was also big on sports, which is a sign of virility, and a sign of resistance to education understood as a purely priestly one. Chesterton complained that the elite schools are just about sports and cleanliness, not really learning. I.e. not priestly enough.

        I nearly spit my coffee out when I read Montesquieau writing that in a monarchy, women are whores, because their role models are the ladies of court, who have very loose morals, courtiers fuck them not only out of lust but also as a way to further their own careers. Obviously this is not true of every monarchy, but if French aristocrats in 1748 had so much trouble controlling their women, that might have been the reason of the later downfall.

        • French aristocrats were emasculated and had trouble controlling their women because they were substantially and legally disempowered by the Sun King, by Louis XIV, during his centralization efforts. He made them move to Versailles and play courtly status games while his new civil service was substantially running the country.

          • The Cominator says:

            Yes the nobility was by and large effeminate and cucked by design. Louis XIV moved them to Versailles in order to make them effeminate and cucked.

      • Male sexuality is a bit fluid, hence the wife goggles effect, adapting to the woman you managed to bang and keep banging, so that you can get kids out of her as she ages past the boner test, but this also means that all sorts of fucked up fetishes can be acquired by jacking it to the wrong porn or doing the wrong stuff in bed.

        Exposure to homosexuality will cause homosexuality. Whatever feedback loops regulate sexual desire in the brain can get rewired through conditioning and use. I could understand gay tops being extremely horny men who would fuck everything that moves, but the vast majority of gays are bottoms who want to be railed out by manly men, no matter how unpleasant this sensation must be. Gays are made. Generations of elites in ancient Greece were memed into liking getting jacked off by little boys better than their own wives, and men in the West today are being memed and buggered into being submissive buttsluts. Memetic infection is indistinguishable from demonic possession. Gay is a disease that spreads via buttsex, behind every fag is a man who fucked them in the ass when they were 9.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          This is one guy’s story of being memed into a horrifying and nauseating lifestyle:

          https://josephsciambra.com/surviving-gaybarely/

          The guy craved being accepted by a group of men so he memed himself into getting railed even though it physically wrecked him.

          • Whoa! That article is quite a brainfuck. The worst part is that he wasn’t even initially ghey, just wanted the acceptance and companionship of other men…

            This shit about being a bullied weak timid kid is something I know about, but my way to fix it was entirely the opposite, to find a stable girlfriend and then we can do things together like how my parents mostly did things together. This is not ideal either, a man needs male companions, but it is still less bad than becoming ghey just to find male companionship.

            I doubt the parts where he says ghey culture is hypermasculine as it directly contradicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen and that book sounds like decently researched.

            Also, the idea that women play a moderating role because they often say no… super bluepilled.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              Also, the idea that women play a moderating role because they often say no… super bluepilled.

              Sure – but really what do you expect from someone like that? Not like he’ll actually see what female behavior is like in mating contexts.

              • jim says:

                When a woman says no, it is generally because Jeremy Meeks gave her a midnight booty call a year ago to be girl number two in a threesome, and she wants to be available in case there is another booty call.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Girls will always say no to the author of that piece; he was bullied from junior high on for being a weird fag so has no status with men; he was an effeminate gay and so had no masculine confidence and edge to attract women.

                  He’s obviously blue pilled about women but probably didn’t witness enough of female nature to be anything else; the value of that piece isn’t insight into women anyway – it’s about the sheer disgusting depravity of the “gay” scene and the motivation of the men in it.

          • Dave says:

            In overpopulated polygynous societies, boys with many older brothers and half-brothers get little attention from their fathers and no inheritance. Bacha bazi is the closest thing to love they’ll ever experience.

            Every so often a religious revival comes along and says, “Repent ye miserable faggots, praise Allah, join our conquering army, and learn what sex with a woman feels like!” But eventually that movement is defeated, or runs out of territory to conquer, the natural pussy shortage reasserts itself, and it’s back to bacha bazi.

        • Aldon says:

          https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2019/09/23/gay-genes/

          A credible study already failed to find any genes that could be associated with faggotry. What they did find was faggotry associated with being a schizo or needle pusher.

      • ERTZ says:

        >The reason for a reproduction pattern based on stable pair formation is that the human brain
        >takes a long time to mature, hence long extended childhood.
        As I said: Women need protectors+providers: men.

        >Nothing that matters has changed in the past million years.
        The welfare state has changed the fundamental dynamic.
        Women don’t _need_ any single man anymore; they are being GUARANTEED BY LAW that all men (and all other women) (who work/pay taxes) support,protect,provide for and care for them.
        This is a perfect insurance for mothers that is better than any man can provide for them – even a billionaire can go broke or get killed by political developments – the welfare state is simply superior as a provider for mother and children than men.
        With more women working, earning their own money, and not too few even becoming rich, men are further devalued, becoming OBSOLETE AS INDIVIDUAL MEN for women.
        How can you stop that huge shift in sexual and reproductive power and control?
        The only way I see is abolishing the welfare state and preventing women from work and owning significant property.
        Probably hardly possible in a populist democracy where a stable majority is relatively of low status and poorer.

        >Because of extended childhood, reproduction is profoundly difficult without cooperation between males and females.
        Men don’t revolt by the millions against paying taxes for the welfare state = their own emasculation = their loss of sexual and reproductive control over women. They “cooperate”, indeed!

        >Prisoner’s dilemma ensues, which has to be resolved by external coercion.
        The men who willingly support the welfare state seem to be a stable majority and so are indeed a means of “external coercion” of the minority of men who have objections to it!

        >Nothing that matters has changed in the past million years.
        Again: Biological instincts+bodily functions remained mostly the same, but
        -there is growing evidence the hormonal contraception pill changes women’s emotions and behavior
        -contraception+abortion have become cheap,safe,routine like electricity
        -gender equality and working/having own-income/rich women are less/no longer dependent on men as providers
        -the welfare state offers resources and protections much more reliable than any man can
        -porn as supernormal stimulus(usage begins in preteens with phones, higher intensity than ever, new intensities like VR, ubiquitous availability)/obesity/women’s rights/lower sperm counts/ridiculing of men in media/female-centric+leftist education system/endocrine disruptors all cause or indicate a fundamental shift in sexuality
        -even the specific qualities of porn change: more cuckolding fantasies, femdom fetishes, futanari stuff –>the porn today is qualitatively different from earlier porn,
        potentially indicating a feminizing shift of men’s tastes, desires, fantasies; the antimasculine developments in mass media are happening in parallel with men’s sexual preferences as evidenced by porn use statistics

        Taken together, this sounds mighty like a revolutionary shift to me.

        • Aldon says:

          >Taken together, this sounds mighty like a revolutionary shift to me.

          Not really. Seeing as how Ancient Rome was a thing. What happened was that the Romans, as in the inhabitants of the city who forged the empire, just about went extinct from failing to breed properly and letting hordes of foreigners in. This is especially shown from Ancient DNA.

          Going from Rome, what will happen around the West is ethnic replacement until the system ceases.

        • JanMartense says:

          Ok, so are you saying that Chesterton’s fence is no longer relevant because of these changes? Like, that traditional monogamous marriage is no longer needed because the forces which necessitated it are obsolete? If so, I would remind you that reproductive fitness applies both on an individual basis over short timeframes, and a societal basis over longer timefames. Marriage might not increase your number of direct offspring in modern clownworld, but that all successful civilizations have developed the institution says something. Sometimes fences have more than one use.

          One thing that might be worrisome is a decoupling of individual reproductive fitness from group fitness (e.g., macroevolutionary trends are opposed to microevolutionary ones.) This isn’t common, but it does happen–for instance, if we look at Giant Pandas, they have evolved to eat bamboo rather than other food sources. On an individual basis adaptations which favor better digestion of bamboo are successful. However, bamboo is a generally shitty food source for a large, intelligent, energy-demanding mammal like a bear( it’s not nutrient dense). So the total population of pandas has been declining for hundreds of thousands of years even as the genes responsible for that decline propagate more successfully in the remaining species members. It’s a doomed species.

          The human version would be: marriage is required for a society to be successful and grow in overall numbers, but within that society, marriage *decreases* fertility on average. Luckily for us that isn’t actually the case when it comes to marriage as married people have higher tfr than singles.

          In other areas like IQ, though, this is the case, which is why we have the Cheeto effect. Fucking a bimbo will actually spread your genes faster than marrying a smart girl, but if *everyone* fucks only bimbos, everyone’s genes will be dead within a couple hundred years.

        • The Cominator says:

          “The only way I see is abolishing the welfare state and preventing women from work and owning significant property.”

          LOL what board do you think you are reading… the general gist of the agreement here is that they should be made into property or something very close.

    • Aldon says:

      >In the ancient environment natural and sexual selection put intense pressures on men, among them the risk of attracting STDs – unlike today, an evolutionary death sentence, because STDs were untreatable and killed directly, made the man infertile, or sexually unattractive (many STDs make genitals look, smell and taste disgusting – cunnilingus and fellatio are not uncommon in many mammals, and evolved as a protection instinct against STDs – this is why people today like to do it in the first place).

      STDs are spread from oral (and anal) sex notably more than from vaginal sex.

      >CONFUSED? This is where we are now technologically, and in the future it probably becomes normal, cheap, safe – most people will want to have the best children and in the most convenient circumstances they can afford – so this will likely be the reproductive environment of the future.

      No it won’t since current test tube freak children show no signs of being as functional and are expensive. At most only a rather small minority of wealthy degenerates will insist on making humans other than the proper way. Children raised by anything other than a man and a woman have more behavioral problems than children who are too.

      >These two critical changes of social and reproductive technology have abolished the actual underlying biological reasons for two reproduction partners staying together for a longer time, and lead and will further lead to the abolishment of marriage and to single-parent families becoming the norm.

      Except the most fertile lands on Earth are those that enforce either monogamy or Islam. What is more believable is that those who refuse to behave traditionally will be replaced by those who do.

      >In isolated communities on many Pacific islands people were exposed to practically no STDs – susceptible individuals to any that had once existed had long since died, leaving behind only those who were immune; small populations means that not many new mutations in STDs happened; any sexual activity was low-risk, and in such societies bisexuality was the norm when they were 1st encountered by Western anthropologists.

      https://traditionsofconflict.com/blog/2018/1/31/on-secret-cults-and-male-dominance

      Homosexual behavior in tribal societies is that of a Catholic priest degenerate (a notably older man targeting boys) or two women staying together from a lack of options. The notion of “free love” societies in such areas was a fantasy cooked up by Lefties like Maggie Mead (who was outright lied to by her “contacts”).

      >Homosexuality is by no means unique to humans; almost all birds and mammals show similar behavior;
      male monkeys and apes, for example, show the same range of homosexual behavior as men: mutual caressing and masturbation to anal intercourse; one masturbating to ejaculation while being penetrated anally by another; as in humans, less than 1% are exclusive homosexuals (=nonreproductive), but bisexuality IS reproductive – in humans, about 5% of men in industrial countries are bisexuals, and monkeys/apes who have anal intercourse with other males have no lower rate of intercourse with females.

      Please, if homosexuality was remotely as rooted in man’s nature as not being a faggot then the state wouldn’t be trying so hard to be normalize it, there wouldn’t be such racial differences in faggotry (African Americans and Jews are much more faggy than White men), and we’d find gay genes.

      https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Prevalence

      https://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_in_animals_myth

      https://westhunt.wordpress.com/?s=homosexuality

      Too many examples of animal faggotry are in captivity or otherwise are samples.

      • Askari Rey says:

        Jim, which news outlets or aggregator do you regularly visit to stay informed?

      • There is no “exclusive homosexual” among humans. All fags are willing and able to fuck women, but only the rare few alpha enough to also get pussy call themselves bisexual.

        • Mike says:

          I’d be more willing to believe in exclusively homosexual males than lesbians though. Lesbians are laughably fake.

        • Aldon says:

          >There is no “exclusive homosexual” among humans.

          Indeed. Those who claim to be such are acting from pathological behavior like drug abuse, abuse like getting fingered by Uncle John, being raised by a father they don’t respect, desperation if a man or fear of being alone/lack of options if a woman, or just hatred/contempt for the opposite sex.

          A man if he’s desperate enough can jerk off to things like cartoon characters. A woman can make herself moan with a dildo or Kunta Kinte or her neighbor Karen if she’s so lacking in men that she resorts to such (it wouldn’t even be from her “loving” women” lol).

          >All fags are willing and able to fuck women

          Yes, and enough dykes prowl for men on the side.

          • jim says:

            Lesbian women have sex with men more than they have sex with women, and sex with more different men than straight women do. The women in a lesbian couple cheat on each other with men more than they have sex with each other, hence the high levels of violence and murder in lesbian couples. A “Gold Star Lesbian” is a woman who has never had a relationship with a man, not a woman who has never had sex with a man, and lesbian responds to the presence of an alpha male in same way as any other woman, albeit often in a way that is a bit weirder than usual. They do not consciously and intentionally prowl for alpha, but if alpha is around, they react, and if alpha is not around, they wander in places where alpha might be found.

            • Aldon says:

              There was a huge discussion on TRS’ boards about fags/dykes. It noted what I said about dykes (that they prowl for men on the side) and also that lesbian bed death is a thing, their “relationships” have a habit of falling apart once one of them gives up and goes back to men, and the ones who stick together do so out of sheer manhatred than anything else.

              • Aldon says:

                Also, on 8ch’s /pol/ there was a thread discussing gayness. One of the anons was a woman who’s a practicing dyke who admitted that she was apparently abused as a girl and this led to her developing a fear of men. She didn’t try to normalize her behavior and recognized how she acted was degenerate.

    • Neurotoxin says:

      No idea who ERTZ is or what the alleged relevance of her comment is.

  20. Iconoclast says:

    US CV bodycount 37k no vaccine/cooked books
    US Flu bodycount 2017-18 80k with vaccine

    Conclusion: Butch up and throw on some fresh panties.

    I told you guys on the last thread to go see for yourself. Now if you are some hard core redpilled mf’s, stop shilling for the cathedral and try to figure out what is really going on.

  21. Oscar says:

    “A man with no woman breaks, and a woman with no man goes nuts”

    You wrote this above, is celibacy then always undesirable?

    • jim says:

      > > “A man with no woman breaks, and a woman with no man goes nuts”

      > You wrote this above, is celibacy then always undesirable?

      The major cause of genuinely holy celibacy is that someone on has monstrous and perverse sexual desires that he manages to keep inside. I would call that form of celibacy highly desirable, as compared to the alternative.

  22. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Everyone has quietly stopped talking about ventilators.

    • jim says:

      Ah yes, the great and terrible crisis of lack of ventilators that was going cause so many people to die for lack of the appropriate high status high priestly rites.

      Turned out that oxygen masks, a low priestly rite that is generally administered by nurses, and is completely legal to self diagnose and self administer, are considerably less lethal and in the vast majority of cases, equally effective in shortness of breath caused by Wu Flu. If we actually had had a shortage of ventilators and ICU beds, probably considerably fewer people would have died.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        That’s an anecdotal paranoid conspiracy theory.

        Dying on a ventilator is much safer than taking hydroxycholoroquine and zinc, which unlike death can have dangerous side-effects. Only a five-year double-blind peer-reviews study can possibly disprove this, or you’re racist.

      • BC says:

        The medical system as religion analysis tool is amazingly accurate. I ripped up a doctor the other day on ventilators when I was talking about that ventilators were doing more harm than good. He had no idea of why they existed, what they’re intended use was, and why they were killing people. All he had was the oxygen level has fallen and thus we must put the person on ventilator and that he knew better than a non doctor.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      NYC has hit herd immunity (essentially 0 new cases) while the lockdowns fail to suppress exponential growth anywhere else outside Asia. Intriguingly, the collapse in death rate barely lags the collapse in new case rate, something no one cares to investigate.

  23. Apostate Julian says:

    jim, thoughts on covid and neoliberalism (death of) with current oil news?

    • The Cominator says:

      My take is I so wish I had certified warehouse space…

      Can I buy cheap warehouses in Mexico and payoff inspectors to certify it and then “buy” oil at negative prices…

    • jim says:

      Neoliberalism is an enemy word, a word that is a lie.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        “Neoliberalism is an enemy word, a word that is a lie.”

        Please dive deeper into this one sometime. I know you have, but just a few more paragraphs, all at once, stabbing directly at the above, would be quite powerful and useful.

        In fact, just a brainstormed listing of anti-conceptual enemy words that you’ve already treated at some level, just that would be great. Then I could search for each one through the archives here and put together the Mister Grumpus Anticonceptual Dictionary, if you dig.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          No joke, because there’s tons of leverage here. The ThoughtCrime and AntiConcept… concepts… are unique to here, and uniquely powerful.

          I’ll start:

          Neoliberal
          Pedophile

          (uhh what else?)

          The damn thing about anticoncepts is that it’s just so easy to forget that an anticoncept is an anticoncept.

          • Apostate Julian says:

            ah, i’m seeing now. i agree. also jim, no need to be alarmed by the name. former catholic seminarian, schmitt-influenced. admire the tenacity of an honest pagan.

        • jim says:

          There are no depths to dive into. The word is just a meaningless epithet that people who want to eat peasant’s seed corn and kill the peasant’s cows call people who worry that shortage of bread and milk is likely to ensue and therefore go too slow in implementing policies to destroy everyone except certain members of the priestly class. No one calls himself a neoliberal, no one identifies with neoliberalism, no one advocates neoliberalism, no one thinks that he himself is a neoliberal, no one supports neoliberalism, because there simply is no such thing as neoliberalism, while people who use the word use it to describe anyone who is not of their own invisibly tiny sect of socialism. Two trots, three factions, and the other two factions are supposedly neoliberals. “Neoliberalism” is not even common sense and sanity, merely the absence of the very specific and particular insanity of the tiny and obscure nanonfaction of the man complaining about “neoliberalism”.

          So where is the lie? The lie is that since no one in the entire world has ever supported or advocated neoliberalism, the socialist using the word is winning the battle of ideas. The lie is appeal to false consensus. “No one calls themselves a neoliberal, no one supports neoliberalism, therefore everyone agrees with my microscopic subsect of socialism.” That is the lie.

          Everyone who does not share the very specific insanity of the particular person using the word, is a “neoliberal”, and everyone who uses the word has their own particular madness. The reason no one ever calls themselves a “neoliberal” is not because they agree with whatever nanofaction is using the word, rather it the same reason as the reason that no one calls themselves a “non Zoroastrian”

          • chedolf says:

            No one calls himself a neoliberal, no one identifies with neoliberalism, no one advocates neoliberalism, no one thinks that he himself is a neoliberal, no one supports neoliberalism, because there simply is no such thing as neoliberalism…

            Not dispositive. Every neocon I’ve met, including a fedgov (((employee))) who helped to arm Syrian rebels, denies that neoconservatism exists.

            • jim says:

              Neocons are an entryist faction, hence do not want a name that identifies them. CR denies he is a Marxist, but Marxism definitely exists. Neoconservatism exists, in that a movement of Jewish ex Marxists centered around the radical left magazine “Commentary” existed and that movement needs a name. Being entryists, their enemies gave them a name, but being entryists, do not want to be identified as a cohesive outgroup.

              It is a small, identifiable, cohesive, group of Jewish ex Marxists who plausibly claim to be now right wing, but do not identify with America, Americans, or white people, do not know or care about American history or American culture.

              Supposed neoliberals on the other hand, are anyone who fails to share the very specific insanity of the person using the word, people of wildly different races, who speak different languages, have different histories, love very different countries, and have wildly different ideologies. Not a cohesive group of people.

              I am trying to build cohesion around old type Christianity exemplified by Charles the Hammer and Charles the second. We could do with Charles the Hammer’s warrior saint priests, though Charles the second’s purge is what we need. Our Christianity is, as Alf rightly complains, rather bloodless and lacking in fire, and Charles the second’s Christianity was bloodless and lacking in fire. Charles the Hammer’s Christianity, on the other hand, had no shortage of blood and fire.

              • chedolf says:

                Supposed neoliberals on the other hand, are anyone who fails to share the very specific insanity of the person using the word, people of wildly different races, who speak different languages, have different histories, love very different countries, and have wildly different ideologies. Not a cohesive group of people.

                That’s a strong argument. It bothers me that I can’t define the word more precisely than “insufficiently woke leftist.”

              • The Cominator says:

                Its potentially useful to divide and play leftist against each other so while it is generally an enemy word we can use it to our advantage by infiltrating leftist groups going hail fellow leftists and labelling any Democrat who isn’t Bernie a neoliberal and saying that no leftist should vote for him.

                There were a large group of 4channers who did that in 2016…

              • pdimov says:

                Neoliberalism is just economic liberalism. No more, no less. Needs neo- because ordinary liberalism is no longer that.

                • jim says:

                  It is certainly the case that economic liberals get called “neoliberals” by people who don’t much like economic liberalism – but the people who call economic liberals “neoliberals” don’t much like all sorts of things and all sorts of people.

                  The word is used to attack people in Latin America a lot, and the people attacked are seldom all that economically liberal.

                  It is rather like “racism” is defined as Hitler, and then as any white male in the vicinity of affirmative action yielding embarrassing results, and then as any white male, and then as any white. “Neoliberalism” is similarly elastic.

      • Apostate Julian says:

        are all enemy words skinsuits in operation? i oppose liberalism, therefore i oppose liberalism.

  24. info says:

    At the Tomb of Jesus. At the Tomb of the Logos. There is a miracle that occurs every year that ignites the candles that the Priest holds:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX13WH45xm8

    This miracle is 100% true. The guards check the clothing of the Priests and make sure they aren’t carrying anything.

    A blue light from God appears and directs itself at the candle to light it. This same energy is responsible for the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ.

    • alf says:

      Some further thoughts on miracles..

      I have nothing against miracle thinking. For instance, sometimes a sick person heals without the medical establishment having any decent explanation. It happens, and you might as well call it a miracle.

      But every miracle, sooner or later, can be explained using the scientific method. Once a miracle becomes replicable, it ceases to be a miracle.

      Of course the line is fuzzy. The creation of life is, as far as I’m concerned, a miracle. And from where I stand, a single bomb that can leverage an entire city, or holes that have so much mass that they suck in light are also miracles. There is something wondrous about life.

      But to resort to the spontaneous ignition of a candle as proof of God is weak sauce. If Gnon is on my side, I’d demand stronger proof. I’d want a big miracle, not some cheap parlor trick. Like, for example, the turnaround of the fall of the West. That would be a miracle I can get behind.

      • Pooch says:

        There are like 45 miracles performed by Jesus in the New Testament. Maybe it was easy for ancients to accept them because of low scientific knowledge and IQ, but today I feel like it’s a challenge to get people to believe, myself included.

        • alf says:

          Then don’t. See it as marketing to effectively sell excellent social technology. Jim himself has said that the disciples likely paid off the guards guarding Jesus’ tomb.

          • Pooch says:

            Isn’t our goal to spread truths of the world as we know it and not propogate lies?

            • alf says:

              Where am I propagating lies?

              I guess the reasoning could be: ‘if Jesus did not literally return from the dead, then how can i take him as the literal son of God?’

              To which I think the answer is: thank the guy for what he’s done and let him rest. But it’s up for debate. Jim’s approach so far has been the courteous ‘wink wink nudge nudge’ approach. But that requires all parties to get the joke and so far, none of the tradcucks get the joke. Instead they immediately jump on any suggestion that the miracles might historically differ from the disciples’ version as heresy. I say the tradcucks have become a parody of what their enemies say they are. I’d like to imagine that Jesus, if he were looking down on us, would be proud that we figured it out.

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                Consider that your epistemology my be flawed. You are assuming a universe where the only things you believe are things you can see and feel. What is the difference, practically speaking in miracle and science when the one operating the miracle is manipulating the base principles of the universe?

                • alf says:

                  All our verifiable observation so far tells us the one operating the miracles is, again, to the extent we can observe, bound to the base principles of our universe. That is what science has taught us, that is what we have learned.

                  Christ cannot be the logos if I cannot draw the immensely logical conclusion that Moses probably did not raise his arms and literally parted the sea. It’s bad science.

                • jim says:

                  About the time of the Exodus, Egypt fought two wars with the sea peoples, who were not a cohesive army under a King, but a flood of economic migrants coming by both by land and sea who from time to time took up arms. The tribe of Dan and the Philistines were part of those sea peoples. The Pharaoh annihilated many of the sea people, and expelled or enslaved others. The Hebrews were ethnically similar to the sea people, and the tribe of Dan is both Hebrew and identified as a sea people. The Hebrews came by land, and for the most part had resided in Egypt for a very long time, but the Tribe of Dan in large part went by sea, and settled Greece. So two full scale wars happened over thirty years, and it is plausible that the period between the full scale wars was turbulent. Moses sought to give cohesion to a group that was not very cohesive, and had been Egypt for generations. and there would surely have been action by Pharaoh’s army.

                  Pharoah was attempting to wipe out cohesive outgroups. Groups similar to those depicted in the book of Exodus existed, and the Pharaoh from time to time attempted to wipe them out. A whole lot exoduses did happen in that period, and a whole lot of efforts by the Pharaoh to massacre hostile outgroups happened. We do not have historical confirmation of that specific event, but we do have historical confirmation that a whole lot of similar events happened.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Why can God not part the sea? Moses wasn’t parting the sea on his own. I can’t part a sea if I tried. I’m not going to argue that Moses the man parted the sea. My argument is that Moses acted as an agent for God, who was the force behind parting the sea.

                  However, if God can play solitaire, that means God can control the rules by which he operates. He split off part of himself to become mortal. That would indicate that he can in fact operate at different levels, under different restrictions, at will.

                  If he decides that for a little while he is going to throw up a gravirational field to hold back the water, then the sea parts. We use glass in aquariums to part the sea, and there is a sense of awe when one sees such a feat. If man could think of a way to do such a thing, why not God?

                  In fairness, it could be a metaphor. God is fond of metaphorical communication. Mortal, finite people have a hard time understanding the reality as experienced by an infinite, immortal, omnipotent being.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  It is also the height of arrogance to believe that we understand even a fraction of the rules of the universe. How much was unknown to us only a hundred years ago, and how much is in the process of being lost? There are feats that the ancients could perform routinely that we still don’t understand, and there are accomplishments of modern man that their fathers could do that the sons cannot.

                  When the ancients did not understand a thing they ascribed it to the will of God, admitting their own ignorance in the face of the unknown. Now, moderns declare that if they could not imagine such a thing, it could not have existed even if there were people who witnessed the event in question. The arrogance astounds.

                • polifugue says:

                  Faith is not belief without evidence, faith is unquestionable presupposition. Take for example the Progressive belief in equality. “Equality” presupposes “equality” is righteous and natural. Why should we believe in equality? Why should we implement it? If men are unequal, why should we try to fix it? All of Progressivism presupposes itself onto itself as a starting point to reason.

                  This does not only apply to Progressives. Take for example the commenter Aphelio advocating what amounted to MGTOW; at the end, there is no debating an antinatalist, as his views are sick and disgusting. Why should we reproduce? Why should we be immortal? Why should we conquer the stars? Why can’t Aphelio just play video games in his parent’s basement until he dies? A person who asks these questions is sick and deranged, like a caged monkey that eats his own feces. His opinions are discredited because if he can’t accept our basic starting points he is lost.

                  I am an Orthodox Christian, and as such I do believe that God parted the Red Sea as a historical event, and that Jesus rose from the dead literally. However, I do not try to justify Jesus rising from the dead through scientific reasoning, but assume it as a starting point to knowledge. Jesus rose from the dead because of the absurdity of the contrary. This is called Apophatic theology, “if God does not exist everything is permitted,” taking this train of thought to every aspect of being, including science, reason and miracles. Christ is the Logos, and we know the Logoi, the particulars of knowledge, through the Logos.

                  Nihilism assumes the truth “there is no truth,” which presupposes the ethics of accepting “there is no truth” as truth, thus nihilism is absurd. When the sophists denied the law of non-contradiction to Aristotle, he refuted them by explicating how denying the law of non-contradiction assumes the law of non-contradiction is contradictory.

                  Jim has invaluable insight regarding warrior rule, economics and the red pill on women, and it is distressing that it is rare to find Christians able to reach the conclusions of this blog despite having two-thousand years of precedent behind them.

                  However, the work of this blog is not going to lead to a real belief in the actual deity of Christ, because our starting points are based on a form of foundationalism. The belief in the resurrection of Christ is revealed doctrine; thus, faith in the resurrection is revealed to man in his heart.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I agree generally with the Shadowed Knight, the human mind and human senses are vastly limited in the scope of their ability to percieve and comprehend the universe…

                  Here is what Newton one of histories greatest minds said on the subject of what he thought he knew…

                  “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”

                  I think Newton’s view of that even with some advancements in science and tech from his death until the 1970s (when the period of scientific stagnation began) would still think much the same.

                  And I think Newton’s occult obsessions strange as they may seem were not because he was stupid but because he knew that there must be a spiritual dimension to the universe…

                  So pure materialism is not the position of the rational skeptic its the position of arrogant men who are not conscious of how little they actually know.

                • ten says:

                  A (very) long-winded, serious apologetic for faith in the resurrection and life after death, which pushed me from the edge of “i don’t know. miraculous resurrection? maybe it was a fraud, or just a story, a later construction. how should i know?” to thinking it happened as written.

                  http://christianthinktank.com/sh0pre.html

                • alf says:

                  http://christianthinktank.com/sh0pre.html

                  OK I’ve had enough here we go.

                  This is nuts. Nothing personal ten, but the link is nuts.

                  If I show this to my friends, whether online or offline, whether of average or above average intelligence, they will all tell me the same: ‘dude, wtf are you sending me. Who are these crazies you are associating yourself with? gtfo.’ And I’ll mutter something about ‘muh cooperation’ and ‘muh unfalsifiable beliefs’ but of course, they are right. Every sane person knows the resurrection did not literally happen, and every person who does is either insane or knowingly lying.

                  Cue Christians telling me I’m a heretic. Now I could defend myself, saying how Jesus was obviously a brilliant Prometheus figure bringing social technology to the world, but honestly, I’m done defending myself against miracle-troofer Christians. Fuck em. This is stupid.

                  See, I can already envisage what happens when the miracle happens and Trump turns Christianity into a state religion: Ted Cruz will place his hand on my shoulder, look me sincerely in my eyes and tell me: ‘my brother, Christ loves all of us, women as well. This, eh, Jim figure you speak of, it seems to me he hates women. We are Christians after all, not Jimians, don’t you agree?’

                  Setting ourselves up to be entried by Christians is stupid. Christianity is a walking corpse. We should be asserting dominance over them, not treat them with kiddie gloves and go ‘no no no of course the resurrection could be real!’ Waste of time.

                • jim says:

                  I am not worried about entryism by modern Christians, for they are progressives, not Christians. The Pope bows down before pagan idols on earth day. We have adequate means for dealing with progressive entryism.

                  Not worried about old type Christians. There are not many of them, and they are welcome. Nikolai thinks he is an old type Christian, and he sort of right. And he is welcome, but he if he wants to defend Jerome and the pile of faggots in the Vatican, he needs to answer certain questions about the words of Saint Paul.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  No, alf, there are plenty of people who are quite sane and intelligent that believe that the Resurrection actually happened. Furthermore, there were quite a lot of people that believed that the Resurrection was a matter of historical fact. Intelligent ones, too. Most of the advances in technology we developed by men who believed that Christ literally died and then rose after three days.

                  You didn’t even bother to debate the factual basis of the link, just resorted to social shaming. You would be embarrassed to be associated with “those people,” who are backwards and believe the old religion, instead of the enlightened, modern beliefs that are descended from shitlib memes. Well, no shit. If you tell those people that women are more happy under a man’s control they will think you a little weird and backwards, but we all know that to be true. You are arguing by social consensus, but it is a shitlib social consensus that is devouring civilization.

                • alf says:

                  Nothing wrong with a bit of localised insanity. My issue is that at this point it has gotten in the way of cooperation; the scientific method and literal resurrection just don’t mesh well.

                  As for arguments; I will repeat my best argument, which is that since the advent of cameras, smartphones and the internet, exactly 0 biblical miracles have been recorded, and a 100% of supposed recorded miracles have turned out to be fake. I believe the 1 million dollar bounty by the magician Randy has still gone unclaimed.

                • alf says:

                  I mean, lets put a number on it. The historical time span of the bible is what, 6000 years? Lets say there’s about 200 recorded miracles in the bible. That’s a miracle every 30 years. Now I’ll be conservative and start counting from Steve Jobs introducing the smartphone in 2007, which leaves us another 17 years for a miracle to be recorded on smartphone. Yet call me one who jumps to conclusions, I’m not holding my breath.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  You claim that the scientific method and literal Resurrection do not mesh well, and that it impedes cooperation. The exact opposite is true. As Christianity has gotten farther and farther from Christ, science has gotten farther and farther from the scientific method. Under the literal Resurrection, we had plenty of scientific discoveries. Under the rationalist, materialist, modern progressive mindset, scientific discoveries in most fields have stopped or regressed.

                  As Jim says, we are still making progress in genetics, and some other fields are still seeing some success. However, there have been no massive jumps in our understanding of the world in decades. The materialist position is killing the understanding of the material world. Your position is easily falsifiable, because the materialist position generally held is observably killing actual cooperation, not theoretically killing cooperation, as seen in the replicability crisis and the retreat from industrial development because no one can trust each others research.

                  In this case, the burden of proof is upon you. Science continued happily for centuries under the assumption that Christ is Risen was a literal truth. The current state of science is a situation that your model fails to take into account. Science, like industry, is a delicate thing. Just as we are always on the edge of peak oil because government meddlers threaten the supply, w science is similarly fragile. We had a system of science and civilization under literal Christ. The decline tracks with the abandonment of literal Christ. You have to explain that away because you are trying to tear down one of Chesterton’s Fences.

                  Science has collapsed now that the Satanists have taken over, and atheism is one of their tools. You can complain that Satan isn’t real, and they would say the same thing, but they act as if he is real, and we all know how that goes. Watch what they do, not what they say; revealed preference. Why do you think that adopting the belief structure of the elite that is killing scientific advancement is somehow going to bring science back?

                • alf says:

                  I have no problem saying Satan is real; evil exists, and I keep it out of my house.

                  The scientific method faired much better under Christianity than under progressivism; I don’t dispute this. My beef is the miracles – they’re unconvincing.

                  Show me a miracle that can only be explained by God, not by Gnon.

                • jim says:

                  The show the “last Kingdom” had fun showing Christians attempting to persuade Danes to Christianity on the basis of miracles. Anachronistically, Danes are depicted as having the modern reaction. A Danish chief is told of the miracle of Saint Sebastian, who was shot by arrows, yet he lived. “For how long?” asks the chief, and the Christian answers with uncharacteristic knowledge and truthfulness.

                  Modernity has been hard on miracles. We have more information at our fingertips.

                • jim says:

                  One might not find miracles convincing, but they are unfalsifiable.

                  We should not fight over unfalsifiable claims. The sun rising over the ocean is miracle enough for me.

                  I have met Christians who sincerely believe they witnessed miracles. Maybe they did. On the other hand, I have met progressives who sincerely believed they witnessed all sorts of things when I was right there and I witnessed something different.

                  Science prospered under a state religion that believed in a literally risen Christ. It has not prospered elsewhere, and it is not alive as a collective social endeavor now, withering in the face of hostility from the unofficially official state religion.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Do you not remember what Gnon stands for? It means God of Nature Or Nature. I believe the original was Nature Or Nature’s God, then they reversed it to make it flow off the tongue better. God operates on the principles of Gnon because he created those principles.

                  The miracles are unconvincing because you are too embarrassed to be convinced. Your argument, when offered proof, falls back to social reasoning. “I don’t want to look the fool.” The onus in not upon me to offer an explanation, but even were I to do so, your pride would prevent you from listening.

                  You were offered an argument and you turned away because people might make fun of you for it. “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” I cannot reason a man out of an opinion he did not reason himself into, so I won’t try.

                  I am here to provide a counterpoint, so that your view does not go unchallenged. You use bad arguments, that you abandon and switch around when challenged, like the 9/11 truthers. I assume good faith in you, so I think that you are merely incapable of seeing this blind spot instead of being genuinely dishonest. However, you are not arguing logically, therefore, I have two of your points as I read and understood them, and my questions on those points.

                  You said that no sane person genuinely believes that the Resurrection literally happened. How do you explain the history of rational, accomplished men that were simultaneously devout Christians? You said that it hurts cooperation in science. Then how does science only flourish in a society that has a strong religious culture and belief in the supernatural–and I am including Greece in this as well as Europe–if that is the default cooperative model of those societies?

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  If Alf won’t I will.

                  Part 1

                  Dark matter is not unseen faith. It is an explanation for the discrepancy between the models and observed reality.

                  You can predict the future without supernatural aid.

                  Insisting the uniqueness of your faith requires divine aid doesn’t work when all faiths make that claim.

                  Agnosticism is not a second step of falling away.

                  Do I need to lay out more or has this adequately demonstrated basic familiarity with the flaws of the apologetics?

                • alf says:

                  How do you explain the history of rational, accomplished men that were simultaneously devout Christians?

                  What is there to explain?

                  I wasn’t around the Old Christians. I don’t know their take – maybe they knew to take the miracles with a grain of salt, maybe they didn’t, I don’t know. It doesn’t seem to have impeded them, and that’s great and once again speaks in favor of Christianity.

                  What I do know is that you can’t force people to believe something that is too obviously fake. Well you can force them at gunpoint I guess, but we’re not in a position to point guns and it’s not my preferred strategy anyway.

                  I have made an argument: haven’t seen any recorded miracles. Have seen plenty of fake ones that mightily resemble biblical miracles. So again I ask: where are the miracles! Show me!

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  I am unfamiliar with the apologetics, so I am unfamiliar with the basis of your arguments. Leaving that aside, there were two questions asked. No more no less, and you answered neither of them. If you would like to make an argument against *those questions,* feel free, but they are alf’s argument, and so those are the questions to be answered. For the sake of argument, I assume that the truth of Resurrection is undetermined, and only the belief in the Resurrection, for right ot wrong, is in question.

                • The Cominator says:

                  We don’t force them to believe it.

                  Some conformity to the state religion is a requirement of government and quasi state jobs.

                  But the inquisition/secret police should take no interest in whether you believe the resurrection it should be interested in rooting out leftists of all kinds (in America especially feminist and progs) and giving them helicopter rides.

                  Nobody should get a helicopter ride for cynicism (in fact being cynical should be a secret requirement or at least a big plus to have any sort of high position) or what they don’t believe though, its what you DO believe that is also evil and insane that should get you one.

                • alf says:

                  Thx Com, that is a take I can get behind.

                • jim says:

                  In practice, a restoration always has a large number of cynics in the priesthood – the usual problem being too much cynicism, rather than too much credulity.

                  We would probably be more successful if we had a priesthood that believed as sincerely and passionately as Charles the Hammer’s warrior priests. We are likely to get what Charles the Second got, Havel’s Greengrocer in the priesthood. People who believe sincerely and passionately in a literal resurrection are likely to be great assets, but we should not require such a belief, regardless of its truth or falsity, or people are going to fake it.

                  We don’t want people holiness spiraling on purporting to believe this and that. We should require belief in those unfalsifiable articles of faith that are helpful to cooperation, and (as a obstacle to entryists) prohibit enemy articles of faith that are not empirically demonstrable. We should also require adherents to notice empirical facts that tend to cast doubt on unfalsifiable enemy articles of faith, for example that the divine revelations received by Mohammed tend to be whatever was in his interest at that moment even if it contradicted the previous divine revelation that he received when something different was in his interests.

                  When we are in power, we are going to have an Islamic entryist problem, among others, but our biggest problem is going to be progressive entryism, thinly disguised as old type Christianity (perpetual virginity of Mary, the sacrament of marriage being consent, priestly “celibacy”, Donatism, universalism etc.) To make outright open progressivism disappear completely will only take half a dozen helicopter rides and a few beatings in the street, but Christianity has always had a leftism problem, and that is not going away. We should therefore require adherents to notice those characteristics of female sexuality that make female consent opaque and antisocial, and make emancipation dysfunctional, and require as an article of faith that Eve was created as a help meet for Adam, without being entirely clear as to whether this was literal creation, or the logic of evolutionary psychology and game theory. The Peace of Westphalia needs to become an article of faith, as the interpretation by Christian princes of the command “Peace on Earth to all men of goodwill”. The separation of the nations is part of the fall, and universalism is an attempt to immanentize the eschaton. Immanentizing the eschaton needs to be defined as heresy. The doctrine of the fall needs to be an article of faith, and the sin of Babel was an attempt to return to the prelapsarian state.

                  From the standpoint of evolutionary psychology, the problem is that a man enslaved will have no children, but a woman enslaved has escaped from defect/defect equilibrium and is likely to have lots of children, so women look for someone who can master them. If you look at entertainments targeted at men, they have a whole lot of images of scantily clad women. If you look at entertainments targeted at women, they have a whole of images where the female protagonist winds up alone with a powerful and dangerous stranger, or only other females subject his authority are present. In a society with emancipation, this leads to a great deal of dysfunctional and anti social behavior. Women have no country. We should require adherents to notice this in order to exclude leftists. This will not stop all leftist entryism, but it would have stopped most variants of leftism all the way back to the eleventh century.

                  But the major characteristic of leftist faith is not the blue pill, but envy and covetousness. Existing leftism is probably most effectively excluded by requiring adherents to notice the nature of women, but with that in place, we are going to get subversion from one hundred and one thin justifications for casting the final commandment aside. To stop future versions of leftism, need to bang hard and regularly on the final commandment – that in general, you cannot holiness spiral some form of holiness to push it above the spirit and intent of the commandments.

                • The Cominator says:

                  To give a better example

                  1. Private unbelief in the miracle of the Christian Resurrection – No Problem

                  2. Secret belief in the progressive miracle of female saintliness and equality with men, there an app (apache) for that.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “In practice, a restoration always has a large number of cynics in the priesthood – the usual problem being too much cynicism, rather than too much credulity.”

                  Well as I’ve said what unites the right is not any common faith so much as they hate the current faith (and its lies evil and insanity).

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  I agree with Cominator and Jim. No need to root out heresy on minor matters, and no need to force people to believe in the state religion. Freedom of religion in matters of conscience, except for state and quasi-state jobs. There has to be one official line, and all the priests, bureaucrats, bankers, reporters, etc, have to stick to it.

                  There lies the problem. You are playing the part of a priest so you don’t get public freedom of conscience. You get to follow the party line, and unless your Jimism attempts have borne fruit, that party line is Orthodox Christianity. Hypocrisy is fine, so long as you guide the flock well. Open disagreements with one of the core tenets of the faith is not. If you don’t want to be a priest, sure, go nuts–within reason. If you want to be a part of the priesthood, you don’t get a say in what you get to say.

                • jim says:

                  > no need to force people to believe in the state religion. There has to be one official line, and all the priests, bureaucrats, bankers, reporters, etc, have to stick to it.

                  Right.

                  If you allow heretics into priestly state and quasi state jobs, very soon there will be no freedom of conscience for anyone.

                  As with socialism and female emancipation, we have walked the “freedom of conscience” path many times before, and we know where it leads.

                  In the restoration, people celebrated with pagan festivals, because they knew that an officially official official state religion was going to be less oppressive and intrusive than the unofficially official state religion that kicked down the doors to destroy a family Christmas.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  Speaking of miracles… Praise the Holy StarProphet!

                • alf says:

                  You are playing the part of a priest so you don’t get public freedom of conscience. You get to follow the party line, and unless your Jimism attempts have borne fruit, that party line is Orthodox Christianity.

                  That’s a fair point. Part of this discussion is me wondering whether I’d actually be interested in playing such a part. But then again, who knows what the part will actually entail.

                  I don’t know. I guess we’ll see how it goes.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Jim, I think you misunderstood what I meant. Come the restoration, we will have the official American Orthodox Church, with official church dogma, and anyone part of or adjacent to the state apparatus will have to swear to that religion and all of its dogmas as a condition of employment. The rest are free to worship whatever they like, as long as it is not Islam, Satanism, or some variation on those themes. The acceptable deviation will be decided by the Inquisition, not me.

                  Freedom of conscience means that we aren’t going to conquer the Mormons, Jews, or Catholics, just exclude them from positions of power and authority. You are free to disagree with the religion of the sovereign, just far away from him and the power he wields. Thats what that means, not that priests get to compete on superior holiness in the name of conscience.

                  Alf, if that is the case, then it is a harmless philosophical disagreement. I take exception to people who want to be priests and are trying to change long-standing dogma that works. If that isn’t you, then we don’t have a problem.

                • jim says:

                  That is what I understood you to mean, and that is what I agreed with.

                • jim says:

                  The resurrection and the trinity has to be official doctrine, because Chesterton’s fence. We should not inquire too closely exactly what the believer means by resurrection, and thinking too much about that question necessarily becomes heresy on the trinity, on which topic all positions within human comprehension have been rightly declared to be heretical. Every time people think too hard about the nature of the trinity, there is big trouble.

                  Saint Patrick handled this correctly. He gave several mutually contradictory explanations of the nature of the trinity, all of them heretical, but avoided heresy by stating that all of them were true. When I give emphasis to the proposition that the Logos has risen, because the truth will not stay dead, I refrain from disputing that Jesus the man lives in a perfected human body sitting at the right hand of God the father, and also disputing the proposition that he simultaneously is God the father, though this might seem to mere mortal comprehension a bit difficult to reconcile with being resurrected in a perfected human body.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “To make outright open progressivism disappear completely will only take half a dozen helicopter rides and a few beatings in the street, but Christianity has always had a leftism problem, and that is not going away.”

                  Non open progressives and muslims should be hunted down and exterminated to the last man with only the attractive women spared as sex slaves with no possibility of ever rising to the dignity and status of wives.

                  It has to be done…

                • ten says:

                  alf

                  I intend not to go through my ridiculously long winded link again, i supplied it because its core idea and the quite substantial amount of data regarding the resurrection resounded with me when i read it several years ago.
                  Maybe someone will find it interesting, or maybe it only spawned this little discussion which is also fine.

                  It goes through many other issues as well, for example near death and out of body experiences, which are all VERY at odds with our current understanding via scientific method of the possibility of such phenomena, yet also VERY credible in the face of the sheer force of evidence.

                  Scepticism and cynicism regarding these things are good and healthy but i don’t see how anyone actually studying them would come away considering them in any way similar to televangelists curing the fakeblind.

                  The writer is a crybaby, permanently close to tears for any reason he can find to be such. Blog.jim is not his scene. He seems nutty for this reason alone. I don’t honestly understand why you or your friends would see it as prima facie insane otherwise, unless they are of the north euro opinion that any religious or spiritual talk by definition is psychotic.

                  I don’t expect you to clinch with the content, but i certainly think it is much stronger than your cursory rejection warrants.

                  I don’t know how “mere social technology” fares in comparison to social technology with true faith, and it is a difficult and arcane faith, in contrast to islam, which only requires submission to sharia and subjugation of dar al harb to be a true believer.

                  We however have a long line of true believers behind us, many of which were wiser and greater than us.

                • alf says:

                  It is a hard problem.

                  A cynic gets nothing done because he does not allow for hope.

                  Faith requires a certain suspension of disbelief. All good stories have a certain suspension of disbelief. But the problem arises when too much suspension is required and the belief breaks.

                  Like, take this kind of scene. I understand it’s very popular in India. It’s not popular in the West – way too over the top. For an Indian, the required suspension of disbelief is not so much that it ruins the fun of the movie, for me, the ridiculous amount of suspension of disbelief required is the only fun.

                  Now of course, the whole thing is a scale, not a yes or no button. For instance, the suspension of disbelief required for not making an issue out of Jesus’ resurrection is already lower than the suspension of disbelief required for believing Jesus’ resurrection. And somewhere in there is the answer we’re looking for.

                  But the information age we live in makes it hard to demand even slightly above average suspension of disbelief. That is the prize we pay for knowledge.

                  So let’s continue our simulation of orthodox Christianity as state religion. A state religion requires state churches, no? It is, after all, a community thing. Then, what are the local priests in those churches going to preach about every sunday? Are they going to, once again, read to us stories of the bible? Will the priest with a straight face tell us about the time Jesus walked over water, and will the crowd keep a straight face while the priest tells it? Pretty sure that if I were socially required to sit through it, I’d have to have some damn strong incentives to keep a straight face.

                  With the knowledge we have now, we cannot go back to old Christianity and pretend like that’s all we ever need. Some kind of integration needs to be made, some kind of concession, some kind of hope.

                • info says:

                  @ten

                  Unfortunately “Christian-Thinktank” is absolutely bluepilled on women.

                  The sophistry when it comes to Patriarchy and women is absolutely mind-boggling.

                  http://christianthinktank.com/femalex.html

                  See his suggested reading this subject:

                  Feminism and the Bible, Mardi Keyes, IVP: 1995. [This small booklet is the best thing I have read on this subject! Outstanding work…I recommend it to all thoughtful folk.]

                  Apology to Women: Christian Images of the Female Sex, Ann Brown,IVP: 1991. (The best book I have seen on this subject.)

              • Mike says:

                @alf I would argue that, regardless of how far off the mark the tradcucks get on women and other values/prescriptions, you’re transparently insane if you think your ancestors didn’t literally believe Christianity. And if they did, what makes you think that we can only “nudge-nudge, wink-wink” believe in it and get away with it? Elites might be able to get away with that, but I highly doubt that the mass populace can. They need something to believe in for real.

                • alf says:

                  This is the ‘people are stupid and need something stupid to believe’ argument. Personally I think the truth is enough. Back then miracles were close enough to people’s experience of the truth that they passed as truth, now we aim for something a little bit higher, while still appreciating the beauty of the old. The evolution of human consciousness.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “This is the ‘people are stupid and need something stupid to believe’ argument.”

                  This is a way of rephrasing reaction 101 and its well verified by world history. Except its not so much stupidity… its that (as a certain gay once said) man is many things but he is not rational.

                • alf says:

                  A mass belief, if hard to pin down, has to be simple, clear and obvious. Which is why I have problems with miracle Jesus vs logos Jesus.

                • alf says:

                  I have been patient, I have waited for intelligent Catholics to appear and give intelligent conversation. I think TSK comes closest? But overall, thoroughly dissapointing. A trip down Catholic memory lane…

                  Nick B Steves – disappeared with Social Matter. Was good as a connector, not so good at coming up with his own stuff.

                  Zippy (RIP) – blue pilled and obnoxious.

                  Glosoli – closet satanist

                  Koanic – still searching for the yeti.

                  Jim wants to reinstate 1600s Christianity, but from where I stand, that requires Christians to jump aboard, and so far I am not seeing much Christian crowd. Instead, I see Catholics wallowing in their own victim status, feeling superior to Jim’s sexist positions, and would the miracle happen and Christianity become state religion, they’ll be the first to stick a blue knife in our back.

                • Mike says:

                  Believing human consciousness evolves is gay and progressive. That’s an argument progs make to insinuate that we need to become more humane or respecting of rights blah blah blah because we are so much more rational than our ancestors. Also, when have mass beliefs ever been easy to pin down? Name a religion that has been simple and easily verifiable, I’ll wait.

                • alf says:

                  I have been ranting and I’ll stop.

                  I think miracle Jesus vs logos Jesus sums up my problem pretty well. I cannot larp something I don’t believe in.

                • Mike says:

                  Fair enough, but leftists make the masses larp something many of them don’t believe in. Obviously our side has Gnon on its side, meaning it is actually true, but nevertheless any religion, right-wing or not, is going to involve forcing some non-believers to act like they are believers. You may have to believe in what you think you don’t believe Alf, for the sake of everyone as a whole.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  However, to those of good faith it’s mostly pointless to reduce Jesus to a nice man and God to a hallucination.

                • Pooch says:

                  @Mike

                  Disagree. From low IQ or otherwise, leftists absolutely believe in “All Men (and Women) are created equal”. Non-believers would not go to the depths of insanity they do if they did not truly believe. In the coming Holy War we need true believers to match them.

                • Mike says:

                  Oh I know there are some, even many, leftist true believers. But I was saying “the masses.” There are plenty of Havel’s Greengrocers out there, and plenty of small-town white men who think they believe it and then immediately don’t as soon as a real-life situation contradicts leftism.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Alf, I’m not Catholic.

                • BC says:

                  I think miracle Jesus vs logos Jesus sums up my problem pretty well. I cannot larp something I don’t believe in.

                  When I was a teenage Christian that sort of stuff never bothered me much because I couldn’t prove or disprove it. It just seemed like another system of logic that had to be used because it was part of the Christian context. I was an expert on all things biblical despite not really believing it was partially true.

                  The preaching that men were evil and watching the pastor’s son horde all the young unmarried girls for himself pissed me off endlessly. I thought church should be trying create christian marriages with virgin brides not enable the Friday Nightclub for the church’s elite or given wives an excuses to divorce their husbands.

                • Nikolai says:

                  >Catholic

                  >glosoli
                  >koanic

                  What? Both those guys were vehement anti-Catholics and frequently denied very basic Catholic dogma. Why do you think they’re Catholic?

                  I see no conflict between Logos and miracles since if an omnipotent Being exists, then miracles such as raising the dead and walking on water are necessarily possible.

                  The Logos meme was largely re-popularized by E. Michael Jones and the term “reactionary” was coined by Joseph De Maistre, both pious Catholics. If you’re not seeing intelligent Catholics it’s probably because you think heretical low church prots are Catholic and not reading actual Catholic writers.

                • jim says:

                  The Pope also denies very basic Catholic dogma. Do you think he is Catholic?

                  Michael Jones is great, and hugely insightful and informative, but in his criticism of the sexual revolution he continues the classic purple pill and Roman Catholic error, of failing to notice the very different sexual natures of men and women, and that the difference in our natures is such that in sexual anarchy, people don’t get sex and don’t get children, which failure to notice female nature the Roman Catholic Church has been suffering from for near a thousand years.

                  The reactionary position on the sexual revolution is that most men don’t get sex, most men don’t get virgin wives, and most men get wives that have been ploughed by no end of men more alpha, more handsome, richer, more charismatic, and with bigger tools than they have.

                  We are in favor of sex, and our big indictment of the sexual revolution is that it has led to less sex, because the chick I hit on got a midnight booty call from Jeremy Meeks for a threesome a year ago, and wants her night free in case she gets another.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m not exactly a fan of Nikolai but if anyone said Glos was a catholic I second his objection.

                  The Catholic church is in my opinion evil and satanic and has been since Dictatus Papae but the nature of the evil satanism of glos was that he like the progressives had a vision of building God’s kingdom on earth. Something Catholicism despite being evil and satanic generally stays away from. So the nature of the evil satanism of glos was not the evil satanism of the catholic church.

                  Koanic was some kook who just wasn’t all that memorable.

                • Nikolai says:

                  No I’m not a sedevacantist if that’s what you’re asking. Pope Francis is a legitimate Pope and Catholic. Though there’s no end of rightful criticisms of his Pontificate, he’s not nearly as bad as people make him out to be. He’s actually more willing than some of his predecessors to work with traditionalists like the SSPX and despite plenty of “dialogue” he never actually gives the modernists what they want like women deacons or ending clerical celibacy. What basic dogmas does the Pope deny?

                  I looked into sedevacantism, seems like a lot of sedes are well meaning trads and a lot are absolute loons. I’m pretty autistic and I read a lot about Catholic theology and history, but there are other anonymous posters with even greater converts zeal who are far smarter and far far more well read than I. And they say sedevacantism is heretical and I believe them.

                  I’ve seen what medieval Catholics wrote about women and marriage. Aquinas, Ignatius of Loyola and the council of Trent readily acknowledge the entirety different nature’s of men and women and accurately describe them.

                  “The reactionary position on the sexual revolution is that most men don’t get sex, most men don’t get virgin wives, and most men get wives that have been ploughed by no end of men more alpha, more handsome, richer, more charismatic, and with bigger tools than they have.”

                  I don’t disagree with any of that and I don’t think E. Michael Jones would either. Any reason I’m still on moderation btw?

                  @Cominator, read what the council of Ephesus said about the Pope. I used to be on the fence between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but the more I read the Fathers, the more I’m convinced that the Catholic Church is right on all points of contention.

                • jim says:

                  > No I’m not a sedevacantist if that’s what you’re asking. Pope Francis is a legitimate Pope and Catholic.

                  So, how do you feel about the worship of pagan idols and priests having gay sex in a great big pile?

                  > What basic dogmas does the Pope deny?

                  Well, if Global Warming is the great moral crisis of our time, that would seem to toss several millenia of Hebrew and Christian moral teaching out the window. And then there is this business with pagan idols that I keep bringing up and you don’t respond to.
                  What did Saint Paul have to say about how Christian communities should deal with such people?

                  > > “The reactionary position on the sexual revolution is that most men don’t get sex, most men don’t get virgin wives, and most men get wives that have been plowed by no end of men more alpha, more handsome, richer, more charismatic, and with bigger tools than they have.”

                  > I don’t disagree with any of that and I don’t think E. Michael Jones would either.

                  I don’t think he would disagree with it either, but somehow he seemed to find it unsuitable to mention. His general spin was that the sexual revolution was more sex and that was a bad thing, while the reactionary position is that it is less sex, and that is a bad thing.

                  > Aquinas, Ignatius of Loyola and the council of Trent readily acknowledge the entirety different nature’s of men and women and accurately describe them.

                  How recent is the doctrine that consent is the form and substance of the sacrament of marriage. Who said it in those words, or a close approximation to those words, first?

                  > Any reason I’m still on moderation btw?

                  Because you are still unresponsive. I keep asking questions and you keep not answering them. And here you are again not answering. I brought up the worship of pagan idols and you sail cheerfully on as if I had never mentioned such an unseemly topic.

                  I would love to have a conversation with you, but I am less keen on lectures.

                  Now perhaps you think those questions are unfair gotcha questions that presuppose facts not in evidence, but if so I would appreciate an explanation of why they are unfair gotcha questions that presuppose facts not in evidence. You still have not answered about Paul’s requirement that a potential recruit for the priesthood be one that “ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;”. Did he mean “except for men with no children, of course, we don’t need to worry if they might be ill suited for the role.”?

                  > I used to be on the fence between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but the more I read the Fathers, the more I’m convinced that the Catholic Church is right on all points of contention.

                  by their fruits ye shall know them, and the major point of contention resulted in a river of blood that eventually washed over Rome itself. Donatism goes against biblical and Christian historical precedent. Solomon fired Abiathar and made Zadok high priest. Pope Gregory III was installed in power by the powerless Roman Emperor in Ravenna, and with Ravenna fading to nothingness, begged Charles Martel to enforce his papacy. It seems absolutely obvious that Putin’s heavy handed interference in Russian Orthodoxy has saved Russian Orthodoxy from being taken over by the Gay Pride parade and earth worship, and similarly, if not for Charles Martel, they would all have been welcoming their new Muslim friends.

                  Failure of the local Church to respect the sovereign of its land tends to work out in practice as getting far too pally with the sovereign of an alien and hostile land, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is far too pally with Harvard and Harvard’s version of what Islam should be. Harvard seeks to overthrow the Russian government and install a more compliant government – and a more compliant Orthodox Church, one that knows its place and does not complain when naked whores smash church property and desecrate altars and war monuments. And similarly, in Latin America, the Roman Catholic Church was in the pocket of the Soviet Union back when it looked like the Soviet Union was winning. The Church being proudly independent of the King is apt, in practice, to look like it being remarkably subservient to some other King. Pope John Paul played footsie with Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, and Cardinal Trujillo was no Christian. Rome did not go commie, but a large part of the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America did go commie, and there was nothing indigenous, nothing Latin American, about the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America going commie. It was a concession to Soviet power. Rome was doing the Soviet Union a favor, and Rome only stiffened its spine when the Soviet Union predictably demanded a bigger favor.

                  In practice, the choice of Bishop is apt to be heavily influenced by Caesar, and the authority of the Pope tends in practice to reflect the influence of the wrong Caesar.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The Pope also denies very basic Catholic dogma. Do you think he is Catholic?”

                  Catholic dogma is whatever the pope says it is according to a whole bunch of papal bulls they’ve accepted for centuries.

                  The Sedevacantists get around this by going through an elaborate logical contortion whereby somehow there is some higher set of Catholic principles and the minute the Pope goes against them he is a heretic and thus the Pope is somehow not really the Pope and the Magisterium that supports him is not really the Magisterium but then they run into the problem of “The Gates of Hell Prevailing Against the Church” they get around this when pressed by saying the Sedes are the righteous remnant but where does there authority to decide all this come from and what is the hidden hierarchy. So no matter they end up de facto Protestants with their own Priesthood of all Sedevacantist believers…

                • Nikolai says:

                  “So, how do you feel about the worship of pagan idols and priests having gay sex in a great big pile?”

                  The pachamama thing was one of the worst moments of this papacy and I can’t tell you how happy I was when that 6’8″ gigachad threw it in the river. But I wouldn’t describe what Pope Francis did as “idol worship”. Francis does not believe in South American fertility goddesses. You can’t worship something you don’t believe in. Bowing before a Wood statue is terrible optics, but bowing does not constitute worship.

                  Throughout history the Church has often spread by “baptizing” indigenous pagan practices, which is how I interpret the Pope’s actions at the Amazon synod. Obviously he showed undue respect to paganism and the whole synod was cringe, but the Pope is still Catholic.

                  Gay orgies are bad and Francis has stated that gays are unfit to be priests.

                  “Well, if Global Warming is the great moral crisis of our time, that would seem to toss several millenia of Hebrew and Christian moral teaching out the window.”

                  What? I asked what basic dogmas the Pope denies and you respond that he believes in global warming? Whether or not the earth is heating or cooling has nothing to do with Catholic dogma. Papal Infallibility doesn’t cover the Pope believing in bad science lol.

                  “What did Saint Paul have to say about how Christian communities should deal with such people?”

                  No clue what you’re referring to here. Not even sure what you mean by “such people”.

                  “His general spin was that the sexual revolution was more sex and that was a bad thing”

                  More like the sexual revolution was more *illicit* sex, which is indeed a bad thing.

                  ” I brought up the worship of pagan idols and you sail cheerfully on as if I had never mentioned such an unseemly topic.”

                  This comment is the first one addressed to me that mentions pagan idols. Your original comment simply asserted that the Pope denied basic dogma without telling me what dogmas you were referring to. Which is why I asked which dogmas the Pope denied. You can’t expect me to read your mind and call me unresponsive when I fail to do so.

                  “Did he mean “except for men with no children, of course, we don’t need to worry if they might be ill suited for the role.”?”

                  Well you have to worry that he meets the rest of 1 Timothy 3; blameless, hospitable, not greedy etc. I’ve given you my interpretation of this verse ad nauseum. The Church has been ordaining unmarried childless men since the first century with John the Apostle and the Council of Nicea explicitly allows eunuchs to be clerics. If the Council of Nicea isn’t True Christianity (TM) then nothing is. Paul was saying no polygamists and no misbehaving children, not no celibates. I again challenge you to find a cleric before the reformation that supports your interpretation. (Heretics condemned by the entire Church notwithstanding).

                • jim says:

                  > Francis does not believe in South American fertility goddesses.

                  Pope Francis believes that they represent Gaia, and the imminent wrath of Gaia endangers us. So he does believe in South American fertility goddesses, and that sinning against Gaia (by, for example, driving a big heavy car running on gasoline) is more important than naked priests sodomizing each other in a great big pile.

                  This belief system, in practice, tends to overlap substantially with outright Satanism. There is no reason to believe that he himself is a satanist or a gay, but he is hanging with Satanists and gays.

                  > Throughout history the Church has often spread by “baptizing” indigenous pagan practices

                  Standard operating procedure from the beginning has been to take a healthy, pro social, pro family, pagan ritual, spray it with a Christian touch up from a spray can, and announce that you are doing it “unto God”. Hence the manger goes with the reindeer, and the star on top of the (thoroughly pagan) Christmas tree. This is a a wise and excellent tactic that goes all the way back. But Pope Francis omitted the touch up with the spray can and the announcement that he is doing it unto God, which makes him an idolator. He neglected to baptize the pagan ritual.

                  > Francis has stated that gays are unfit to be priests.

                  He is not, however, actually doing anything about gay priests. Consenting adults.

                  > > “His [Michael Jones’] general spin was that the sexual revolution was more sex and that was a bad thing”

                  > More like the sexual revolution was more *illicit* sex, which is indeed a bad thing.

                  He does so from the frame that marriage is a magic ritual that magically makes sex licit.

                  This is not so. What makes sex licit is the man’s intent and ability to keep the woman around permanently. See, for example, Tamar’s indictment of Amnon. Marriage is a human ritual and divine sacrament in which the groom promises this before God and man, and God, family, society, and the state back the groom by accepting his property right in the woman (mock or actual abduction marriage) or the transfer of property right in the woman to the groom (“who giveth this woman to this man”), for example the marriage of Ruth and Boaz. It is God and man facilitating licit sex. What makes the sexual revolution a problem is that it is hard to keep a woman around, since there is always someone more alpha than you are. We boastfully talk of spinning plates and pumping and dumping, but in practice it is pumping and being cuckolded. And that really hurts. It happens to me, I break. That is the problem. It needs to be legal, at least under some circumstances, to kill adulterers, or only a minor offense. Michael Jones ignores the big problem. The big problem is not “illicit” sex, but adultery.

                  > > “You still have not answered about Paul’s requirement that a potential recruit for the priesthood be one that ‘ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;’. Did he mean ‘except for men with no children, of course.’”

                  > Well you have to worry that he meets the rest of 1 Timothy 3;

                  Why is the rest of 1 Timothy 3 a requirement for a prospective recruit for the priesthood, but having faithful children not a requirement? If Saint Paul did not mean what he said, what then did he mean? Why did he say what he said?

                  Also, I want to see if you can quote Saint Paul’s words without catching on fire. You still mysteriously fail to quote Saint Paul, or directly acknowledge he said what he said, said it in two separate epistles.

                  > John the Apostle

                  We have no reason to believe that John the apostle died childless, but it is obvious that many or most of the apostles were childless at the time that Jesus recruited them. Paul, however is building an institution for the ages, and wants to recruit candidates with previous demonstrated experience in successfully performing a patriarchal role. Similarly, when founding a startup, you worry more about your judgment of a man’s personal qualities and do not worry much about prior experience in a similar role, but when the startup gets larger and becomes bureaucratic, you ask for demonstrated prior experience in a similar role.

                  > Council of Nicea explicitly allows eunuchs to be clerics.

                  The controversy regarding Origen shows that this was a controversial change in widely accepted practice. They set foot on a slippery slope, and the present state of the Church reveals where that slope leads.

              • The Cominator says:

                Really only women have to really (and even then only to an extent) believe…

                Men only have to sort of believe to the extent it provides aasibayah and keeps other bad belief systems out.

                • Mike says:

                  You do have a point, this book chronicles well how (at least in Catholicism) women, since at least the High Middle Ages, have constituted the most devoted of the believers. The men often just went through the motions. Honestly reminds me of the dynamic between my mom and dad during my childhood (although we weren’t Catholic):
                  https://www.amazon.com/Church-Impotent-Leon-J-Podles/dp/1890626198

                • yewotm8 says:

                  Women certainly believe a lot more and are more hostile towards heresy right now.

                • jim says:

                  Women believe the religion of the top earthly alpha male, who is currently the Uncle Sam the Big Pimp.

                  But it is just a fitness test. If you laugh at the religion of Uncle Sam the Big Pimp, women are indignant, but they smile.

                • info says:

                  @Mike

                  Its because the relationship with Jesus is no longer a Lord to swear fealty to and obey.

                  Is transformed into a rapturous love affair that is decidedly homoerotic:
                  http://podles.org/church-impotent.htm

                  (Click on Chapter 6 to read)

                • jim says:

                  For a religion to facilitate cooperation in this world, for it to work as a synthetic tribe, for us to be adoptive children of God, has to be an ultimate alpha male at the top that men give fealty to.

            • Karl says:

              Our goal is to ensure the survival of Western civilisation and the white race. This requires cooperation which is easy with truth, diffucult with lies, but truth and lies are about what you know and not what you cannot know and thereforecan only belief or disbelief..

        • yewotm8 says:

          Most of Jesus’ “miracles” are not supernatural events, and are explainable phenomena. Those that aren’t explainable just add to his mystique, in my opinion.

          From https://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2014/04/jesus-in-interaction-micro-sociology-of.html (which is a good read by the way):

          “Jesus’ logistics miracles consisted in taking a small amount of food and multiplying it so that crowds of 5,000 and 4,000 respectively have enough to eat and many scraps left over (Luke 9: 10-17; Matthew 14: 13-21; Mark 6: 30-44; Mark 8: 1-10). It has been suggested that the initial few fishes and loaves of bread were what the crowd first volunteered for the collective pot; but when Jesus started dividing them up into equal pieces and passing them around, more and more people contributed from their private stocks. (Zeitlin) The miracle was an outpouring of public sharing. Jesus does something similar at a wedding party so crowded with guests that the wine bottles are empty. He orders them to be filled with water, whereupon the crowd becomes even more intoxicated, commenting that unlike most feasts, the best wine was saved for last (John 2: 1-11). Possibly the dregs of wine still in the casks gave some flavour, and the enthusiasm of the crowd did the rest. Party-goers will know it is better to be drunk with the spirit of the occasion than sodden with too much alcohol.”

          • jim says:

            The scroll of Ipuwer gives an account of the same events as Exodus or similar events to Exodus from the Egyptian point of view, (hostile high fertility outgroup conspiring with foreign co-ethnics, low fertility Egyptians, revolting slaves, defiance of central authority, and so forth), written at the time of those events, while the Book of Exodus was written some time after those events. In Ipuwer’s account, the Nile turns spiritually and metaphorically into blood, but does not seem to turn literally into blood.

            • Iconoclast says:

              The poem is here:
              https://web.archive.org/web/20190113210039/http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipuwer.htm

              It speaks of a falling civilization. Possibly due to agricultural failure or multiculturalism.

              Hebrews boast in Exodus about plundering the Egyptians.

              Once the founding racial structure of a society is weakened, it soon falls to ruins and the Jews always seem to be right there to pick the bones. Like right now.

              • jim says:

                The scroll of Ipuwer is confidently asserted by pious academics to be a copy of an ancient document, rather than written at the time of the collapse. On what basis is this claim made? Carbon dates to the collapse, describes a collapse, describes events that we know happened during the collapse. That is the evidence that it is not a copy of an older document, but the original itself. What is the evidence that it is merely a copy of an old document about events that happened long before the collapse of Bronze Age civilization, other than bombastic and confident assertion?

                The scroll of Ipuwer carbon dates to the collapse of bronze age civilization. It describes the collapse of civilization. It describes events that we know happened during that collapse. The claim that it is a copy of an ancient document about ancient events is improbable and unsupported – made because the scroll depicts bronze age civilization collapsing of leftism, and because some of the events parallel the events described in Exodus. People do not want the collapse to be an indictment of leftism, and evidence that some events in the bible are based on historical events.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        God’s word as given by Jesus rebuilt Europe after the collapse of Rome; there’s a miracle that’s real.

      • Richard says:

        NT miracles served as a means of drawing attention to Christ. From that point one either believed by way of faith or not. If a miracle is verifiable what good is faith? The Pharisees we’re expecting the messiah to come in full glory and pomp in undeniable sovereignty. If so what faith would’ve been required to believe in Christ as the Son of Man? None. Christ would’ve been relegated to mere pagan worship, which sadly is still a curse upon the church today.

        As prescribed in scripture only those whom the Lord has given eyes to see and ears to hear will believe, separating the wheat from the chaff. Some call it madness, others faith.

        • Dave says:

          Suppose Pontius Pilate declared that Jesus was in fact King of the Jews, put a real crown on his head, and told the Pharisees to bow down to their new king or be crucified. What then? Would the Jews unanimously accept Jesus as their Messiah? Would other nations accept him as Son of God? Would Rome have fallen to the barbarians sooner or later?

          There are few cases where a different decision by one man in one day could have so radically altered the course of history. We have no idea how Jesus would have responded to this, seeing how in every Gospel story he does or says something that surprises even his most loyal disciples.

          • He would not have accepted it. Caesar was Rex Mundi. Jesus was concerned with the next world.

            The Pharisees were punished a mere seventy years later when they conflated temporal and spiritual authority once again and Hadrian enacted the first holocaust, fulfilling the prophecies in the book of Isaiah.

            Miracles are the exception that proves the rule, the rule being that the world works in logical and orderly ways. Before you pray for a miracle, asking the Creator to personally intervene in his immense and perfect creation for your sake, try getting what you need via following GNON’s law.

            • jim says:

              Rome routinely appointed Kings, who were expected to refrain from pissing off Rome, so Jesus as Priest King of Jerusalem is consistent with Caesar ruling this world. Pontius Pilate could have said to himself:

              “Those pharisees are giving me no end of grief, and are going to give me a lot more grief pretty soon.”,

              and then said to Jesus.

              “How do you feel about Caesar ruling in this world?”

              The situation then was as depicted in “Life of Brian”, in the “What have the Romans ever done for us?” skit. The Romans were doing a good job of governing, apart from notorious corruption by the tax gatherers, with law and order, safety in the streets and free trade within the Roman empire creating prosperity. Also clean drinking water and good roads. Jesus would have replied he was fine with Caesar ruling this world.

              Suppose Pontius Pilate had then said: “OK Jesus, you are high priest now.”

              Jesus replies he is of the line of David, not the line of Aaron, hence is Priest King of the order of the Priesthood of Melchizedek.

              “OK”, says Pontius Pilate, stumbling over the Hebrew terminology and theology, “OK, Priest King, if the pharisees do not like that, they can talk to me. So long as you don’t make trouble for Rome. My engineers will be talking to you about the aqueduct and the sewers shortly.”

              Well then, what would happened to Jesus’ prophecies concerning the temple?

              Well, those prophecies were deliberately elastic. They would have been fulfilled in a different, more spiritual way. He would have torn down the temple in the same sense as he rebuilt it in three days. Not sure how he would have ended sacrifice while not ending it. We still have sacrifice in the form of the Eucharist. He would have torn down the temple in sense of ending sacrifice. He ended the law in the sense of ending legalism, which had swallowed the spirit, intention, and purpose of the law. He would have ended sacrifice in the same sense as he ended the law.

            • The Cominator says:

              Tiberius knew Herod Antipas he did not know Jesus.

              I’m pretty sure Jesus would not have accepted but I know for damn sure that Tiberius would have said no.

            • info says:

              @Aidan Maclear

              Confirmed. The Scriptures show that miracles are always connected with important events and ministries.

              Its always have to do with demonstrating that the Prophet comes from God and his predictions must come true or he will be killed.

              And the most intense episodes was the Exodus and the founding of the Nation.

              Otherwise it doesn’t occur normally.

    • JanMartense says:

      I have nothing against miracle thinking. For instance, sometimes a sick person heals without the medical establishment having any decent explanation. It happens, and you might as well call it a miracle.

      But every miracle, sooner or later, can be explained using the scientific method. Once a miracle becomes replicable, it ceases to be a miracle.

      Here’s my sincere Christian take: miracles are technically never “impossible,” in the sense that they violate the natural laws of the universe. But they are so improbable as to be effectively impossible. We know that matter is composed of trillions of randomly vibrating particles, and mechanisms like radioactive decay and quantum mechanics would even suggest that the “elements” comprising these particles can rarely change. These are not “supernatural” processes.

      Let’s take, as an example, the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. Here you have literally tens of thousands of witnesses, including many nonbelievers, who saw the sun emitting multicolored light and literally dancing across the sky. Claiming that it “didn’t happen” or that every attendee was somehow simultaneously hypnotized is absurd.

      Is there a “scientific” explanation? Well technically yes. Light appears white because the multicolored wavelengths of light randomly diffuse in a relatively even fashion. So it is possible that those wavelengths would randomly “separate” and sort themselves into various colors. Of course, the chance of this happening in even a single tiny flash of light for a millisecond is so minuscule that it should never occur in the whole span of human history. The idea that it randomly happened for minutes, at the exact moment the shepherd children predicted, proves that it was not truly random.

      God is omniscient. He created the Universe 14 billion years ago in the Big Bang, and knows the exact motion of every particle and how it will interact with every other particle. So God could certainly have set those particles in motion at that moment of creation in such a way that they randomly caused a miracle on 13 October 1917.

  25. bob k. mando says:

    One can deduce is from ought, in the sense that one’s rational self interest is to ally with and befriend good people, and to avoid or drive away bad people, but the problem with this rational deduction is that …

    it is in exactly this sort of society in which bad people will ALSO have a vested interest in seeking out and supporting each other.

    hence why Wall Street banks test for Sociopathy … and REQUIRE high Sociopathy for executive positions.

    • jim says:

      > it is in exactly this sort of society in which bad people will ALSO have a vested interest in seeking out and supporting each other.

      By definition, bad people are unable to do that.

      They must disguise themselves as good people, not only to befriend good people in order to defect on them, but must disguise themselves as good people to similarly deceive other bad people, are also disguising themselves as good people for the same purpose, and they proceed to predate viciously and savagely on each other. Observe the Social Justice Warrior. Similarly communists. Nazis murdered a few hundred communists, maybe a few thousand but communists murdered tens of millions of communists. Communists are evil people, and they predated on everyone, but most of all they predated on communists.

      Because evil men do not quite get virtue, their simulation tends to be off, so good people tend to detect them, while evil people fail to detect that they are pretending to cooperate with another seemingly goodperson, who is in fact another evil man who intends them harm. Thus evil men do flock together, but to their own destruction.

      • I think this is something already Plato was writing about? That if highway robbers are perfectly unjust, they will kill each other for the distribution of the loot. For them to be able to function as a band in the longer run, they have to be at least just with each other. To function even in the longer run, they do not kill and loot, they demand protection money. Originally it means only blackmail. But because they do not want other band to prey on their clients, it evolves into real protection, into something like a state. I don’t know, though, if it is still Plato or my additional thoughts as I have noticed this connection and internalized it like 15 years ago.

        • The old medieval latin euphemism for “bandit” is “militibus sylvanes”; soldier of the forests. Bad men defect on their ingroup; the bandit is a soldier of a rebel army, a small government in rebellion against the actual government.

          Bandits who defect against society are often bad men who will defect on each other, but when they work together well, far more just than a man plotting intrigue in the king’s court. There is a reason why treason is the highest crime.

  26. Mister Grumpus says:

    A quick OT request, and feel free to delete this as clutter after reading, but it looks like we have a “teachable moment” coming up about the following:

    Even the more normie-casters online are reporting now on some UN apparachik announcing that there could be “biblical famines” soon, I assuming resulting primarily from the USA and Canada freezing much of their agricultural and logistical activities.

    (So now we’re looking at the dueling talking points of “Keep the country closed or more Detroit Africans will get sick and die” versus “Open the country or African Africans will starve to death.”)

    A couple years ago I asked you to wax Jimsical on the Tet Offensive, and the sentence back from you that I remember is (to the effect of):

    “It’s the Left who is willing to go genocidal.”

    Well now I’m seeing the pattern raise its hand in real time, this time at a larger scale than I could have ever expected. Are you?

    • jim says:

      Both Trump and the Democrats are using the emergency to ram their agenda through, but the left agenda is hostile, insane, and incoherent, and has become ever more hostile, insane, and incoherent as it has become ever holier.

      Thus, the Democrats want to shut down economic activity because priests just hate merchants and warriors, and the Democrats are vandalizing skateboard parks and arresting white males for taking a walk in the park, while the subway remains open, and nonwhites continue to hold big parties.

      I don’t think they planned a famine, and if they cause a famine, it will be Detroit plains apes that go hungry, not whites, but they just don’t like people producing food. Or, indeed, producing anything.

      Because the emergency gives opportunity and excuse to exercise power, they are doing more damage than usual. There is, however, no clever strategy behind the damage, only free floating hatred, except that they hope Trump will be blamed for it.

      Stockpile more rice, dried chickpeas, dried chicken stock, powdered milk, and palm oil. (Except you cannot buy palm oil, because environment). OK, stockpile more coconut oil, and keep a huge pile of clarified butter in the fridge. I hate chickpeas, but they are cheap, and I have a pile of them. Mung beans are much nicer, but the shops are out of them. You are unlikely to need your stockpile, because the emergency is collapsing as we speak, but it is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

      • The Cominator says:

        I don’t know whats wrong with Trump lately but hes made a lot of terrible decisions (starting with cucking to the quarantine Karens in the 1st place) lately and that does not seem like him… and for him to label his perfectly fine remarks about developing some kind of injection as sarcasm it makes him sound terrible… WTF is going on, what happened to the old Trump?

        Why the hell is he criticizing the governor of Georgia for doing the right thing and opening up quickly? The Democrats have stupidly talked about extending the quarantines forever does Trump want to join them in owning all the damage and anger this is causing… and its Trump’s own base that hates this bullshit.

        • jim says:

          Trump is siding with his enemy, Fauci, against his ally, Kemp.

          I hope this is another Trump zigzag, but I cannot see any brilliant deep strategy in it. The priesthood hates him, and are continuing to slow walk hydroxychloroquine, despite some conspicuous capitulations and internal dissent within the priesthood. At some point, and very soon, he has to crush them, or be crushed.

          • The Cominator says:

            I have to worry if hes gone senile because I can’t see the angle either…

            I fear our enemies are going to win now and we had them on the ropes…

          • Pooch says:

            He’s only giving him some lip service in terms of criticizing “I don’t agree with it but he’s free to run his state how he wants..”. He’s not actually doing anything to prevent him from opening. Siding with the enemy would be using the law to physically prevent Kemp from opening.

            I know lindsey Graham was against Georgia reopening everything too quickly so maybe he’s just siding with Graham to keep his Sentorial support strong I don’t know. Apparently the majority of America is still in favor of extending the shutdown in all the polls. That could be a factor as well.

            • The Cominator says:

              “I know lindsey Graham was against Georgia reopening everything too quickly so maybe he’s just siding with Graham to keep his Sentorial support strong I don’t know. Apparently the majority of America is still in favor of extending the shutdown in all the polls. That could be a factor as well.”

              Remember when the panicmongers here were telling me I was burning up all my credibility saying this was a hoax and a scam… and I said I didn’t care because I know I’m right and my credibility will come back with interest when I’m proven right…

              Trump should not worry about panicmongers when he opens up hes going to be proven right and then he can tell them I told you so… BUT he is not doing this.

              • BC says:

                Remember when the panicmongers here were telling me I was burning up all my credibility saying this was a hoax and a scam… and I said I didn’t care because I know I’m right and my credibility will come back with interest when I’m proven right…

                You also sad it’s OK that hundreds of thousands die if it’s not a scam. You’ve literally taken every position on this issue. I’m not going credit a man who’s opinions fly around like pinwheel.

                COVID19 is not a minor disease. It causes bad hypoxia and lot of people will be forever lessened for having caught it.

                • jim says:

                  Wu-Flu is not radically different from any other of many other flues. Worse than most, but not dramatically worse.

                  Dallas and many other cities have hit herd immunity with a death rate similar to a mild flu season. They failed to bend the curve, with the result that it was over with no big drama.

                  And don’t say “Ha, ha, you are being unscientific. It is not the same species as flu”. Viruses do not exactly have species, and flu is many unrelated “families”, with Wu Flu no more different than others.

                  Because the virus survives longer on cold surfaces, you need to get a larger proportion of the population immune to reach herd immunity in cold places. Looks like it is spread by air, person to person, in warm places, so only hits crowded subgroups of the population, and when that subgroup hits herd immunity, vanishes, but spread by surface contact in cold weather, so you need herd immunity in a larger subgroup. New York is going to have bad flu season, Dallas did not.

                  If it is cold, wash your hands, and do not touch your face except with a baby wipe. If it is warm, stop worrying unless you are in a crowd.

                  You can draw a line on the map between places that are having a long and nasty Wu Flu season, and places that are having a short and mild Wu Flu season. It is population density, cost of housing, plus the weather.

                • BC says:

                  Wu-Flu is not radically different from any other of many other flues. Worse than most, but not dramatically worse.

                  China locked down 10s of millions of people for the flu? They’ve just shutdown another city for it.

                  Being in extended hypoxia is radically different than most flues worse people often have no idea that they have hypoxia with COVID19 until very late. This effect is probably hitting everyone who has a bad case of it and does damage to every part of your system. While it’s clear that if you get a small viral load you’re unlikely to have a bad case that doesn’t change exactly how dangerous this bug is.

                  Most deaths due to the flu are from secondary infections after the lungs have been damaged. This disease damages the entire system at the same time. People are dying of heart failure, strokes, etc all from this.

                  https://bgr.com/2020/04/02/coronavirus-symptoms-neurological-signs-point-to-covid-19-infection/

                  I think this virus is substantially more dangerous because American public hygiene standards have fallen dramatically since the 50s. It’s clear that places like Germany and Sweden where hygiene standards remain high have had few problems while Americans allow the fucking homeless everywhere and dirty Mexicans by the dumpsters load.

                  And don’t say “Ha, ha, you are being unscientific. It is not the same species as flu”. Viruses do not exactly have species, and flu is many unrelated “families”, with Wu Flu no more different than others.

                  I’ve never argued in that manner ever on this site or any other. I’m mildly upset that you would suggest I’d say something like that.

                  Don’t get me wrong, the state’s reaction to this is pure insanity, shutting down the productive economy while encouraging the spread in nursing homes, hospitals and mass transit. But the left trying murder people with it doesn’t mean it’s just a bad flu.

                  The way the shutdowns are structured are almost guaranteed to result in future waves later this year giving the Democrats a lot of ammo for voting by mail, as intended.

              • Pooch says:

                https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1253695275585220608?s=21

                All he’s criticizing is barber shops, salons, spas, and such. Seems like token lip service criticism to me. Trump is “strongly disagreeing with him” out of one side of his mouth and calling him a “great talented govenor” on the other.

                Only A few in nrx/alt-right are calling it an outright hoax. The Republican Party line is that coronavirus is serious and bad but we must start reopening and get people back to work. Trump is simply following the party line. Perhaps he’s just playing it conservative in an election year. Still unsure.

            • The Cominator says:

              BC you were one of the panicmongers I’ve always said there was no possibility of 100000+ causalties unless this mutates into something more lethal. This was obvious from the South Korean data.

              “COVID19 is not a minor disease. It causes bad hypoxia and lot of people will be forever lessened for having caught it.”

              Its not as serious as its made out.

              “Only A few in nrx/alt-right are calling it an outright hoax.”

              Not an outright hoax but the shutdowns and the panic is a hoax. Whenever “science” says you need to destroy your economy because (insert alarmist reasons) its always a scam, no exceptions.

              • jim says:

                > Whenever “science” says you need to destroy your economy because (insert alarmist reasons) its always a scam, no exceptions.

                Priests hate merchants, so are always looking for justifications to stop economic activity.

                • The Cominator says:

                  How do you think things will play out now. It seems to me like Trump just isn’t the same man anymore, that he is started going a bit senile or something. He never made these kinds of mistakes in the past…

                  And everything depended on him… and still does.

                  How do you see things going now that Trump the God-Emperor is now merely Trump the fallible man… and he will be facing reelection in a probably worse economy with a base that now sees him as just a man.

                • jim says:

                  Never under estimate Trump.

                  He did not know what he was getting himself into, but now he knows.

                  Some states are returning to normality. Trump is going to see how that goes, and if, as you and I expect, it goes well, that would be a good time for a knock down drag out fight with the priesthood.

                  With their power curtailed, the left are devouring each other. If he manages the re-opening America dust up right, the Democrats will take the blame for the economic damage.

                  With luck, we will see them fighting each other on re-opening and hydroxychloroquine.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “With their power curtailed, the left are devouring each other. If he manages the re-opening America dust up right, the Democrats will take the blame for the economic damage.”

                  When he attacked Kemp he took some of that blame onto himself…

                  That is why I’m wondering if his mind is going… also when he said his remark about developing a disinfectant injection was sarcasm.

                  Nothing wrong with what he said of course but it looks bad when he later says that he was being sarcastic. He was not being sarcastic what he said originally was fine… and the media was BSing as usual. But it TRULY looks bad for him to reverse himself and say he was sarcastic.

                  It doesn’t seem like the old Trump…

                • Cadfael says:

                  Doesn’t keeping the blue states/regions on a slower path to recovery than the red states/region help accelerate the Great Decentralization of jobs from the blue voter banks? Could this be part and parcel of a long game?

          • Cadfael says:

            This may be Trump’s weakness, since he was a well known germophobe before he became a politician. Hope he can get past that.

            • The Cominator says:

              I don’t know but he seems downright timid when dealing with Fauci and he seems off in some other things… this isn’t good.

              • jim says:

                The press is indignant about Fauci’s many capitulations to Trump. Trump is mobilizing the private sector to take effective action, bypassing the priesthood, and the holy and venerable Fauci is issuing retroactive blessings on private sector actions. Trump figures it is more important to get this stuff done than to milk the crisis to blow up the priesthood.

                I think this is an error, but Trump is a notorious germophobe. It looks like Trump’s directive to the private sector is “Get it done, and I will take care of Fauci”. I would much prefer it if he took care of him with a ride in a black helicopter, but Trump is focused on the germ problem, rather than the priest problem.

                • Pooch says:

                  Maybe he is pulling a godfather, “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer”.

                  But The simplest answer is probably that Trump just didn’t know he was an enemy until it was too little too late. Firing Fauci mid-crisis probably only hurts him politically. I have noticed Fauci is slowly being moved to the background in the press briefings as reopening becomes more of an emphasis.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Its almost two weeks beyond Easter and the country other than parts of Georgia still isn’t reopened and back to normal and the economic damage is still ongoing.

                  The Democrats own stupidity is the only thing that will save him now, but the economic damage is now going to be permanent, a large portion of his base is not going to forgive him and he seems mentally shaky.

                  He might win reelection only because of Democrat/Cathedral incompetence but his chances of becoming Augustus are gone forever. Hopefully pre Corona Trump at least taught the regular Republicans of the need to fight…

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Really, we don’t want him as Augustus. We want Trump Jr. He is young enough that he has decades to rule and establish order that Trump just doesn’t due to his age. The ideal is that Trump hands over the reins(reign) to his younger son, and is retroactively crowned. If the formalization of power appens under DJTJr, that is still a victory.

                  Remember, gentlemen, that we are in this for the long term. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it didn’t fall in a day either. The restoration is a long term project, possibly longer than our lives. We are planting trees whose shade we will not enjoy. We have to be in this for the long haul, and our sons, and their sons.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes but Trump’s godlike image is gone probably for good and that is not likely to make it easy for Trump Jr… possible yes but much harder.

                  The restoration politically had to occur quickly… in a lifetime we’re sure to get the Dems back in power again and unless we flee to Asia or the Russian sphere when that happens they will eventually kill us.

              • Iconoclast says:

                I hear you. I first noticed a change during the hoax Syrian gas attack.

                Before that all his speeches were ad hoc with an air of confidence. When that day came he read a scripted statement noticeably shaken with a Jordanian leader off to the side. It struck me as so odd, I considered writing to someone about it.

                Perhaps things are not what they seem. Who knows.

                If big gov continues this lockout, unemployment will eventually reach depression era levels. At that point the economic fallout will affect everyone rich and poor.

                Thanks for the definition on GNON. I think I get it.

                • Dave says:

                  During the Great Depression, being unemployed was a disaster. In this shutdown, losing your job is awesome. You get to sleep til noon and collect unemployment PLUS an extra $600 a week, a huge windfall for most retail and service-sector employees.

                  There can be no restart before July 31, when this bonus expires, because how do you convince employees to come back to work (and risk infection) when they get paid more to stay home?

        • Coverage Wave says:

          I’ve only seen a two-minute clip of Trump talking about injecting disinfectant and using light, so I may be missing some context. However, it occurred to me while watching it that he might have lost faith in hydroxychloroquine, if he’s brainstorming about other treatments.

          • The Cominator says:

            Hydroxycloroquine works.

            If he has its because hes recently declined mentally and seems to not have it in him to stand up to Fauci…

            • Pooch says:

              He did stand up to Fauci on testing so I’ll give him credit on that. Fauci tried to use the phony insufficient testing excuse for indefinite lockdown and Trump flatly said no our testing is fine.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            He was thinking out loud.

            ‘We have these things that can kill virii on contact; could that be applied to internal surfaces as well?’

            The answer to that of course depends on the [thing] in question, but the point is that the thought process in of itself is good; it shows the right kind of curiosity that probes the underlying mechanics of the matter and hence how they may be applied or adapted in other solutions. He did not exactly know, but through that he could come to know. And that kind of probing curiosity is what all men of good will engage in when facing challenges to kith and kin. (This mode of thought is alien to synagogites, who are deathly afraid of ever saying the wrong thing(s).)

            It’s something that can and actually is done, too; for example, vapor treatments, where steam/hot water is used to aerosolize bio-compatible antiseptic agents that can be breathed in for more targeted therapeutic effect, such as volatile oils like rosemary or eucalyptus absolute; the addition of reducing reducing agents like zinc, copper, or iodine (salted via ascorbate) is also a possibility.

            There are many substances and procedures that can induce unrecoverable entropy into hostile proteinic machinery; the only trouble of course is that such entropic inducement is often rather indiscriminate; they can be just as good at making your cells go dead too. This can still be fine enough for topical applications (eg, hydrogen peroxide), but the list of substances that are both disinfectant and also non-toxic (for humanoid species) is rather short, depending generally on whether the organism in question has mechanisms adapted to handling the element in question (sodium hypochlorate and hydrogen peroxide are both strong oxidizers, and neither will do you any favors if you drink them, but the latter is generally tolerated much better than the former). Those mentioned in the previous section are amongst the main examples (ethanol is another). For example, farmers have been using sulfates of zinc and copper as disinfectants for their herds for generations; eg, running sheep or cattle through a pool filled with solution to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease.

            Saunas, to continue the last train of thought, are a classic method of improving the breathing of people with pneumological issues. How is it then, that we don’t see more hospitals or health centers utilizing them? (Don’t answer that question yet). One could imagine adaptations of such kinds of systems, where desired compounds – whether particular for a condition, and or for general use – can be introduced through the steam stream to desired levels to create a therapeutic atmosphere, as a prophylaxis for patients with trouble breathing, or expected to have trouble breathing, or at risk to having trouble breathing. We could imagine something like a vaporizer, to accomplish a similar goal for focused delivery in individual and intensive applications. Aparatii like this could also be used for bulk decontamination of subjects transitioning through different areas.

            (Speaking of which, the way you can avoid things like ‘bringing a plague home’, is through avoiding cross-contamination, by observing protocols [not coincidentally] not unlike rituals observed for the transition from profane to sacred spaces; taking all objects off ‘outside’ beforehand [ideally you’ve had clothes that cover the body – long sleeves, pants, gloves; plus hat and scarf for the full monty], perhaps in their own container for later processing [or just leave them to aerate for a day or three if the weather allows/you have a covered area you can put them in], then proceed strait to your water source for cleansing, and thereafter garb yourself the new cloth conceived in purity.)

            One of the biggest killers of people put into intensive care with bat aids is drowning through fluid (pus, serum, mucus, and so on) filling the lungs (many not helped of course by poor ventilators of design and material that irritate airway tissue causing inflammation, and improper airflow patterns that insufficiently inflate the envelope); so then, if fluid is the problem, then the solution is removing it. Who gives the thought, wherefore?

            Now, one might not simply vacuum it out (well, perhaps one might, but not simply), since lungs are not empty bags, but more like sponges, filled with delicate material. Normally, fluid build-up will pool in the bottom of the lungs, and rise from there (in fact, many people walking around normally can have some fluid build-up for one reason or another; that’s what your family doc is checking for when he asks you to breath deep while holding a stethoscope one your chest). One might mayhaps, then, have a set-up where the patient is instead facing down on an incline, where fluid may then be slowly ‘backed out’ upon inflations, as gases go to the top (which is the bottom), and the fluid goes to the bottom (which is the top – and outlet); helped along by heat, steam, and expectorants.

            ~

            In reality, ‘cures’ for most any given malady are not really boolean switches of on or off. Comfortable beds, nutritive food, supplementation, and good atmosphere can become a ‘cure’ for many things, simply by increasing the ability of the body to recover, and reducing the stresses it must spend recovery on. Consider; something like vitamin A for instance may not be ‘directly’ related to something else like influenza; but if you have a guy who is weakened due to a vitamin A deficiency, then correcting that deficiency increases his ability to survive an infection; and if he is strengthened through more highly optimal nutrient intake, then that again increases his ability to survive an infection. ‘Acute’ usage of certain compounds that are ordinary taken at lower daily levels in ‘chronic’ use is also an under-utilized modality (for instance, injection of megadoses of analogous ascorbate vitamers around cancerous tissues as a form of chemotherapy).

            The continuum on the stress/recovery cycle is a key thing to keep in mind for care of health. There are all sorts of wonderful studies, anecdotes, and stories written over the years about how effective things like nice meals, service, accommodations, massage therapy, relaxing and engaging activities, et cetera and et cetera, can have on outcomes even for seemingly ‘unrelated’ conditions. You know, putting the ‘nurse’ in nursing and all that. Every agrees, nodding their heads wisely, that this is all good and true.

            So why don’t you actually see it anywhere?

            These sorts of things are more ‘non-explicit’; and thus, easier to disputatively dissimulate; and hence, some of the first things cut on the budget to cut corners, most particularly by those folk lacking in givashittatude (an endemic condition in an environment where chronic backstabbing syndrome is official religion).

            Someone dying on the watch of Organization Q while they lacked Drug XYZ which is nominally prescribed for the condition they were nominally afflicted with is easy to make headlines with. Someone dying thanks to added stress of shitty accommodations, well, how the hell are you gonna prove something like that, outside of the most egregious cases?

            So it goes.

  27. oogenhand says:

    Catholic dogma is whatever the pope says it is according to a whole bunch of papal bulls they’ve accepted for centuries.
    The Sedevacantists get around this by going through an elaborate logical contortion whereby somehow there is some higher set of Catholic principles and the minute the Pope goes against them he is a heretic and thus the Pope is somehow not really the Pope and the Magisterium that supports him is not really the Magisterium but then they run into the problem of “The Gates of Hell Prevailing Against the Church” they get around this when pressed by saying the Sedes are the righteous remnant but where does there authority to decide all this come from and what is the hidden hierarchy. So no matter they end up de facto Protestants with their own Priesthood of all Sedevacantist believers…
    Source: https://blog.jim.com/culture/the-logos-has-risen/#comment-2528698
    Comment: In fact, all Sedevacantists have to learn Latin in order to have any skill reading the source texts. Again, hell is eternal.

    Share this:

    Twitter
    Facebook
    LinkedIn
    Print
    Email
    Pinterest
    Tumblr
    More

    Reddit
    Pocket

    Like this:

    Like Loading…

  28. neuropoison says:

    Recently at Jim’s blog there was a perceptive comment about approach anxiety and the evolutionary reasons for it. (Surprisingly, this came from the same commenter who made a bizarre comment in my last post, one “ERTZ.”) The good comment and Jim’s response are worth quoting at length (some formatting added):

    Ertz:
    The potential for dating and flirting anxieties/shyness/inhibitions should be evolutionary deeply rooted in men, because it’s a life and death issue:
    Successful reproduction is, of course, an existential problem, as the threat of genetic extermination looms large – but men tend to have more than half a century of time to get it done.
    I see two immediate threats that must have programmed men’s instincts in the ancestral environment with great caution:
    1. Trying to mate with fertile women is guaranteed to arouse the ire of other men – those at the top in hierarchy who claim a monopoly on the women,
    and the lower ranked men who are driven by competition/envy.
    So, just going publicly for the women and trying to mate with them (just being physically near them may cause aggression – openly or hidden – from other men) is an aggression against the interests of all other men – and met with counter-aggression.
    Those guys who just tried to mate openly and publicly and not having inhibitions about it , without having the necessary social status, have probably been driven into extinction directly (killing, injury) or – through the works of envy, social sabotage etc. – indirectly.
    Men who fear dating/flirting with women would then not really fear the women or the dating situation, but the revenge of other men.
    2. Females’ mate choice copying makes sexually successful men significantly more attractive to women – but the opposite is also true: Sexually unsuccessful men become vastly more unattractive, even sexually disgusting, to women.
    (Women’s gossip seems to be a socio-sexual “intelligence agency” that exists to identify sexually successful and loser men by gathering and sharing information about who has had sex with whom, which men failed, who has won and who has lost in competitions etc. – to enable women to mate with the sexually successful men and avoid mating with the losers – and it has to be gossip – sharing of secrets – because sharing this information openly would incite envy and aggression and mate guarding and anti-cuckolding instincts in men.)
    If this were not the case, men could just go from woman to woman publicly and ask each one for sex, until one consents. This not happening, it produces a strong emotional inhibition in men – it feels terribly wrong to try it, embarrassing, painful:
    Because the sexual attractiveness of a man to all women is diminished with every rejection he suffers that other women learn of (almost guaranteed by the female gossiping instinct), being rejected by just one woman has a terrible cost in fitness for a man with all other women.
    All this should result in approach anxiety being programmed into men,
    in taking sexual advances very, very seriously, because it is very risky, dangerous, costs-incurring for men to fail.
    This might explain why so many men try to spy on their sexual target to learn more about her [Wait, what?], try to engineer an ideal first meeting situation that is somewhat under their control and provides advantage, try to meet the girl not in a public situation but in a one-on-one private one (so others cannot directly observe and spread information about his rejection [if he’s rejected]), to improve the odds for success, try to be slow and indirect about it, delaying a long time before they act.
    Jim’s response is worth quoting in full:
    The female instinct is to arrange to be socially isolated with her target – preferably in a situation where, in the ancestral environment, he could rape her.
    Pulling works, but women want to be pursued. Hitting on a woman demonstrates confidence and high status, and hitting on a woman in public is demonstration of being top alpha. On the other hand women want to be pursued to validate their attractiveness, and being pursued gives her what she wants, and she then loses interest (because in the ancestral environment, if you did not then drag her off to your lair and ravish her, you were obviously not the top alpha.)
    Observe cats in operation. The tomcat pulls, by taking a prominent position and yowling, thus demonstrating that no other tomcat can drive him off and he can drive all the other tomcats off. The female then approaches, and then gives the tomcat a hard time This hard time may, and frequently does, escalate to the tomcat violently “raping” her, except that it is not exactly rape type rape, since the female cat clawed her way through the mosquito netting to get to the tomcat, and proceeded to hang out with him.
    You have to chase, but you have to get the chick to give you the opportunity to chase, so you have to pull, but you have to pull and chase in a way that does not give her the validation she is hungry for. Don’t give her validation until she does what chicks always want to do, gets on her own with you. Hence “make me a coffee”. You are likely to get more than coffee, but, like the female cat after ripping her way through the mosquito netting, she is going to give you a hard time with the coffee.
    If you are worried about other men seeing you approach a chick, you are emitting beta tells. If you are worried about the chick’s rejection, you are not only emitting beta tells, but you are approaching her in a way that gives her validation for free. But, of course, you are rightly worried about these things. If you approach a whole lot of chicks, you are diminishing your status, and handing out a whole lot of free validation.
    You will notice, that, as usual, for everything I advise, I also advise the direct opposite. It is complicated, subtle, and not easily expressed in words. There is a narrow path between one error and the opposite error, and it is hard to tell if you are on the path until after you have fallen off the path to one side or the other. But you also have to stroll briskly and confidently along the path.

    NOTES:
    Jim’s cat example is a good illustration of the non-conscious nature of much female sexual behavior. Cats don’t even have language, let alone Sex Ed class, so it’s not like the female cat knew what was going to happen (if she’s never been mounted) when she clawed through the mosquito netting to get to the tomcat. She doesn’t even know that there is such a thing as sex. At that point she has no idea that such a thing as a penis even exists, and a few minutes later is startled to find this strange organ the male cat has being shoved into her.
    Is the female cat’s behavior intended to get her raped? Yes and no. No, if you mean consciously intended by the female cat. Yes, if you mean “intended” by evolution in an adaptive sense.
    Question a la mode: When women in western nations vote for political parties that admit a flood of rapey foreigners, do those women vote that way “in order to get raped”?
    On another topic, Jim wrote, “You have to chase, but you have to get the chick to give you the opportunity to chase, so you have to pull, but you have to pull and chase in a way that does not give her the validation she is hungry for. Don’t give her validation until she does what chicks always want to do, gets on her own with you.”
    This is, indeed, the entire point of Game in a nutshell. Before you know Game you find – at least I did when I was younger – that the female sex largely divides into two camps, those who want you but whom you don’t want, and those whom you want but whom don’t want you. I had chicks want me and even fall in love with me (pats self on back) but somehow by some strange coincidence it was always girls I wasn’t interested in.
    No, it’s not some horrific coincidence: The second group doesn’t want you precisely because you want them. Really, it’s a wonder that the human race managed to propagate itself before Game taught men techniques for pursuing without pursuing. (Partly we managed to survive because female mate choice was limited in ways that rendered this Catch-22 less important.) Mystery’s notion is that you should make her think she could have you, maybe, if she works hard enough. Robert Heinlein, in To Sail Beyond the Sunset, put optimal seduction strategy in the mouth of a female character; I’ll reverse the gender of the quote: “My strategy for seducing a woman is to let her chase me, while running away very slowly.”
    Circling back to Jim: “You will notice, that, as usual, for everything I advise, I also advise the direct opposite. It is complicated, subtle, and not easily expressed in words.”
    Seduction is game theory played against opponents (women) who are utterly ruthless and not entirely aware of their own motives and desires.
    Seduction is both an art and a science. It is not like submitting an answer to a math problem in school. It is like stirring fluid in a pot. Boldly approaching a woman is alpha because it shows you’re not afraid of other men getting aggressive with you about it. But it’s also risky, since being blown out hurts your chances with other women. Yet the most alpha thing you can do is act like that doesn’t bother you. And to an extent you can exhort yourself into not being bothered by it, or being bothered less.
    Aidan MacLear has said that if you use Game, “you are ghey.” Well… compared to memorizing a bunch of negs, etc., it would be better to get lots of pussy by being the top warlord of your tribe and letting women see you you lop off the heads of several enemy men with a sword in combat. That’s what women are adapted for. But given that the modern world doesn’t work that way – and that the vast majority of men aren’t going to be the top warlord – we’re forced to do things differently.

    Share this:

    Twitter
    Facebook

    Like this:

    Like Loading…

  29. alf says:

    I talked over the issue with my girl, who hails from bible belt community, even if she is not practicing herself. She gave some good opinions that reflect what I think as well.

    Christianity is not ‘cool’. It’s old. Trying to make it fashionable is like trying to make big white wigs fashionable: not gonna happen. Here’s an interesting thing she said, I paraphrase: ‘the progressives created something new as well, didn’t they? If they can do it, why can’t you.’ And I completely agree with that. People don’t want to go back to the old, they want something new, something flashy and cool.

    Which doesn’t mean we can’t use the good old stuff. I’m all for it. But Christianity as state religion thing, it’s just not going to fly. It is, as an old nemesis of Jim would say, totally wishful thinking.

    I think we should try a different tack. We should create something new, show the world that we are really as smart as we portend to be. In this I guess I am also very much addressing you, Jim; I understand your position, I get that you don’t want to be a martyr. I also get that you are not the youngest in the world anymore. But if we want to do this the right way, we need to take on an image that is cool and fashionable and ‘the next big thing’. Christianity, no matter how old school, is not that next big thing, and to be honest, I’d expect smart Christians to also realize that at this point. People expect us to come up with something new.

    • BC says:

      Very interesting points. However creating a new religion is a hell of a lot harder than changing an existing one. On the other hand, the Neo-reactionary community isn’t getting any traction with the existing church goers. That does point to the idea a restoration is probably not in the cards with the existing religion.

      • alf says:

        We suck at entryism. We’re too honest for it.

        • The Cominator says:

          We’re a lot better at entryism than libertarians are…

        • Encelad says:

          The problem with entryism, in my opinion, is that, observing how it is done by leftists, seems difficult to perform if you are not an evil person.

          Entryism consists in these steps

          -Infiltrate an institution pretending to be one genuine supporter. (“Hello, fellow [whatever]”).

          -Make friends with the key people, work hard for years to gain their trust, strive to obtain a position that allows you to hire more people.

          -Use your new power to hire like-minded people.

          -Once reached the critical mass, start pushing your memes into the institution, converging it. If the old guard, the people who trusted you, are not persuaded and put a resistance, purge them, kick them out, ruin their life.

          -Use the prestige of the converged institution, now a hollow husk, to influence society with your new ideas.

          How can anyone who is not a sociopath(*) manage to constantly dissimulate and lie, while building friendships over years, with the sole purpose of backstabbing them when time is due?

          (*) I know I am using an enemy term here, but I don’t know which other words to use to convey the same concept. Just to clear misunderstanding, I am referring to people who burn social capital by deploying other people’s disposition to cooperate, in order to defect them for their own gain, and feel no remorse in doing so.

          • jim says:

            > I don’t know which other words to use to convey the same concept

            You used the right term first. Evil.

            We are “sociopaths”, because everyone who is primarily loyal to kin, friends, and allies, and is also manly, is a “sociopath”.

            They are evil.

            Words mean what they are used to mean. If you get in trouble with the law, perhaps over “domestic violence” or “rape”, they will likely sic a shrink on you. If they do, he will likely diagnose sociopathy.

      • jim says:

        I see Barr and Trump addressing Christians. They are doing fine.

        Barr is not, of course, going full neoreactionary. He is a cuck who discovered that being cucked would get him killed eventually. But often enough, when addressing an audience of Christians, he gets mighty close to neoreactionary and they cheer like crazy.

      • info says:

        You go to church for Jesus. Not doing politicking.

        • jim says:

          Religion is political. Churches are political parties, political parties are churches. It has always been this way.

          If you want religion to be non political, the pastor is going to have to preach that trannies are stunning and brave, and women have the right to suspend sexual relationships at whim, which necessarily implies they have an inherent right to suspend marriage at whim, which whim sets in whenever they meet Jeremy Meeks. If female consent to sex, no durable marriage, if no durable marriage, reproduction fails.

          A religion is a synthetic tribe. It has no choice but to contend for power and status in this world, like any other tribe, or else it will be devoured. We are commanded to obey Caesar, but the Caesar is apt to rely on the asabiyah of a hostile tribe, and we are commanded to not honor the faith of that hostile tribe.

          • info says:

            @jim

            Very well but then again. It focuses on doing its own thing. They are forbidden to do any kind of sedition or rebellion. Leaving Caesar to this world.

            His Kingdom is not of this world or else his followers will fight for him to not be captured.

    • Iconoclast says:

      If the Peace of Westphalia allows every tribe to have it’s own personal Jesus, then it’s possible for the hipster class to get some too. You just need another install.

      As was said before, it worked through the millennia’s and brought Western Civilization to this point in time. Let’s not abandon a working system.

      The Ten Commandments are timeless pillars. The Sermon On The Mount is poetic doctrine.

      We just need an upgrade.

      • jim says:

        Anyone that has their own personal Jesus has to be excluded from any high state or quasi statal office, because they are a threat to the state. People in the government have to have the Sovereign’s Jesus.

        Because, as I said, if you allow freedom of conscience for people in state or quasi statal office, pretty soon they don’t allow freedom of conscience for anyone.

        Which is the situation we now find ourselves in.

        But if the Pope starts dicking with the religion of the sovereign, he in practice will dick on behalf of some other sovereign, which becomes hilariously visible when that sovereign is violently opposed to Christians and Christianity, as the Soviet Union was. Pope has to butt out. Papal subversion on behalf of sovereigns whose state religion is hostile to Christianity refutes the doctrine of papal supremacy, just as priests having gay sex in a great big pile refutes priestly celibacy. By their fruits you will know them.

        • Iconoclast says:

          Fair enough, when you become sovereign you can have your Jesus worry about keeping his bed warm and having his cup of coffee delivered in the morning.

          My version of Jesus is not a pacifist, is clean shaven, wears his hair high and tight, and wouldn’t hesitate to snatch up a nonbeliever and pin him to a wall.

          Cortes wasn’t timid about bringing the heathens to Christ and neither should we be.

    • Pooch says:

      To be fair, early Christians didn’t just decide to “create something new”. A man named Jesus came to them from seemingly nowhere, started a movement of incredible righteousness, and then died the most painful tortuous death imaginable for it.

      Such an event inspired them to call him the son of god, continue his movement, and be unafraid of death to do it. To start a similar movement would almost certainly require a selfless death and martyrdom of the creator and probably all the early followers as well.

    • jim says:

      Christianity is not cool because women worship power, and Christianity is out of power. If they can worship abortion clinics, they can worship Jesus.

      • alf says:

        Christianity is not cool because it’s just not cool, for men or women. History rhymes, does not repeat, and trying to make it repeat is uncool.

        • jim says:

          Works for me. I am cool. If you are alpha, and claim to be backed by a bigger alpha, women are impressed.

          If you say that you are under an authority that prohibits defection, men who hope to cooperate with you will claim to be under the same authority.

          • alf says:

            I think you come from an exceptional background. Or at the very least, an unusual.

            Most people in the West, say the normies, just don’t think Christianity is cool. They think it’s old and mushy. And I’m not just saying that because ‘muh prog-brainwashed mind’. It is old and mushy. The people demand something more fun!

            Besides, it’s not like you’re a very convincing Christian anyway. You quote Paul more often than you quote Jesus.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              I find him quite convincing, and I am a Christian, so I have a better sense of that. Jesus was the what of it, Paul was the how. Neorection is about finding how to run a religion, and in that case, it makes sense to focus more on Paul.

              • The Cominator says:

                Christianity would sound cool if we made someone like Michael Franzese the high priest…

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=380Zqbi9luo

                This guy can talk convincingly about being a born again Christians (even if its bullshit which is probably true) and tell cool stories about the Mafia.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  If we spun up a Christian Neoreactionary warrior society, and went around calling ourselves Crusaders and smashing antifa, then Christianity would be pretty fucking cool real quick. That is a coup complete issue, of course, but the reason the degenerates behind antifa have any street cred whatsoever is because they are permitted to do violence. If absolutely deviant trash like them can get any sort of a reputation just by beating people up who can’t fight back, imagine how manly men in smart uniforms who can actually fight in a stand up fight would look.

                  The face of Christianity is old, faggy, weird, and effeminate. Of course those are uncool. Make the face of Christianity virile, masculine, high status, and somewhat violent, and that is cool.

              • alf says:

                Well, hey, who knows. Several roads to Rome.

                But I conclude this particular road is not for me.

            • Nikolai says:

              “Besides, it’s not like you’re a very convincing Christian anyway. You quote Paul more often than you quote Jesus.”

              What a fascinating admission

              • jim says:

                I am still impatiently waiting to see if you can quote those parts of Paul that cannot be holiness spiraled into evil and insane meanings, without bursting into flames.

    • polifugue says:

      Christianity is not cool not only because it is out of power but also due to general attitudes of social liberalism caused by progressive entryism. Christians do not serve their young and thus demographics skew toward the elderly.

      It would be best not to make this too personal, but I remember reading that you met your woman while she was at college, and that you got her to leave. If her family and community were the type of people to send young women to whore school, they are not old type Christians and thus are not going to accept nrx just yet.

      My advice is patience. Remember that Neoreaction was always about quality, not quantity. At the end of the day, if Christians can prostitute their girls at whore school, they can accept anything and everything we tell them, but it won’t be immediate. People are social creatures and accepting views so far right of the Overton window will be difficult, even though we may be right.

      On Twitter, most of the self-identified Christian “reactionaries” are cucks in some form or another, but I don’t believe that they are lost. Give them some time, and they will come around. God (Gnon) will separate the wheat from the chaff, and the West will have a Christianity more powerful than ever before.

      • jim says:

        Every christian Church dies about a century after it becomes hostile to family and fathers. Who today remembers the congregationalists? Anglicanism changed its marriage ceremony to a ceremony that it unsuitable as a mating ritual for heterogamous organisms in 1928. In 2020, those few who show up are frail elderly people who have one foot in the grave, and its cathedrals are not cathedrals, but museums.

        Christianity is uncool because it surrendered to progressivism. Observe the collapse of Vatican II Catholicism. Who wants to sign up with the losers? If Christ is victorious why are they telling us to transexualize our sons? If they will not tell our women to obey us, why should we obey them?

        The top alpha makes sure his lieutenants get pussy. If they are hostile to us getting pussy, they are not on the team of the top alpha.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        Christianity and Western Civilization in general didn’t survive Sputnik. After Sputnik, demands for much higher standards in school occurred, but the result was to discriminate against hard working Christians who don’t ever cheat on their exams. Chinese atheists and Jews took over the elite institutions and Christians were forced to mix with the truly stupid trade school demographic.

        To this day, physics professors won’t bend their grading curve so their students can earn better grades than transsexual disabled basket weaving majors. They won’t stand up for themselves as scientists. Christians aren’t even in the ball park.

        A “meta” point of the alt-right is that war history just doesn’t matter. Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, etc, whatever. They might as well be sides in a video game. The real beef is all about control of the media and schools, not the toy soldiers. Jokes about the holocaust reinforce the point that even genocide doesn’t matter compared to the importance of the universities. Warriors and their atrocities come and go, but the full force of history belongs solely to the priests who control the children.

        The right can start winning when it recognizes this and starts to get priests of its own and a Cathedral of its own to employ its best students who don’t cheat on their exams. Warrior rule is a possible third step, but that’s neither here nor there for us for now.

        • jim says:

          A holiness spiral is always terminated by warrior rule, usually a warrior priest like Stalin or Cromwell.

          So warrior rule has to come first.

          Could Trump do it?

          Maybe. He is a merchant not a warrior, but he has the warrior spirit, and warriors follow him. As for priesting, he is an entertainer, but he learning to priest. Maybe in 2024. Barr is a priest. Maybe Trump could be Moses and Barr could be Aaron. On the other hand, not entirely sure that Trump can trust Barr.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            The spiral is just left on left now. If the right joined in the spiral, gearing up its own credentials and institutions and hierarchy, suddenly the warrior option becomes interesting. Plain old leftism drift for whatever reason doesn’t inspire the warriors to intervene, even when they’re left marching in high heels.

            The Merchant Right is a relic of the Cold War when godless communism and the old left still existed. Corporate conservatives exist only among the donor class now. Conservative workers are now stuck being low status “independent contractors” instead of real employees with real say in society, and they’re getting angrier.

            • The Cominator says:

              The right wing does not typically purity spiral, the ONLY example in history I can think of that could be described as a right wing purity spiral is Imperial Japan in the 1930s until the end of WWII and it arose from some very strange circumstances.

              Japanese ideology was thoroughly right wing and theoretically the government was run with a clear line of authority to the Emperor and thus power was secure (the way right wingers like it).

              In reality the Japanese government was a bunch of warring factions (like Nazi Germany) and the Emperor did not even arbitrate between them (unlike Nazi Germany) so the warring Japanese factions were prone to use violence against each other and generally people were worried about being outflanked not on the left but the nationalist right.

              • BC says:

                I’m not even sure you could call the Japanese Military rightwing. There was no clear chain of command and jr. offers regularly overrode and set policy over the orders of the upper command. The goverment had a thousand factions all fighting for power with no king to lead them.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The ideology within the Japanese government was purely and even competitively right wing nationalist anti communist and pro monarchy and yet the monarch either refused to exercise power or was prevented from doing so.

                  So while the Japanese government theoretically had clear lines of authority it was in practice as you say, which meant insecure power and led to a peculiar right wing purity spiral.

                • jim says:

                  In the end, in order to give effect to his surrender order, the Japanese Emperor finally did what he should have done long ago, and cracked down, or maybe some moderate officer cracked down invoking the emperor’s name – but it was too late by that time.

                  We could follow the same path, going to war with China and losing, but with a bit of luck and good judgment, our crackdown will come in time.

      • jim says:

        > Christianity is not cool not only because it is out of power but also due to general attitudes of social liberalism caused by progressive entryism.

        Christianity is uncool because it has adopted a theology and morality that is fundamentally hostile to Christianity. Cucked Christianity is hostile to Gnon, because progressivism is hostile to Gnon, but progressivism can get away with this, because power, while Christianity cannot.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          The cool parts of Christianity are the Crusader memes and songs about old Christian victories like the Winged Hussars or The Last Stand by Sabaton. Listen to those songs and they all have a theme. They remember when Christianity spread the faith through holy men, and if that required that those holy men carry a sword or an axe and prove the faith by strength in arms, then so be it. The same reason that the insane nightmare dystopia of Warhammer 40K is popular; it has a bunch of manly men fighting and conquering for their people, backed by their religion.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        Extermination of the Unbeliever creates Lebensraum for large families, so no “need” for social liberalism…

        occidisset omne masculinum in Idumea

        ingredere ad ancillam meam

        dilatet Deus Iapheth et inhabitet tabernaculis Sem

        • The Cominator says:

          You don’t exterminate UNbelievers you exterminate progressive and muslim believers to provide loot and lebensraum.

          Nobody should die for skepticism and cynicism. Skepticism and cynicism are well justified in this fallen and evil world and most cynical people back Trump.

          People with evil and insane beliefs that will spread and cause civil war all over again in a few generations if we don’t do the hard work of wiping them out when we have the chance should die.

      • info says:

        Dropping red pills is what one can do. But the church is about Jesus and following him.

        Changing the doctrine in any non-orthodox way. One has no right.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      @Alf

      The Sol Invictus problem, pretty much.

      • alf says:

        Can you elaborate?

        • R7 Rocket says:

          @Alf

          When the early Roman Emperors tried to do a restoration of their old and cucked state religion, they ran into the same exact problem that you just described. I’m about to be busy, so I’ll elaborate later.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          @Alf
          As an example:
          While the early Christians copied the texts of the Greek philosophers because the philosophy was useful, most literature in the ancient Greco-Roman world did not survive. I suspect the synopsis for replacing Jupiter’s companion gods, Quirinus and Mars, with the goddesses Juno and Minerva in the Late Roman Republic didn’t get copied…

          I’ll elaborate more when I get to a pc, my phone isn’t good for typing large texts when a large number of scripts are running.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          @Alf
          Cæsar Augustus, in a manner similar to tradcucks posting here, proposed a bachelor tax in front of his fellow senators. His arguments sounded as if they were cribbed right out of Focus on the Female. Of course it failed. Emperor Hadrian even doubled down on building a giant cuckshed of concrete and marble, it literally had giant statues of women on giant pedestals! Eventually, the Romans tried weird religions like Sabazios (represented by a giant hand), Emperor Elagabalus put his weird Syrian god in front of the statue of Victory in the Senate House so that every time the senators poured libations, it looked like they were genuflecting before the god. The Roman soldiers flocked to Mithraicism, a religion with similar mysticism as Christianity but without the solid philosophy and pro-natalism.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          @Alf
          Stoicism had good philosophy, but it failed to inspire the masses. The Roman government tried to fabricate a religion, a sort of Scientology but without the imagination, that might inspire intellectuals and masses alike. Sol Invictus was made to be the official religion of the Roman Empire just for that purpose. But people didn’t sincerely believe and it couldn’t inspire the same way that First Millennium Christianity did. So Emperor Constantine chose Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. He still had symbols of Sol Invictus on his coins.

          The Christianity of Constantine’s New Testament Canon is dominated by St. Paul’s writings… because St. Paul’s social technology works. That Christianity was the result of centuries long social Darwinian evolution. The winning version had powerful meme propagation, inspiration, and pro-natalism.

          • alf says:

            Thx. That sounds exactly like my problem.

            I can’t sincerely go through the motions of Jesus worship, not with the resurrection, not with the other miracles. It’s cringe.

            • Mike says:

              If you won’t be able to do it for Jesus, what will you be able to do it for? You need to stop this “my religion needs to be a mathematical science” LARP. Not how religion works, it never has worked that way, it never will work that way, and you sound like a Reddit atheist for thinking that it should work that way. Mysticism, faith, ritual, all of these things are fundamentally a part of any religion, regardless of it is based on Jesus or not. You will be engaging in these things in some way, shape, or form if you follow a religion, and if you are not, then stop calling it a religion. Because it isn’t one without those things.

              • The Cominator says:

                This is why you don’t persecute people for merely being cynical but public cynicism that you can’t keep your mouth shut about (in terms of the state religion) should keep you out of state and quasi state jobs.

                • Mike says:

                  Well he’s just being stupid. You think your quote-on-quote “new” religion will somehow not involve the rituals and faith that every other religion in history has had? Its asinine.

                • alf says:

                  I want something I can believe in. And this sol invictus plan, which I’ve given as much of a chance as I could, is just not something I believe in. I’d suck as a representative. Sorry.

              • The Cominator says:

                “I want something I can believe in.”

                Not every job is for everybody.

            • jim says:

              Pretty sure you could sincerely give thanks at meal time, or sincerely go through with the pre-1928 Anglican marriage ceremony.

              You should not pick quarrels about things unfalsifiable and unknowable.

              Early Christianity had no end of unprofitable, and in the end deadly, debates on the nature of the incarnation and the resurrection. They wised up, and declared all humanly comprehensible and logically coherent positions on the question to be heresy. Let us not repeat their error. Wholly man and wholly God. Stop worrying about it. There is no answer, and discussing the question revives ancient divisions among the faithful. You are bringing up the ancient quarrel between the wholly God and wholly man factions. That quarrel did not end well.

              • alf says:

                What about the weekly sermons?

                • jim says:

                  The weekly sermons have been escalated to kids spending twenty years getting sermons all day every day.

                  If we dial that back to weekly, will be a major improvement, but in a time of universal literacy and instant communication, even weekly sermons are of considerably less utility. The mass media married the state almost immediately, and took over that role, and now Google is taking over that role.

                  But we still want weekly local gatherings where people assemble to show their allegiance to the official church and to each other. What is a Trump rally?

                  When the British state decided that “occasional observance” (at an Anglican church) was sufficient to qualify one for a state or quasi state job, that turned out to be a fatal error.

                  The communist party required people to “voluntarily” show up for party gatherings, and they found the sermons mighty dreary, but the party nonetheless found that requiring people to gather and endure a sermon was vital to its power. But the communist party of China has gone high tech, and no longer is so big on people enduring weekly sermons. On the one hand, the high tech approach of the Party may well be more effective in the modern age. On the other hand, that may well prove as fatal for the party as it did for the Church of England.

                • alf says:

                  OK, that’s the form, but what about the content.

                • alf says:

                  I’ll tell you about the content.

                  Christian content is love for Jesus. Jesus is what unites, Jesus is what binds. Nothing more endearing in the world than old women speaking of their undying love for Jesus, a tear welling up in their eyes.

                  This blog, this thing, whatever we are, is not about undying love for Jesus. We pay our respects to him, but we do not view him as the end all be all. Pretending to do so requires too much cynicism on my side, and I believe on the side of many many more people.

                • jim says:

                  The reason they rattle on about Jesus all day is that anything else is a thought crime. Everything is a thought crime. They cannot say anything, so they say nothing.

                  The book of common prayer is mostly a collection of sermons, and they did not rattle on about Jesus all day. (I have a very old version.)

                • alf says:

                  So your strategy is: ‘hello fellow Christians. Nice religion we have here. Now let me tell you about the real Christianity.’

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.” as the abbot said.

                  Christianity is, I would say, more flexible than you think. The weepy gays and old women installed there today are certainly not the final form.

                  But more interestingly, what to do with the hardcore materialists who don’t qualify for the helicopter ride? Perhaps we should just put them in a sect where God permits you to think whatever you like as long as you observe the forms scrupulously. I’ve been told the Romans officially observed their religious rites this way. Others have said the Jesuits have had similar thoughts.

                  Include in observance a vow of silence for the hard cases, and renunciation of the world in a monastery.

                  All in all, seems more benign than the modern progressivism we see today.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Alf, do you have any imagination at all, or are you just hung up on this? How many times has Jim used the Bible as evidence that our beliefs are not new or even unusual? No, it isn’t entryism, its allowing what is currently thoughtcrime back into the sermons. It is allowing real Christianity back into the churches. Im starting to think that you have some deep emotional reaction to Christianity, because you are not acting rationally on this one subject, and it is notable and distinct from your usual analysis.

                • alf says:

                  Well I’m the guy who proposed we turn Jim into the new Jesus so you shouldn’t be that surprised.

                  I have no emotional hung-ups on the issue, I just don’t think it’ll work.

                  its allowing what is currently thoughtcrime back into the sermons. It is allowing real Christianity back into the churches.

                  Thoughtcrime you say.. Honest question: what horrible thoughtcrime in the gospels is being supressed? Not talking Paul; what is the stuff in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that is supposed to blow our mind in how edgy it is?

                • jim says:

                  Thoughtcrime you say.. Honest question: what horrible thoughtcrime in the gospels is being supressed? Not talking Paul; what is the stuff in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that is supposed to blow our mind in how edgy it is?

                  It was edgy indeed at that time and place.

                  Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John commit no end of horrible thought crimes against holiness spiraled Judaism.

                  Seems quite bland now, because our holiness spiral has headed off in a different direction.

                  Remember Jesus was addressing a people in which women were absolutely property. Their big problem was that they had substituted legalism for the spirit and intent of the law, as illustrated in the incident that eventually led to war with Rome, where they pissed all over the commandments about coveting, theft, and murder, and felt very righteous about doing so.

                  But you ask what horrible thought crime there is in Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John?

                  Serial monogamy prohibited.

                • alf says:

                  Yeah that’s the only thing I could think of as well.

    • ten says:

      take 2, i accidentally the whole post.

      Some people sort of like new and shiny but i think you are vastly overestimating its appeal. Maybe its a nord thing (counting all bell beaker descended north germanics as nordics). Reformation, the return of the true king, those things are really ingrained in deep psyche.

      If you want to create a new ideology, it is almost mandatory to present it as a revelation of ancient wisdom. Even marxism framed itself as a return to natural ur-communism. Even Land who wishes for humans to be forever lost and left behind, if not gleefully annihilated, in the loops of emerging demoncapital cybernetics or something idk, must refer back to working social technology to have stable ground for schizodaemon birthing pod construction.

      You don’t just come up with the next big thing. Sol Invictus doesn’t stick, even if all the smartest theologians make their best attempt and the emperor beats you with a stick if you roll your eyes. The events that made Buddha, Confucius, Christ, Mohammed, Marx, etc, stick were much more particular and massive than a dude or a bunch of dudes getting the right ideas and spreading them. Actually that is sort of what Confucius did but he is the oddball.

      The state religion, if it is sane and based on the revelation of gnon, will be christianity. You want to use the good old stuff but reject at least the label of christianity, because of some supernatural claims of christianity. I can’t conjure exactly why or what you mean by this, but am certain you underestimate the task of building sol invictus. The jews like building golems like this and have their creations backfire.

      Christians will have an inconvenient propensity of thinking Christianity is THE big thing – insincere but warm apologies!

      • alf says:

        Sol Invictus doesn’t stick, even if all the smartest theologians make their best attempt and the emperor beats you with a stick if you roll your eyes.

        To clear up, the way I interpret Sol Invictus is that it was a forced revival of an old religion, just like Jim intends to revive Christianity. My point is that Sol Invictus didn’t work.

        You don’t just come up with the next big thing.

        I see it not as a matter of ego but a matter of necessity. We need to come up with the next big thing. Perhaps I’m not seeing, perhaps my observations from Europe are skewed, but everything my eyes tell me is that a return to old Christianity is not going to work, not because it theoretically can’t work, but because it just won’t be fashionable.

        • jim says:

          > not because it theoretically can’t work, but because it just won’t be fashionable.

          If you pay attention to what is fashionable, you will conclude that leftism goes lefter forever, and ever further out of contact with reality forever.

          You have been looking at a dead Christianity, a Christianity that is not allowed to say anything Christian. I have seen live Christianity, a Christianity that can and does exclude gays and tell women to obey their husbands. Christianity can fly, if it is allowed to fly.

        • jim says:

          Sol Invictus was a new religion, that they came up with because the old ones failed to stick. The old religion was Jupiter and all that.

          • alf says:

            Wiki tells me:

            Invictus (“unconquered, invincible”) was an epithet utilized for several Roman deities, including Jupiter, Mars, Hercules, Apollo, and Silvanus. It had been in use from the 3rd century BC.

            Sol Invictus was a rehash of the old religions. Christianity was the new kid on the block.

            • jim says:

              Well that is true.

              Christianity is a miracle religion, and the time for miracles is over. The cult of Gnon proposes to de-emphasize miracles, as Sol Invictus merged Jupiter, Mars, and Apollo into Apollo.

              So there is a good parallel between Sol Invictus and Gnon.

              On the other hand, we had a restoration, and it worked. We got science, technology, industrialization, and empire, while avoiding Cominator style bloodshed. And we have a great pile of working and tested social technology in old type Christianity and the Old Testament. I want to revive Old Testament family law and the eighteenth century copybook headings. Let us just do the restoration all over again.

              If the holiness spiral goes all the way to genocide, then maybe it is time for Jimianity.

              Gospel of Alf: “Jim was in a bar trying not very successfully to impress a woman”.

              • alf says:

                Let us just do the restoration all over again.

                If the holiness spiral goes all the way to genocide, then maybe it is time for Jimianity.

                Yeah, yeah… One step at the time. I can get behind that.

                Gospel of Alf: “Jim was in a bar trying not very successfully to impress a woman”.

                Sounds like damn good gospel 😂

        • ten says:

          State paganism was failing, morals were loose, Sol Invictus was a cryptomonotheist repackaging of the old, a distillate of the core direction of the high gods of polytheism – not entirely new, but not traditional. Thus analogous to keeping the good old stuff but in a new big thing, imo.

          My kickback reaction to consciously creating the next big thing comes from two angles, the first being that everyone does this all the time and everyone fails. Thousands of cult leaders, thousands of would be prophets, many of them even truly insightful, courageous and bright. You need a runaway feedback system. The good cult leaders get their followers pussy and children, but its not enough. Grows, flowers, shrivels, gone, in a very localized fashion.

          The other is that this is literal demon summoning. I assume such words don’t really hit home with you – add it to my tally of schizopoast sins. A construction that grows in the mind does not hit gnon, is not a gnon-pruned attachment to the tree of life (scientific method is a hack to ground the mental constructions to logos). Maybe the construct is sound, maybe it is nonsense so can not do any damage or gain any power, or maybe it enables destructive feedback loops, ie supplies a demon with hooks to engage with reality. There is no way of knowing, and such pursuits are satanic (which i mean in descriptive, not prescriptive terms – everyone does it, and it is risky).

          Marxism too was summoned in this way.

          • jim says:

            > The other is that this is literal demon summoning. …

            > Marxism too was summoned in this way.

            A demon, in the conceptual system of the dark enlightenment, is a memetic system that grows at the expense of its adherents, or a part of yourself that is self destructive. Commies killed commies. Progressives fail to reproduce, but progressivism reproduces by stealing other people’s children. Moloch, the type specimen of demons, demanded his followers sacrifice their children. The cult of Moloch gained adherents through armed evangelism, through persuasion and entryism backed by state power, much as progressivism was imposed upon the world.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            @ten

            “State paganism failed because loose morals” is the wrong answer. Cæsar Augustus thought “because loose morals” was the cause, so he imposed the bachelor tax, which spectacularly failed.

            State paganism failed for the same reason modern Christianity failed… they replaced the King god’s companion gods, Mars and Quirinus, with the goddesses Juno and Minerva.

      • alf says:

        We have lots of things going for us. But to be fashionable, we need to be able to slip in under the radar, so to say. Society will throw shit-tests at us, we need to pass those shit-tests.

        For instance, women. Theoretically, we can get the women on our side. It’s easy: women are unhappy, if we can give them a plausible way out, they’ll take it. But when we go up to women and say: ‘Christianity baby!’ their first response will be: ‘what I have to go back into the kitchen?’ Which of course is not what it is, but that is what the mass response will be. And you can explain that that is not what it is, but you’ll already have lost their attention.

        So OK, maybe you’ll say the women will follow power. Maybe. But the same problem goes with men: the intellectual class has received too many anti-Christian memes. The moment you say ‘Christianity bro!’ you’ll have lost their attention. Which was my gut response, which I forestalled for a while as to give this a completely fair chance. But time has passed, and if it can’t even keep my attention, I don’t think it can keep other people’s attention.

        Again I stress: maybe it can work. Who am I to say. But plenty of people will say all this is mighty wishful thinking, and I cannot disagree with them.

        • simplyconnected says:

          We have lots of things going for us. But to be fashionable, we need to be able to slip in under the radar, so to say. Society will throw shit-tests at us, we need to pass those shit-tests.

          We have the sense of humor, we are funny in mocking leftists, that seems to be fashionable. Leftists only seem to get unfunnier. Just as leftism no longer gets you laid, it increasingly isn’t perceived as cool. Just my impression, and it may be different for different generations.

          • yewotm8 says:

            Insulting leftism from the perspective of “lol but that’s not what Jesus said” is not what’s cool, insulting them for being braindead morons is what is cool. I suppose you could mock them for being sterile, and not following God’s will of doing things which are obviously a good idea to anybody with common sense.

            But most of the funny mockery of leftism is pointing out how self-evidently wrong they are by showing the distance between their viewpoint and objective, earthly reality. Or showing how incoherent the whole thing is, and how the different viewpoints contradict each other. You cannot base an entire religion around that, though it could be a large part.

            • Oog en Hand says:

              You do not need an entire religion. It is sufficent to shred the religion of the other.

              If you want sincere faith, use the wager of pascal.

              HELL IS ETERNAL, HELL IS ETERNAL, HELL IS ETERNAL !!!

              • jim says:

                Been demonstrated many times it is not sufficient to shred the religion of the other. To defeat the other needs cohesion. Cohesion needs a synthetic tribe. A tribe needs an ultimate alpha male.

            • jim says:

              Progressivism being out of contact with reality is for them a feature, not a bug. It gives moral authority to them to immanentize the eschaton, which in practice turns into knocking over apple carts to grab the apples.

              To answer progressivism with reality, we need to give moral authority to reality, which is the cult of Gnon.

              A religion is a synthetic tribe. Needs an ultimate alpha male at the top. This makes it a whole lot easier for members of the tribe to conceptualize themselves as fellow members and cooperate with each other.

              • “Needs an ultimate alpha male at the top.”

                And in a sense it is even more important to men than to women. Leading women is not even hard when allowed, but to be a leader of men, damn, that is hard. And yet they want it.

                I seriously dislike the Fascist / Nazi stuff but I have to admit that on this account it worked. It did not work on a zillion other accounts from socialism to generating entirely useless wars that led to their downfall or in the German case waging war on a subset of their own citizens.

                But there is evidence like Italian men, hotel managers not random proles, almost worshipping the old axeface in their private journals, which they never intended to show the state, it was not a roleplay. They just craved to have a leader. They meant it seriously. The problem is that their leader was a bad one, who got them into unwinnable stupid wars.

            • simplyconnected says:

              You cannot base an entire religion around that [mocking leftist humorously], though it could be a large part.

              True. I’m only saying mocking leftists with sharp sense of humor (like channers do) is one way to gain status and lower theirs. Which seems to be working (see for example that leftist chick in Shia LaBeouf’s “he will not divide us” stream wishing she was “on the other side” because “they are so much funnier”).

              As pointed out by Moldbug, 99% of people have the political/religious views of their family or peers. Since the vast majority of people don’t analyze and simply borrow their views, does it matter that it’s old Christian religion or some new evo-psych/game-theory religion?. So long as it’s sane and high status, most people will follow along. The rare ones who do analyze the religion carefully might not mind it too much so long as it’s not effectively a disease (like the current one which hurts your fertility: pretty much the definition of disease).

              • alf says:

                There is in this comment section a thorough and in the short term unfixable misunderstanding on how ‘cool’ and ‘fashion’ works.

                Men are smart. Women are smart. People think about what they believe. Maybe not as much as some of us do, but give them a fair chance and you’ll be surprised.

                The ‘people will follow whatever is high status’ fundamentally misinderstands why something becomes and is high status. To be high status, has to be cool. If it isn’t cool, you are forcing something down people’s throats which they don’t really want and it just won’t work.

                But hey, I’m in no rush to be proven right. I’d much rather be called a materialist in a post-restoration Christian world than fear for my life in a leftist singularity world.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  Men are smart. Women are smart. People think about what they believe.

                  The typical person just has typical intelligence. True, typical people are not dumb.
                  People certainly do think about what they believe, and yet traditionally 99% of people manage to have the same opinions as their peer group (perhaps not so much now that progressivism has become so deranged). People’s opinions in almost 100% of cases borrowed. That doesn’t mean they’re dumb, but who has time and aptitude to construct a philosophy from first principles? Very very few people.

                • alf says:

                  Let them borrow from us. And let us make it as easy as possible for them to borrow from us.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Yeah, I’m going to disagree with you there. The NPC meme is a real thing because it is true. People barely examine their own beliefs, and that becomes very obvious once I start probing. Try it yourself and you will quickly get attacked when the person you are questioning starts to realize the logical contradictions in their previously unexplored beliefs.

                  That goes for both sides, though probably to a lesser extent on the right. Christianity has apologetics, whatever the flaws. Progressivism makes no such attempt, and relies entirely on power and influence to justify itself, yet people still follow it no matter how inconsistent their ideas become.

                • alf says:

                  Well well look who’s the cynic now 😊

                  Try it yourself and you will quickly get attacked

                  Of course I tried that. Tried that for years. Did not work.

                  But the secret is not that people are dumb NPCs, it’s that they are smart enough to defend themselves.

                • The Cominator says:

                  NPCs defend themselves by repeating their idiot NPC scripts and then generally defriending or blocking you.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Thats not cynicism, that just realism. No, they are not smart. Saying everyone is smart is saying that everyone is above average. I lived and worked with smart people, where nearly everyone was +2SD of IQ at least, and I have worked with average people, and the difference in the levels of capability and self reflection was vast. There were even some people who could not even comprehend my ideas when they asked what I thought. Totally unable to process it within the limitations of their intellectual abilities.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  You are overthinking it alf. Something is cool if it gets you laid or gives you power (which gets you laid) or boosts you rank in the pecking order (which gets you laid).

                  For example the link you said was cringe? The purpose of those arguments was probably not logically convincing but show erudite and well spoken people hold these beliefs and so holding them doesn’t mean you have to be confused with a dumb person.

                  It is social signaling all the way down.

                • alf says: