The puritan hypothesis in short

New world order university forum has issued a post criticizing the puritan hypothesis

Their counter theory is that leftism is an efficient, centralized, and competently run conspiracy of evil people who for entirely rational reasons want to rule the world, and that leftism is composed of coherent, well defined, and unchanging beliefs.

Well if that was the case, we are toast.  But I am pretty sure it is not the case.

Observing leftism in action, it is all holiness spirals. Social Justice Warriors continually out left each other and form circular firing squads.   Every few years they find something new to be holy about. There is no consistent and unchanging core of leftism.  One day they love the proletariat the next they hate the rednecks.  One day they love the peasants, the next they liquidate the kulaks.  The only consistent things in anglosphere leftism have been war on marriage and war on Christmas, but other outbreaks of leftism have not had those elements.

Leftism is a thousand points of doctrine, but new points continually get added, and old points reinterpreted, or altogether dropped.  Remember when Obama and Clinton opposed Gay Marriage?  Well you may remember, but somehow very few other people do.

The Bolsheviks were a largely an evil Jewish conspiracy – except that the Jews in question were largely self hating Jews, who proceeded to enthusiastically purge each other until Hitler was able to congratulate the Soviets on having achieved a Judenfrei ruling elite.  The Khmer Rouge were foreign educated intellectuals, who proceeded to murder all the foreign educated intellectuals, then all the intellectuals, then murder most Khmer Rouge members who could count.

When I read up the writings of the proto puritans, the members of the Church of England who were industriously being ever holier – well at first it was conventional Christian holiness.  Very sincere people being very holy.  Suspiciously holy.  Then, by the time the Puritans set off for America,  it was conventional Christian holiness that had turned distinctly pharisaical.  And then by the later Cromwell years, the most holy were pushing standard twentieth century leftism, which so alarmed Cromwell that he cracked down.

Communism is not directly puritan descended, though Marx was influenced by the leftists suppressed by Cromwell, and proceeded to do to Judaism what they had done to Christianity.  Marxist Dialectics is Talmudism transmogrified into left wing politics, and Dialectical Materialism is God’s plan for the Jewish people transmogrified into History’s plan for the Vanguard of Proletariat.  Obviously today’s progressivism is massively influenced by Jews, Communism, and through communism, influenced by Judaism, particularly the recycling and global warming movement.  But Anglosphere leftism are the winners, and anglosphere leftism has organizational continuity going back all the way to the proto Puritan Brownists mentioned by Shakespeare.   Harvard was the state Church of New England.  Harvard conquered America, and then the world. This is an accident of history; there were several other strains of leftism that could have conquered the world.  But they did not.  And here we are.  If you look at the desegregation of the Boston school system, which is where desegregation and affirmative action started biting Northerners, not a Jew in sight.

Communism never had organizational continuity with any Jewish synagogue, whereas leftism does have organizational and institutional continuity with Puritan religious institutions, in particular Harvard, a religious seminary and the central authority of the New England State Church.

If the world was currently ruled by the Soviet Union, then Jew hypothesis would be largely true.  But it is ruled by the US state department, which wants Israel destroyed, so the Jew hypothesis is largely false, and the Puritan hypothesis is true.  There are a lot of Jews in today’s progressivism, but they are all conversos.  They are intermarrying, and if they have any children, which they seldom do, their children seldom identify as Jewish.  If any Jew in Harvard started to wear conspicuously Jewish Orthodox gear, the way the Happy Merchant in the Happy Merchant meme does, the Social Justice Inquisition would be on to him in a flash and he would lose tenure.  George Soros wants whites in Europe genocided, but he wants Jews in Israel genocided even more, even sooner.

Tags:

95 Responses to “The puritan hypothesis in short”

  1. Do-gooders who seek to impose their values on others.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      It’s neither “good” nor “pure” and secularism’s stink is not as off-putting as you or anyone else might think, “Grey”. Get the fire-hoses, then it’s time for the poor house as all determined subversives are made penniless.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Grey.

      Noone is ever not imposing their values, in an absolute sense; thats the ultimately inadequacy of trying to derive solutions on *merely* a formal level (and by extension, the chief infirmity of spergs and autists). The question is not ‘shall values be imposed or not’, the questions are, ‘who shall impose, what shall be imposed’. All matters must inevitably contend with where rubber meets the road, the *object level*.

      The question is not ‘shall we have freedom or not?’, the question is, ‘who shall have what freedoms?’

      The question is not ‘shall we have privilege or not?’, the questions is ‘who shall have what privileges?’

      The question is not ‘shall we be bigoted or not?’, the question is ‘who shall we be bigoted against?’

      The question is not ‘how do we eliminate bias?’, the question is ‘what biases shall we take?’

      Unimaginative spergs wheedle endlessly with ‘formal’ thinking because its simpler and easier to comes to grips with than the object level; nine out of ten problems that exist with humanoid entities’ thinking comes from tricks and desires the brain takes to think less about things.

  2. Steve Johnson says:

    “If the world was currently ruled by the Soviet Union, then Jew hypothesis would be largely true. But it is ruled by the US state department, which wants Israel destroyed, so the Jew hypothesis is largely false, and the Puritan hypothesis is true. There are a lot of Jews in today’s progressivism, but they are all conversos.”

    Progressivism is the end result of memetic evolution for holiness. Lots of progs say random things to out-holy each other and some of them catch on. Those new ideas are then filtered for virulence – how effective is it in putting the speaker on the offense and the listener on the defense. The new ideas that catch on then expand throughout universities then into the press then into government then into big corporations and maybe into law.

    The out-sized influence that Jews have over this process is that they are nepotistic in selecting academics and as a result, are the dominant cultural force there. To make it in academia, you have to assimilate to Jewish progressivism (which, clearly, is not Orthodox Judaism and opposes Orthodox Judaism). The people thinking up the new ideas that advance progressivism are mostly Jews (since they dominate academia) and the filtering process on those ideas is their psychological impact on / appeal to academic progressives – who are mostly Jewish.

    It’s not provable one way or another but it feels to me like a lot of progressivism has the feel of a set of ideas that are (more) comfortable to Jews while being especially destructive to those groups and people whom Jews instinctively hate.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Economics is not legitimate philosophy, Mr Johnson.

    • jim says:

      It’s not provable one way or another but it feels to me like a lot of progressivism has the feel of a set of ideas that are (more) comfortable to Jews while being especially destructive to those groups and people whom Jews instinctively hate.

      Sure, quite true, no doubt about it. Recycling is as Jewish as Bar Mitzvah. Probably more Jewish these days.

      But if you go looking for the Elders of Zion, you will be looking in the wrong place, for the correct place is clearly Harvard.

  3. Alan J. Perrick says:

    It’s a plunge toward libertarianism, which I reject. The concept of a scourge of holiness is one that is obviously used by atheists, to include Vatican-Romans on missions of subversion (Jesuits) in order to undermine a people. If your people are being pointed out as “the bad ones” it doesn’t matter how much coded philisophical language one attacks it with, it’s time to push back.

    The ethnic and globalist interests are the dangerous ones here, and philisophically you may determine something that motivates those, but it shall not be a system that attacks mine. The huge and glaring omission of the importance of herditary power suggests that the construction of such attacks are a deliberate misguiding of legitimate frustrations.

    Heredity, not globalism. That’s what one must remember. Do not let the totalising atheists get you off of that legimitate pillar of society!

    A.J.P.

    • jim says:

      Hereditary power? What are you talking about?

      As for the ethnic interests, George Soros seeks the destruction of Israel even more than he seeks the destruction of the white race. Pretty sure that is not in his ethnic interest.

      Indeed, having an ethnic interest is unholy, and George Soros is holier than thou.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        “Hereditary power” is obviously a very difficult concept to understand…

        • jim says:

          Give some real world examples of hereditary power.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Lay off of the debasing immoralism and you’ll find more allies, “Jim”. Don’t you know that you are in the company, with such a topic for a blogpost, as legitimate heretics who refuse to acknowledge that the Netherlandish monarchy exists, aligned as that institution is with Calvinist churchmanship?

            Honestly, you should come up for air sometimes!

            A.J.P.

            • peppermint says:

              Actual hereditary power is found only in the Kim dynasty of Korea, and when the Kim dynasty falls their country is very likely to change borders, as is usual in actual hereditary power.

            • jim says:

              I don’t censor people for disagreeing with me.

              I don’t censor people for being rude, offensive and nasty.

              I don’t even censor people for lying, except to shut down an unending “Is not! Is too!” thread or for repeating the same lie tediously.

              I do however censor people for being boring and unintelligible. Unless your arguments become more relevant and comprehensible, you are going to get censored.

      • Calvin says:

        “As for the ethnic interests, George Soros seeks the destruction of Israel even more than he seeks the destruction of the white race.”

        Where’s the evidence for that? Any anti-israeli stuff his shekels reach tends to be an afterthought of the main purpose at best, which is always the destruction of the white race. The BLM coons whine impotently about Israel, sure, but they are completely powerless to do anything to it, and useful weapons against white men. Is he some israeli society of dune coons that I’m not aware of?

        • jim says:

          Soros wants open borders for us, and open borders for Israel. And he reasonably active on open borders for Israel. Open borders for Israel will kill the Jews a lot faster than open borders for the US will kill white Americans.

          • Calvin says:

            Got any specifics you can point to? Though I completely believe that a leftist kike would be a thoroughly disloyal piece of crap, most of them tend to make exceptions when it comes to Israel. Where is Soros penning articles encouraging open borders for Israel and funding massive conspiracies to make it so?

            • A Portuguese says:

              I have no idea what he’s talking about.

              I have seen some hate online from diaspora jews towards Soros but only because he moderately funds BDS movements – most of them Jewish-only. Someone has to fund the controlled oposition though.

              Furthermore, the idea that the US State Dept. wants Israel destroyed is to me completely ludicrous and doesn’t conform to observable reality. Zionist jews are all over it.

              As for the URSS they may have had a rulling elite with no jews at some point. But Stalin didn’t resist the doctor’s trial, and the URSS started to colapse in the 80s – coincidentally, when jews started to emigrate and put up a campaign to be able to do so.

              The URSS was a jewish experiment, regardless of what they say. It ended when jews decided to end it.

            • ron says:

              Some make exceptions, but that’s because they have to answer to other family members. When you are living as a minority the smaller family networks take on a larger psychological importance. Even those Jews that manage to latch onto independent networks don’t always totally disassociate.

              Basically, people, even leftists, have some core humanity that can be reached.

              As for Soros trying to undermine Israel, it’s constant. You can start looking at this:

              http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977

              that’s the profile for soros. Open up the search feature on your browser and paste in:

              Soros And The Arab-Israeli Conflict

              that will take you to a sidebar on the left side that lists articles detailing his constant never ending involvement in getting everyone in my country killed.

            • Jew613 says:

              Soros funds The New Israel Fund whose open goal is for a secular state with no Jewish character and open borders. They also have been funding the fight to keep the infiltrators from being expelled.

              • jim says:

                As those who wanted unilateral nuclear disarmament in the cold war wanted Soviet victory, those who want a secular state in a holy war want Muslim victory.

                • Minion says:

                  Secularism however is becoming a state religion (with sacraments like fag marriage). The ones who protest loudly against Islam are themselves liberal degenerates, such as the Dawkins and Milo crowds.

                  In fact, the rise of atheism and fag marriage was due to post 9/11 hostility towards Islam, as Westerners concluded that Christianity is too similar to Islam (eg anti-atheism, anti-faggotry, pro-patriarchy) to reliably be a tool against Islam

          • ron says:

            Thank you Jim.

          • pdimov says:

            Questionable that he hates Israel more than white European countries though.

            https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2tsdwt/jewish_billionaire_george_soros_cancels_funding/

            “Judenfrie”

            It’s Judenrein, BTW.

  4. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Reinforcing laxity of morals is what certain people want to hear, because it removes their pangs of conscience for their deliberate leading of atraditional lifestyles. I wouldn’t convert anyone, but why should anyone stand by idly whilst the history of English religion is used for such a shroud of encouragement?

    • jim says:

      Puritans come to America, and very shortly a woman is speaking in Church. If speaking in Church, not long before they start fucking on the altar.

      Where are you going to draw the line between genuine Christian holiness, and trannies in the girl’s bathroom? Which side of the line do you put the sufragettes, the prohibitionists, the abolitionists?

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Sufragettes, prohibitionists and abolitionists are clearly the agents of Satan, spreading the sulphurous fumes of hell while they use their Bibles as toilet paper. The Puritans got corrupted; but you have to look at the larger society around them that infiltrated and corrupted them. They did the best they could; they were NOT guilty of holiness spiraling; they had things well in hand.

        • jim says:

          Allowing women to speak in Church is not keeping things well in hand.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Source? Found one link that distinguishes Puritans from Pilgrims, but no hard historical sources. Even that link said that the Puritans definitely didn’t allow women to speak in church, although the Pilgrims may have been a bit more lax.

            • jim says:

              Anne Hutchinson

              Eventually they came down on her like a ton of bricks, but her ideas and practices were victorious.

              Trouble is, they convicted her of heresy. She should not have had the opportunity to engage in heresy. She should not have been allowed to lecture men on substantive religious issues in the first place.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                They did come down on her like a ton of bricks, and in a timely fashion too. It can take a couple years for things like this to bubble to the surface and become apparent.

                Her ideas and practices were not victorious because of a holiness spiral. They were the result of the Puritans being outflanked, outmaneuvered and disenfranchised by the King of England. Also they had a flaw in their organization, so they didn’t pass the faith along to their children very effectively. They had a Pentecostal type “experience of Grace” that was essential to membership. Most of the children couldn’t honestly claim it, so eventually they had to find a way to grandfather the children in, but they just didn’t find a way to keep it compelling for the kids. The Jews were more effective with their Passover haggadah.

                • jim says:

                  Her ideas and practices were not victorious because of a holiness spiral.

                  The Church of England had a big problem with heretics, but it did not have any female heretics. If you were female, you just did not get the opportunity to engage in heresy.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Selina Hastings, Countess of Huntingdon. She was a major reason the Methodist schism was able to get off the ground.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                In 1987, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis pardoned Anne Hutchinson, revoking the order of banishment by Governor Winthrop 350 years earlier.

                That sealed his doom; Dukakis would never become president of the USA.

        • peppermint says:

          » puritans not guilty of holiness spiraling

          Puritans went to America because the English government wouldn’t let them oppress each other in England lol

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          What’s wrong with telling people that they can’t breed blacks in captivity anymore, Mr Jones, thereby multiplying their numbers in a close proximity to onesself? Any sane person would do the same thing today, I…

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Denying sex to your extended family members is inhumane and cruel, Mr Alan Perrick. Breeding is a pleasurable and necessary part of life. If you don’t like the presence of Negroes, you can redeem them from their owners and send them elsewhere at your own expense.

            • Alan J. Perrick says:

              That’s not at all the traditional use of the phrase of the words “extended family”, but the point there is that the negroes were at a critical mass in which the population wasn’t a meagre handful that could eventually blend in (300 at most), but a critical mass that would be able to establish itself due to the numbers.

              You also avoided the issue of bringing in more of them.

            • A.B. Prosper says:

              That only works if you preclude new slaves from being brought in.

              • Alan J. Perrick says:

                American Southerners are, by and large, dummies who believe that an exclusively classically liberal state can exist without being in a fluid relationship with classical conservatism.

                The United States rebelled (successfully, I might add) against the Crown because it took at least three months to get orders from London. When the Southern jurisdictions (“states”, in another parlance) rebelled against the federal state in Washington, D.C., it didn’t make sense because orders could get from Washington to the Southern capitals in a mere fraction of the time.

                Because the groundwork was already being laid for (and still does continue toward) an independent classical conservatism in these United States, the Confederate rebellion was unwelcome and subsequently put down, to include victory dances.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          *I’m sure.

          A.J.P.

  5. Chris B says:

    If anyone remains confused as to why I am openly hostile to the Hestia society, I will point them to this post.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Well, they want to get jobs for their ethnicities in the United States, so it makes sense to undermine the white people who have been here historically. It doesn’t make sense for any conscientious white person to support them though, so I agree with you…

      A.J.P.

    • Alf says:

      I don’t see it. NWOU writes critical of neoreaction, Jim points out flaws in their argumentation. Not exactly a condemnation of Hestia society.

  6. Alf says:

    > the Neoreactionaries got cucked by Jew Moldbug.

    Aw man, just when you think you’ve uncucked yourself…

  7. Alraune says:

    The lesson of the 20th century is that Puritans do poorly when cross-pollinated with Jews. The lesson the 19th century is that Puritans do poorly when cross-pollinated with Quakers.

    Hopefully the lesson of the 21st century is that Puritans do excellently on the Moon.

  8. glenfilthie says:

    Moldbug is boring and uninformed?

    Is that goof the kettle or the pot in that one?

    All I know is that if you want to run the world and rule over it, I cannot think of a worse way to do it than through leftism. Those idiots are the King Midas of shit: everything they touch turns to shit. They began the long march through our institutions half a century ago. They even told us before they did it: they would invade the schools, the courts, the media and the gov’t. Today the schools produce stupid snowflakes that can’t think or reason; the courts are hels in contempt with derision, the newspapers can’t sell copy, and the gov’t is on its last legs. You can’t run a country or a society on that.

    Obviously leftism isn’t the endgame here. Are the power brokers behind all this going to fall when the current empire does? Or are they prepared for what comes next?

    • peppermint says:

      Social science, through consensus and terror. Social engineering, though fucking with things and never looking at all the consequences. Social justice.

      Put social before a word to get its opposite. It’s the social Midas touch.

  9. Uriel Alexis says:

    any explanation for puritans military superiority in the last century?

    • jim says:

      In the English civil war, the principle was bring a gun to gunfight, and a live religion to a holy war.

      But in the last century, by which you mean the twentieth century – well of course they were not puritan any longer, they were puritan descended, a puritan derived heresy that was at most unitarian and had ceased to be Christian, cladistically puritan, and their faith is these days like the late Soviet faith, brittle hypocrisy, and the reason for the post puritan victory was wealth and resources of America and the British Empire, and the technological superiority of the British. Thus, for example, the Bismark was sunk by the world’s first aircraft carriers. Britain cracked German codes, Germany could not crack British codes.

      Now technological superiority is no longer something we associate with the anglosphere, but back when we practiced the scientific method, and the Royal society rather than Harvard was the core of power, we had the smartest people in our intellectual elite – which is something I attribute to the last gasp of the restoration, for it was the restoration that gave the scientific method Royal prestige, and the Royal society that enforced practice of the scientific method, making sure that people who claimed to practice it, in fact practiced the scientific method as defined by the Royal Society.

    • Cassander says:

      A lot of self-discipline (for reasons both cultural and genetic), relatively high intelligence, and fortuitous geography. The holiness spiral isn’t good, but it’s not entirely bad.

  10. Jefferson says:

    The inherent contradictions are excessive. The left is a Jewish plot that has taken over the world and completely dominates all comers, yet fighting the Jews is the way to win? A bunch of Jewish communists undermine the Kaiser, so the Germans round up all the Jewish WWI vets, then hunt down all the orthodox Jews in Europe. If the foundational tenet of your religion is that Europeans are better than everyone else, of course you can’t admit that any (non-Jewish) European can possibly be to blame for the death of the West. Spandrell has too many examples of this same thing happening in the far East for it to be exclusive. Humans are wired for religious signaling, and when the structure erodes, spirals happen. This concept is obvious, and we’ll documented.

  11. peppermint says:

    » If the foundational tenet of your religion is that Europeans are better than everyone else, of course you can’t admit that any (non-Jewish) European can possibly be to blame for the death of the West.

    Right, which is why we claim that, prior to The Jewish Century, what was ruining everything was cuckstains acting out the religion, which was a Jew cult leader running around as an itinerant faith healer saving whores and telling layabouts that faith is more important than works, and telling people that they’ll go to Heaven if they believe in him hard enough, which is communism.

    Since then, innumerable cuckstain sects have tried to implement various degrees of communism on Earth citing that theological justification, and when the USA was at its strongest, in the ’50s and ’60s, cuckstains refused to do anything about the subversion, BECAUSE CUCKSTAINS WERE THE SUBVERSIVES.

    Read the first chapter of White Power by Rockwell to find out just how bad his current year was, His current year was worse than ours, because everyone was expected to go along with this ridiculous delusion and no one was allowed to talk about the facts of human nature that we can now point out to progressives.

  12. peppermint says:

    Objections to cuckstainty:

    * Souls prejudice against evolution

    * Souls suggest utilitarianism and oppose nationalism

    * Jesus and Jehovah are kikes (this objection doesn’t apply to Jews)

    * Heaven is communism (therefore cuckstains are socialists)

    Cuckstain architecture is great, but the Black Lives Matter flags from it and the migrants hidden in it aren’t, and if your spiritual hangups prevent you from destroying what is pozzed, perhaps it isn’t helping you be a more virtuous person after all. Read the first chapter of White Power to see what cuckstains were putting up with in he ’60s. Cuckstain works are worth as much as the stain on the carpet a cuck makes while someone else plows hos wife and he feels virtuous because he isn’t the one sinning.

    • Robert says:

      Christian doctrine on the proper role of a Christian in a political organization like a nation state, is sometimes unclear to the casual reader of the Bible, but very clear to the learned man of God. The problem is not with Christian doctrine, the problem is with current American cuckstainty. Your theory is instantly disproven by the existence of nationalist Christians, not by some here and there, who have been the majority of all Christians throughout it’s history. Case in point: Viktor Orban.

      • peppermint says:

        Franco was convinced to betray the country by Opus Dei. He’s not the only nationalist who cucked out due to cuckstainty. Look at Newt Gingrich cucking out on affirmative action.

        We can’t afford to have that happen. Cuckstains out.

        • Robert says:

          I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. My faith does not prevent me from saying “I care about other people’s children, but I care about my children more, because they’re my children.” This can then be extended to family and race. To address you points:

          * We believe that the soul and the body (mind) are two different things, we believe that a body can be corrupt (retarded person, person with no limbs) but the soul is in tact, so we can fully acknowledge differences in biology, even evolution. In fact many Christians believe in what we call evolution in the species not the kind. We don’t believe that men came from Monkeys, but we believe that men can change over time from environmental factors. We believe that dog breeds came from one wolf.

          * We believe that all men have souls and that all men are capable of salvation, but that not all men will be saved. We are told to preach the good news to all the world (utilitarianism), but there is nothing to prevent us from maintaining our household (nationalism), in fact we are instructed to provide for members of our household. If you pick and choose selectively what Jesus says and do not look at the whole history of the Church, going back to Genesis, you will get cuckstianity. There are internal debates constantly about these things among Christians.

          * In the biblical sense, jew is just another word for “chosen people”. After jesus all Christians are jews and “racial jews” who reject Christ are now gentiles. God is not a jew or a gentile, just like a shepherd is not a sheep or a wolf.

          * Heaven is a place where we believe all the earthly sufferings and pain will not exist. The truth is that the bible is not super clear on heaven, but there are verses that lead us to believe that we won’t all have the same rewards and positions in heaven, that there won’t be equality in heaven. Even now we know that the angels in heaven are not all equal.

          Many of the issues come from a desire by Christians to make earth a heavenly kingdom, which it is not, nor will it ever be (well until Christ comes back anyway). Many Christians believe this was the mistake of Judas, he wanted to force Jesus’s hand in taking over Jerusalem, but Judas didn’t understand the difference between the earthly kingdom and the kingdom of heaven, and neither do the Cuckstains.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Very good example of the destructiveness of Vatican-Roman sympathetics in a white society, that’s why you’re known as “Peppermint Papist”… Very well appreciated to get a fully concentrated version of this blogpost, by the way.

      A.J.P.

    • A.B. Prosper says:

      #1 Maybe

      #2 Not true if people bother to read the Old Testament . It heavily pushes nationalism

      #3 Ah no. Jehovah doesn’t have a human bloodline The Jesus one is a wobbler though.

      #4 D Historically though heaven was thought a hierarchy. In any case dead people don’t have or need stuff and economic systems are moot. Its closer to the Communism of Lennon’s Imagine if anything.

  13. […] there is any confusion as to why I maintain such antipathy toward the Hestia Society, this post here is the best explanation […]

  14. Its not either-or. The core conspiracy bent on “occult one-world totalitarianism” utilizes social/psychological dynamics such as holiness spiral.

    And this means, contrary to what you said, that we are not toast. If Trump wins, and purges the core-conspiracy, things may get very much better in a hurry, albeit it will be an interesting series of trials.

    • jim says:

      It is not that there is not a conspiracy. Of course there is a conspiracy. Rather, it is that there are more conspiracies than you can shake a stick at.

      Somewhere there were a bunch of conspirators that said of Bernie Sanders
      Conspirator 1.

      Oh no! He is taking holiness back in the direction of socialism. Again! If he succeeds we are going to wind up like Venezuela or the Pilgrims! What are we going to do?

      Conspirator 2

      I know what we are going to do. Take holiness further in the direction of hating white males.

      Conspirator 1.

      That could get out of hand as well.

      Conspirator 2.

      Oh well, if it gets out of hand then maybe we could go against coffee, sugar and tobacco.

      Conspirator 3.

      I am not sure that coffee drinkers are sufficiently hateful that we can switch from white males to coffee drinkers.

      Conspirator 2.

      Second hand coffee fumes! Allergy to coffee fumes! Coffee stains! Scientific proof that second hand coffee fumes cause brain damage in infants!

      Conspirator 3.

      I don’t think it is that easy. If it is that easy, why don’t we go with coffee right now?

      Conspirator 2.

      We are seeing Venezuela. Have not seen whites genocided yet.

      Conspirator 3.

      South Africa

      Conspirator 2, genuinely outraged and frothing at the mouth in rage.

      They had it coming! Kill the white man! Kill the farmer!

      Which is to say, the conspirators probably think they are using the holiness spiral, but the holiness spiral is using them.

      • Alf says:

        So every conspirator is looking for a rallying point to defect on, but it is not the rallying point that matters, it is the defection that matters. Therefore the rallying point changes but the defection is constant. Therefore evil and madness.

  15. Also the idea the conspiracy is Jewish is misdirection. The most powerful offspring of the Illuminati are Skull and Bones, and they didn’t even allow Jewish members till recently.

    • peppermint says:

      The illuminati was founded by a Jew and has always supported Jew interests.

      Skull and Bones is meaningless. They supply housebroken politicians through the same means as Minister Pigfucker. Those politicians get their orders from the real conspiracy, which is the academia and media consensus, which has been through the 20th century run by Jews but in the 19th century convinced everyone that Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Fredrick Douglass meant the South had to burn.

      Ask the Dhimmicrats, if your candidate is not a crook, how did she earn every penny of her quarter million dollar speaking fees?

      Why does CNN run ads from Northrop Grumman? Are you going to buy anything from Lockheed Martin?

  16. JRM says:

    Interesting discussion. There are a few themes that might need isolation in order to be better understood:

    1. “Their counter theory is that leftism is an efficient, centralized, and competently run conspiracy of evil people who for entirely rational reasons want to rule the world, and that leftism is composed of coherent, well defined, and unchanging beliefs.”

    Something of a straw man argument, eh jim? Especially in that even the Left will cheerfully admit that they are charmingly (and harmlessly doncha know) all to a man on different pages, as endearing and safe as an absent-minded but avuncular figure with a couple of pet theories.

    But then they are intentionally using a weakness (the helter-skelter cultural ADD of Leftists) as an excuse to lull us back to sleep. It may occasionally be like herding cats, but these cats all track to the left. The danger (for them, and sometimes for us) is that the troops keep dragging their Generals into battles, instead of the time-proven other-way-around.

    2. “If the world was currently ruled by the Soviet Union, then Jew hypothesis would be largely true.”

    What I would like to suggest is that we look at the unholy marriage of Communism/Judaism and Liberalism/Puritanism, with possibly even a third tributary as a conglomerate. The Jews (this is documented in “Culture of Critique” far better than I could reprise) were quite effective in infiltrating both established and emerging fields (like Anthropology and Psychiatry), and flavoring them with anti-Nazi, anti-Authoritarian, then increasingly anti-White and anti-Masculinity biases.

    Yet, Puritan-descended High Anglo Culture gave them an exceedingly favorable Petri Dish to work in. It’s a symbiosis.

    3. “George Soros wants whites in Europe genocided, but he wants Jews in Israel genocided even more, even sooner.”

    I am beginning to think Soros may have deep-seated resentments and hatreds for all status-quo establishmentarians. Perhaps he is a true Anarchist? Maybe he just hates everybody?

    I’m no authority on Soros, but he comes up often enough that I’m beginning to think we need a special remedial round-table on him. Even if he does hate Israel, I don’t think we can weigh one man, no matter how fabulously rich, against well-documented general tendencies and policies we can see Jews involved in historically, right up to today. I’ll stand with Prof. Kevin MacDonald on this topic.

    ———————————————————————————-

    Besides the political and social ramifications of classic Puritanism, it is helpful to be familiar with the writings of the suffering faithful, those who history doesn’t know by name. They were perpetually worrying about their unworthy sinning natures, marveling at the great distance between their pitiful and weak selves and the Glorious Creator.

    When I read a modern piece of fluff internet journalism like “how you may be unintentionally raising your baby to be a racist”, I think I see the heritage at work.

    I think we have three separate but overlapping and interacting sources for our modern secular socialism: Puritanism; Communism(Judaism); The French Revolution.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      What happens if lazy atheists are looked at as another reason for secularism? Let’s not forget those who have decided on no investment in pro-social philosophy.

    • jim says:

      Especially in that even the Left will cheerfully admit that they are charmingly (and harmlessly doncha know) all to a man on different pages,

      They are not on different pages, and if some of them are on different pages, they lose tenure, get purged, get murdered by Hillary, etc, until they are all on the same page.

      But the page they are supposed to be on keeps changing, keeping them in a continual state of terror.

      I am beginning to think Soros may have deep-seated resentments and hatreds for all status-quo establishmentarians. Perhaps he is a true Anarchist? Maybe he just hates everybody?

      George Soros is one hundred percent in line with the latest correct thought and would never have been able to attain his current wealth and power if he had ever deviated on anything in the most minute detail.

  17. CanSpeccy says:

    I’m no doubt being incredibly dim-witted and ignorant, but would someone be kind enough to explain why US state department “wants Israel destroyed,” assuming that it does.

    • jim says:

      Evil and madness.

      It is incorrect to model the Cathedral as acting out of rational self interest, or the competent pursuit of well defined goals.

      Israel, like Rhodesia and South Africa, is an apartheid state. The State Department wanted to destroy South Africa and Rhodesia for no sane reason. So does the Israeli supreme court.

  18. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    >George Soros wants whites in Europe genocided, but he wants Jews in Israel genocided even more, even sooner.

    I dont think this is true.

  19. JRM says:

    jim: “They are not on different pages, and if some of them are on different pages, they lose tenure, get purged, get murdered by Hillary, etc, until they are all on the same page.”

    I think the usefulness of the “same page” analogy may be outstripped by the nuance of our arguments here…

    By “not on the same page”, I was analogizing to the Democratic “big tent” of race, gender, Islamophilic and sexual orientation hobbyists and firebrands who all vote Democrat. Different pages, one Leftward stumble, trot, or run; with the party’s Hillarys keeping them more or less together. Their enemies: Christianity (tho they surrendered a while back, and are lurching Leftward as fast as they can); White posterity; Masculine dominance.

    But the potential coming apart at the seams of this Leftist mob is a frequent theme of alt-Right discourse. What we have is a kind of “organized but not always flawlessly choreographed” Leftward movement that has advanced partially through inadequate response from an ambivalent and half-ashamed Right.

  20. JRM says:

    jim: “George Soros is one hundred percent in line with the latest correct thought and would never have been able to attain his current wealth and power if he had ever deviated on anything in the most minute detail.

    jim: “It is incorrect to model the Cathedral as acting out of rational self interest, or the competent pursuit of well defined goals.”

    I feel like there is some open space, perhaps something unresolved, between these two assertions.

    jim, I’m not saying this categorization effort you are undertaking is faulty. On the contrary, I think you have valuable insights to offer on the subject. You are certainly never boring, and usually you are thought-provoking, which is why, I would guess, you are doing this (blogging).

    But the argument between social tendencies and the actions of one (possibly psychotic for all we know) individual is bound to generate some wrinkles. What are social movements but attempts to put like thoughts together in cohesive forms, and suppress contradictions? And what are individuals if not walking collections of contradictions?

    Soros would certainly be instructive for further analysis, but I’m wary of generalizing from him. His feints at anti-Israeli apartheid may be out of some kind of personal grudge as much as ideology…maybe some Israeli intellectuals criticized him at one point and his reaction is being mistaken for pure ideology.

    • Alf says:

      George Soros is a natural leftist and very well attuned to the opinions of the cathedral. In public he is a Philantrophist and Political Activist, in private he seeks power through leftist defection conspiracies (e.g. currency speculation and open borders).

      The problem is that while Soros’ actions have made him a billionaire, he has done so at the cost of an amount of peace and stability. Now imagine millions of little Soros’es running around and you basically have the profit model of the cathedral. This is why it’s fair to say that
      a) the cathedral has no rational long-term self-interest.
      b) Soros is a good cathedral poster child.

      • JRM says:

        Alf wrote: “The problem is that while Soros’ actions have made him a billionaire, he has done so at the cost of an amount of peace and stability. Now imagine millions of little Soros’es running around and you basically have the profit model of the cathedral. This is why it’s fair to say that
        a) the cathedral has no rational long-term self-interest.
        b) Soros is a good cathedral poster child.”

        Very interesting comment. I am trying to understand it a little better. Would a fair analogy be with a colony of termites? They are all acting for their own short-term good, their cumulative effect on their host’s integrity is negative, most of their behavior is hidden from plain sight, and they aren’t guided by anything more meaningful than instinct?

  21. Thales says:

    “We tried to read Moldbug but it was just too boring.”

    Such scholarship!

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Scholarship is secondary to identity, “Thales”, or don’t you know that people have gone to war over religious beliefs? Hmm…

      There are things that aren’t solveable by even a library of paperwork.

      A.J.P.

    • JRM says:

      @ Thales: Imagine being a college student, and being given the assignment to read a book and write a report on it.

      Your report begins: “I was too busy doing fun stuff to read this book (which, frankly, looked boring when I skimmed it)”.

      “But I did take the trouble to ask three or four friends, who had read it previously, what they thought. What follows is my interpretation of their opinions.”

      At least the author was upfront about their research protocol!

    • pdimov says:

      “What Moldbug calls the “holiness spiral”…”

      Moldbug never uses the term.

    • jim says:

      Three billion a year aid to Israel, all of which has to be spent on US military contractors. Reflect that money spent on military contractors tends to be a favor to the contractor, rather than providing useful military assets. So, aid to Israel, or aid to crony capitalists?

      • Cavalier says:

        Plus, it makes Israel dependent on the US, restraining their freedom of action in matters of politics and war. The Israelis were total badasses for half a century, on Wikipedia many of their wars/conflicts having absolutely comical “Israel vs.” belligerent listings, but now they can’t even handle a few unorganized, illiterate Arabs in Gaza.

        Most of that probably isn’t a result of foreign aid, but I bet some of it is.

        • peppermint says:

          When they started their leaders like Einstein thought they would build anarcho-syndicalism from the ground up, needed military defense, and it was cool that Israel was a Jewish state. Then it became clear that communism wouldn’t even work with voluntary communities of Jews, a Jewish state became old hat, and integrating with the global world and leaders like Chompsky found cucking for sand monkeys cool.

          Plus after taking over from the butcher of Sabra and Shatila, Olmert wanted to show how big his balls are by invading Lebanon, but the Israelis had already occupied Lebanon and eventually had to leave, so he had to content himself with breaking a lot of stuff and then handing a moral victory to Hezbollah.

  22. […] offers an absolutely magisterial restatement The Puritan Hypothesis in short. It’s not that short, but it’s short for all it says. Probably the best single place […]

  23. […] A. Donald: The Puritan Hypothesis in short. The last 9 years of neoreactionary thought on the origins of leftism distilled into a single, […]

Leave a Reply for Robert