Defining Restoration and Reaction

Social Matter, without changing its claim to be the blog of the restoration, has gone commie. Having been linking to centrist cuckservatives and pozzed libertarians for some time, is now linking to out and out communists pushing race revolution to implement Maduro style socialism in a brown and universalist world ruled by the international community.

The literal meaning of poz is a reference to the practice of political gays of deliberately infecting themselves with HIV in order to be holier than the next homosexual. Means intentionally becoming HIV positive to get intersectionality points. The metaphorical meaning of poz is the adoption of policies and programs likely to destroy one’s ethnic group, one’s friends, one’s own career, and oneself, as for example a project code of conduct for one’s own project.

So it is time to define the reaction and the restoration. Who is in, who is out:


The reactionary position is that leftism was evil, absurd, and mad in 1820, has been getting more evil, more absurd, and more mad, ever since, and the Restorationist program is that we need to be ruled by Kings.

The central insight of Moldbug was to look at anglosphere movement left starting the clock with the overthrow of Charles the First, rather than starting with the Nazis.

Nazis were and are leftists, just leftists who have been left behind by ninety years of movement further left, so if you start the clock at Nazism, the trend is less obvious, and less obviously headed towards catastrophe, mass murder, and social collapse. Hitler was weak on the women question, turning the clock back to early Weimar or moderate Weimar, rather than pre Weimar, while America and Hollywood from 1939 to 1963, after first wave anglosphere feminism and before second wave anglosphere feminism, was far to the right of Hitler, and far more red pilled that Hitler, whose beta orbiter propensities were notorious. Thus, for example, in the immensely popular show “I love Lucy”, it is frequently implied that Lucy is going to be spanked for her many amusing misdeeds, that domestic discipline is a normal part of a normal and healthy marriage. The plotline of an “I Love Lucy” episode is that Lucy is a naughty girl, who does something naughty, which always turns out badly, implying that women need rule by husbands to keep them from getting into trouble.

If, however, you start the clock at Charles the First, the trend line is clear. Puritans are holier than thou, and Social Justice Warriors are holier than thou. Puritans make war on marriage, the family, and Christmas, and Social Justice Warriors make war on marriage, the family, and Christmas.

The restoration of Charles the Second in 1660 rolls them back and keeps them back for one hundred and sixty years in England. Hence our program of the Restoration.

The left has continuity of organization, personnel, and institutions all the way from the Puritans. Harvard was their theological headquarters, their Rome, once exiled from England by Charles the second. The American Revolution was a bad thing, and the founders were bad people, because it gave the Puritans control of a large part of America, and the War of Northern Aggression a worse thing, the Puritans conquering those states whose state religion was different from their own to impose a single unified state religion, headquartered in Harvard, on all of the United States. The War of Northern Aggression was not fought to make slaves free, nor to impose tariffs on the South, but to erase the Episcopalianism of Charles the Second and to capture the schools and universities for Harvard.

Progressivism is not Judaism, but is Christianity, a Christianity that first became holier than thou, then holier than Jesus, and is now holier than God. The founding fathers were Deists because they were holier than Jesus, and the progressives are holier than God. If you endorse the founding fathers, you endorse leftism. If all men are created equal then our civilization is going to be erased from history, and white people are going to be ethnically cleansed. If all men are created equal, it is totally unfair that not everyone in the world is free to move to America, vote in American elections, and get their share of my stuff. The failure of the founding fathers to torture each other to death for insufficient leftism was an unprincipled exception, and every unprincipled exception gets rolled back by those even more holy.

People adopt evil and insane principles to make themselves each more holy than each other, because proclaiming extravagant principles is easier and more visible than actually conducting oneself well to family, friends, and allies. The principles swiftly become so noble that they have horrifying implications. Those espousing those noble principles refuse to notice or carry out the horrifying and insane implications of those principles. And having successfully grabbed power on the basis of the extreme holiness of those principles, find themselves outflanked on the left by those even holier, who do notice and do carry out, and this holiness spiral has been driving our history since Charles the First. The extermination of white people, the destruction of Western Civilization, and the castration of males are logically implied by the remarkable purity of the Christianity of those seeking jobs in the state religion under Charles the First, which logic they failed to notice at the time, but are now starting to notice.

If you blame men for the misconduct of women, you endorse leftism. Women need to be under male authority in order to flourish and form families, and males need authority over their families to flourish and form families. Women should remain under the authority of their fathers till transferred to the authority of their husbands. If state and society fails to back legitimate male authority over females, you get defect/defect equilibrium, and everyone, male and female, finds it difficult to form families and have children. Cooperate cooperate equilibrium is inconsistent with moment to moment consent to sex. In order to reproduce, men and women have to agree to stick it out for richer for poorer, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, which means that people should be incapable of making sense of the self contradictory thought and phrase “marital rape” – it should be inexpressible and unthinkable.

Progressivism and the enlightenment is a religion, an evil, crazy, ugly, ignorant and stupid religion, worse by far than snake handling, speaking in tongues, young earth creationist Christianity, for that Jesus rose from the dead is unfalsifiable, and it takes a fair bit of thought and work with a crowbar and a sledge hammer to falsify young earth creationism, while anyone can and routinely does falsify that men are created equal. Similarly, speaking in tongues is not nearly as ugly and stupid as modern art, or modern architecture.

The timetable of movement left is as follows:

Holiness struggle for jobs in the state Church under Charles the First. Charles’ bishops come under attack for insufficient holiness. Alliance with with far against near ensues as English holier than thou heretics forget about religious, cultural, ethnic differences to ally with Scots, who dislike Charles the First and his Bishops for completely different reasons. Charles the first fails to crack down on treason, so treason flourishes until it is too late to crack down on it. Loses his head.

Puritans rapidly get ever lefter, with war on Christmas and desecration of marriage. Cromwell takes fright when he sees the levellers, who resemble modern Republican cuckservatives, and the diggers, who resemble modern communist hippies, and cracks down, halting the holiness spiral at levels that are not all that crazy.

Restoration: Charles the Second regains power, institutes a sane Church of England under himself and his Bishops. Exiles the Puritans to America. If you check the genealogies of Puritans, they are all descended from those who fled Charles the Second, not the Mayflower crowd. When someone claims descent from those who came across on the Mayflower, he is actually descended from a relative of those who came across on the Mayflower, which relative stayed in England or returned to England to rule with his fellow Puritans, till he got kicked out by Charles the Second.

Charles the Second does a Deng, instituting the corporate capitalism of the joint stock corporation. We see Ayn Rand’s hero engineer CEO mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor to advance technology and make it widely available appear, which in time gives us the industrial and technological revolution. We also see the East India company formed to begin the conquest of the world. Charles the Second raises the furtive Invisible College to become the Royal Society, making the scientific method high status. With the Royal Society it becomes high status to win arguments by finding evidence and presenting evidence. The scientific, industrial, and technological revolutions get rolling, along with the British empire.

This is the restoration that we talk about. We want Trump or some general to do a Deng, to do a Charles the Second. We need democracy to end so that the mess can be put right. George the Third was on the right side, continuing the sane, sensible, and successful program of Charles the Second. The founding fathers were on the wrong side. Charles the second was Deng Xiaoping. Locke and Jefferson were Trotsky and Lenin, knocking over the apple cart to grab some of the apples.

Things go wrong in England with increasing unwillingness to discipline upper class wives. George the fourth screws the wives of aristocrats, while his wife cuckolds him. In 1820 he attempts to divorce his wife, in the process revealing that he is massively cuckolded, and becomes a figure of ridicule. His divorce is denied, because women are supposedly naturally so pure and virtuous that they can only do bad things because bad men make them do those bad things. The power of Kings ends when George the fourth goes massively public with how badly he has been cuckolded, instead of locking his wife in the tower. When George the Third told Pitt to take a long walk off a short pier, that showed Kings in charge. When the adulterous George the fourth could not divorce his flagrantly adulterous wife, that showed kings absurd.

Immediately British fertility starts falling, and has continue to fall to the present day, because if women are saints, they should rule men. Hence the current condition of marriage.

In 1840, the status of warriors comes under attack, and the British empire starts to be transformed into the anti British empire, as the American empire is the anti American empire, with hostile elites using the empire against their own people.

In 1854 Lord Cardigan, upon receiving suicidally stupid orders, personally led the charge, getting far in front of his men. Ordered to make an attack that was certain to fail with horrifying casualties, he carried out the attack by personally whacking the leading enemy officer, then immediately retreating, before all of his men had arrived, thus complying with orders to the letter, while ensuring that as few of his men as possible got killed by those stupid orders, in the process by exposing himself to more danger than any of his men. For this, he has been ridiculed and condemned ever since. Lord Cardigan, who in obedience to stupid and suicidal orders, led the charge of the light brigade was demonized. The whore Florence nightingale was made into a hero. Camp followers were deemed to be actual soldiers and put in uniform, with the inevitable consequence that proportion of actual soldiers in the military has been falling ever since. The British army, which has about two hundred generals, can now today field only about two hundred actual fighting men.

We are always ruled by priests or warriors, and giving camp followers the uniforms of warriors is a priestly blow at the status of warriors. Harvard is priests, being a theological college founded by Puritans for the purpose of religious rule by the extremely holy. Putting camp followers in uniform is a blow to the status of uniforms, to prevent rule by warriors, as is denigrating men like Lord Cardigan because he demonstrated both his loyalty to both his men and his superior officers when those loyalties came in conflict.

If you learned about men like Lord Cardigan, you would start to think that being ruled by such men, rather than ruled by those that hate us, sounds like a pretty good deal. For this, he has been condemned and ridiculed ever since. If to wear an officer’s uniform, a man had to show loyalty to those above him, display loyalty to those below, and to show courage in battle, you would be inclined to obey the man in an officer’s uniform. And so, the supply of uniforms to camp followers, and officer uniforms to camp follower bureaucrats. But if you can get the same uniforms, same pay, same status, and same honors, without battle or loyalty, who wants to get involved in battle? Hence the current ridiculous condition of the British army. There is no danger of British military takeover, because their officers are as absurd and contemptible as Lord Cardigan is depicted as being.

After World War II the American Empire got the upper hand over the British Empire, with the disastrous result that Harvard got the upper hand over the Royal Society, replacing the scientific method by peer review, by the the theological method of consensus building. It ceases to be high status to win arguments by finding evidence and presenting evidence, and instead becomes high status to win arguments by having one’s argument incorporated into the state religion. Science died then, hence Global Warming and all the rest, and by 1972, the death of science began to afflict one technological field after another. Hence the reproducibility crisis.

The reactionary position is that leftism was evil, absurd, and mad in 1820, has been getting more evil, more absurd, and more mad, ever since, and the Restorationist program is that we need to be ruled by someone like Lord Cardigan.

300 Responses to “Defining Restoration and Reaction”

  1. Roberto says:

    >Social Matter, without changing its claim to be the blog of the restoration, has gone commie.

    TWiR (This Week in Reaction) ceased linking to any of your posts a few months ago. I asked NBS on his ask.fm account what’s the deal with this – he did not respond. Gotta wonder who’s giving orders to those guys.

    • Bane Blumpf says:

      The B stands for brainlet

      • Roberto says:

        Nick Bolshevik Steves used to say: “Jim is always right, even when he is wrong.” So, I believe that someone authoritative told them to disassociate from Jim, and they complied with the order. Presumably, it’s due to Jim’s “unapologetic” position on the dreaded LQ (loli question). What other reason could there be for implicitly disavowing the best blogger ever?

        • John Hunyadi says:

          I always had a mental alarm going off every time I saw Nick B. Steves posting pictures of hot chicks, completely unrelated to whatever he was writing about. Seems to me like something a beta always putting women on a pedestal would do, or someone who just wanted to always distract the reader’s attention.

          So I can’t say I’m surprised if he really sold out.

          • Mike says:

            I’ll admit that he seems to be a bit of a fetishizer with that sort of thing. However, as far as I know he runs a functioning patriarchal household, so I guess I will give him a pass. Also I think he is a smoker, so that probably explains the pics of girls with cigs.

        • Bane Blumpf says:

          Any disagreement between the two, the correct side is obvious.

          Hestia society, certain members of which have literally been cuckolded, are the soyboys of neoreaction. Social Matter acting as neoreaction’s official truth creator is rule by priests. Just listen to Jim on descending the tower. Every point he makes replied to with “Yes, I see your point Jim, but…”.

          There are a few harsh truths that only Jim is wiling to tell, the LQ being the most obvious. Social matter delivers no harsh truths that Jim will not.. At best they bring “nuance” (leftism) to Jim’s insights.

          Jim is clearly the alpha male of the reaction, he is the patriarch even. Jim in charge is rule by the warrior.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            At least attempt to wipe the cum off your chin before you go full-fanboy.

          • peppermint says:

            Bingo.

            Hestia is a gay name, fecal matter is gay as heck as a name, the idea of a communal blog without one guy as the leader is gay. Their whole thing is faggy and socialistic on the face of it. Even Daily Kos is led by Mexican anti-American activist Markos Moolitsas Zoonigger.

          • lalit says:

            Jim is more like a warrior-priest.

            Warriors are quite often dim-wits who are easily manipulated by priests. Priests are quite often cowards who slink back to their burrows when the warrior yells “Enough”.

            Jim’s mentality seems to combine the courage of a warrior (bringing his woman back from the police station, the fire exit situation) and the intelligence of a priest (this blog).

            I wonder if there has ever been a state religion where to become a priest meant that you had to have had combat experience risking one’s life. Jim mentions the Icelandic priests as something similar, but Iceland with such a small population is more a tribe than a state. So the question remains.

            • peppermint says:

              This is a great idea. Make the local reserve officer / guard chief / police chief the priest.

              • lalit says:

                Don’t you think that’s overkill, mate? Isn’t it enough if the priest puts his life at risk in combat against the eney maybe once or two times?

        • Mike says:

          If you actually knew anything at all about Nick, you would realize that he is a massive fanboy of Jim and constantly praised every single one of Jim’s posts he linked to in TWiR. The only reason he stopped is probably because of the editors or some shit, who also are the reason that they removed the comment section on Social Matter. Nick and Jim are entirely in agreement on the “female question”. Just read his ask FM.

          • Roberto says:

            I know perfectly well that Nick agrees with, or at least doesn’t mind, Jim’s edgiest positions on women. That’s why I have proposed here that someone else made the decision to vaporize Jim. I call NBS a “Bolshevik” because he behaves like one, inexplicably shunning the best member of the movement because — so my intuition tells me — some DEAR LEADER within the clique told him to.

            • Mike says:

              Ah ok I can agree with that, some comrade or dear leader at Social Matter probably shut him up (probably Harold, who I think is the main editor).

              I hope Mark Yuray comes back to Social Matter, he generally wrote good stuff but he disappeared as well. He is active on R/Nrx. Not to mention Mark Citadel, who went completely off the grid. To be fair though, I think he is focusing on his spiritual life.

          • peppermint says:

            Closed comment section is a sign of weakness. No comment section is a sign of surrender.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              While this purity spiral is bullshit, I do agree wholeheartedly with this particular sentiment.

              • peppermint says:

                yeah, it’s a purity spiral, socialist Matter wants to be in between trve reaction and mainstream so they have to cuck on certain things, is the pill’s active ingredient sugar?

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I’ve read your comments here. You have all the signs of an intelligent, capable individual, albeit somewhat brittle but that is no crime. What does any concept of the Restoration gain from forcing a bi-annual, virtue signalling competition? Jim is the absolute leading edge in reaction; anyone who denies that is fooling themselves or out of touch. SM has a far wider reach as well as a far more diverse array of coverage precisely because it isn’t a one-man-show. SM also, by design or otherwise, is a tick behind the leading edge. Does SM get it wrong? Of course, but so does Jim (game posts? Seriously?). If there is any kind of leftward entryism it needs to be dragged into the street and shot. This knitting circle, henpeck horseshit has no place amongst men. The cutsie entenders are for liberal cunts with colorful hair and liberal arts degrees. If we are going to whip anyone, let’s do that boomercuck Glenfilthie. I got a carpet and a van, metaphorically speaking of course.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t read Social Matter. This is the first time I have looked at it in a very long time. So my prior is that no one reads Social Matter.

                  What reason do you have to believe that it has “a very broad reach”? Why would anyone of any political persuasion want to read the seven billionth article praising the wisdom of the founders and racial communist revolution? That stuff was old forty years ago. No one reads that kind of stuff except their college professor forces them to read it. Even if someone sincerely believes that stuff, it is like being forced to attend Sunday School.

                • Mack says:

                  >(game posts? Seriously?)
                  >let’s shoot leftists in the streets
                  >wit is for neo-haired feminist activists
                  >liberal arts is still taught anywhere in the Western world
                  >let’s beat up a defenseless old guy, I’ll supply the carpet and the van
                  >metaphorically, of course– wink wink, nudge nudge

                  CIAnigger, you have to go back.

                • Mack says:

                  As a civilization, our fourth-biggest problem is our complete and total lack of liberal arts, right behind a government trending toward genocide, male effeminacy, and female misbehavior, in that order.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Calm your tits, faggot. I’m FBI. CIA is sitting on top of zeroth.

                  Honestly though, you guys need to include some BBJ in your lifting schedule. The constant punching Right is pointless. And don’t conflate a liberal arts degree with the liberal application of artistic inclination.

                  And Glenfilthie deserves every ounce of hate he gets.

                • Mack says:

                  >CIA is sitting on top of zeroth.

                  What is zeroth?

                  >And don’t conflate a liberal arts degree with the liberal application of artistic inclination.
                  >liberal application of artistic inclination

                  Good grief.

                  Liberal arts education (from Latin liberalis “free” and ars “art or principled practice”) can claim to be the oldest programme of higher education in Western history[1]. It has its origin in the attempt to discover first principles – ‘those universal principles which are the condition of the possibility of the existence of anything and everything’.[2] The liberal arts are those subjects or skills that in classical antiquity were considered essential for a free person (liberalis, “worthy of a free person”)[3] to know in order to take an active part in civic life, something that (for ancient Greece) included participating in public debate, defending oneself in court, serving on juries, and most importantly, military service. Grammar, logic, and rhetoric were the core liberal arts (the trivium), while arithmetic, geometry, the theory of music, and astronomy also played a – somewhat lesser – part in education (as the quadrivium).

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

                  Does government employment ever feel like finger painting with retards?

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  >being this new

                • Yara says:

                  If you claim to be paid by the government and then say something stupid people will tend to believe that what you have said is literally true.

                • peppermint says:

                  The guys Vox Day calls fake right are fake right because they cuck on anti-communism claiming that UBI would be fine with only Whites. It’s retarded, but it does get them followers.

                  Vox Day is a prairie nigger and a kooky pan-nationalist.

                  What is Social Matter? Is it cucking on nationalism or economics or what? How does it lead from the mainstream to the truth? That’s something for the editor to decide, if there is one editor instead of a bunch of guys who don’t want responsibility but want to be in an institution.

                  Personally I think anyone who isn’t a zero chill racist like me should at least be able to recognize that socialism never works and Jesus said socialism will never work.

                • I’m disappointed to hear you don’t read us, Jim. By all means, don’t read ME—I just post links. But we really do have some high quality articles from time to time.

                  Last I checked (which was a while ago), I think our Alexa rank was similar yours. But you have by far the more lively comment feed.

                • jim says:

                  Alexa rank is unreliable, massively unreliable for politically incorrect sites. No one reads evil hateful nazi websites, therefore any data that indicates that evil hateful nazis read evil hateful nazi websites is obviously incorrect and must surely be the result of Russian bots, and therefore needs to be corrected by a guesstimated Russian bot factor.

                  Alexa yields results inconsistent with Awstats hit counts, uniques, and page counts, and results that are, taken in relation to each other, improbable and unreasonable.

                  What is your uniques on Awstats?

                  Awstats reports that for 2018 July, https://blog.jim.com:
                  35,052 unique visitors, 96,244 visits, 378,680 pages downloaded, and 975,731 hits.

                • AWStats seems to be an app which I don’t happen to have compiled.

                  Can you not check?

          • Jim’s position on the Woman Question has ALWAYS been considered orthodoxy within Hestia Society.

    • pdimov says:

      I noticed the sudden lack of links too. Couldn’t figure out a reason.

    • I think the last mention of Jim was 2018/04/22.

      part of the problem is mission creep and the difficulty of defining what ‘Reaction’ is. Jim does not have this problem, but I imagine it’s confusing for many. And also the rise of Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro has made this brand of neo-liberal/enlightenment/classical-liberal conservationism intellectually fashionable. There are also many who think that Revolutionary War was a ‘win’ for conservatism and reaction ,when it was the opposite. There is an appeal to turning back the dial to that point, and no further, because monarchs are these big, overbearing evil people who hate liberty.

      • Mike says:

        Ya it is hard to weed out all the authors and opinions to determine exactly who has a legitimate stance on reaction. However poor actual Social Matter articles may be though, I love TWiR. It is really the only way I can get all my “Reactosphere” links easily in one sitting, so I love them for that, even if half the links in it are things I don’t care about or are suspiciously prog.

        Also anyone who hates the “Outer Left” section is being autistic. It is not meant to “give credence” to leftists, its meant to laugh at them. Who the fuck actually believes Nick is endorsing them? He only occasionally comments on something the leftist may have gotten right, and then ridicules everything they got wrong. The only unfortunate thing about it is that the links aren’t archived, so they do steal our shekels.

        • pdimov says:

          Deleting Jim and replacing him with Jacobin does signify a disturbing trend.

          Either of those in isolation is perhaps no big deal, both at once raise suspicions. Could be a (((coincidence))) of course.

      • The Cominator says:

        Lets not compare Ben Shapiro a Nevertrumper Koch brother mouthpiece controlled opposition talking head to anyone good like Jim. The only thing to like about Ben Shapiro is his sister.

        Jordan Peterson otoh (as much as he was intended to be controlled op) is helpful and useful to our side Spandrell is right about him and Vox Day is wrong. He is also pretty openly hardcore on the woman question at this point.

      • pyrrhus says:

        Jordan Peterson came out of nowhere and grabbed a huge amount of attention on his own merits. Little gay Bennie has been promoted endlessly by (((the usual suspects))), but remains an embarrassment who has little real support on the right..

  2. […] Defining Restoration and Reaction […]

  3. Bane Blumpf says:

    If social matter pozzed, Jim must become leader of the Restoration program, must be our Lord Cardian, must hit Social Matter with a big stick and sleep with their underage daughters

  4. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    SM are just unrealistic. It’s the whole Ron Paul / Moldbug spectrum: if we spread the right kind of information, the masses will wake up and ask for their gibs-checks to cease.

    “Become worthy, then accept power” – LOL – just L.O.L.

    No, Jim’s brand of pragmatic idealism is just about the sweet spot.

    Without rehashing the comments around the last two articles TOOOOO much, it’s worth noting that Lord Cardigan wouldn’t ever say “well I’d like to do X but that would violate the NAP” or “well we could do Y but that’d be socialism”.
    No, he does what he wants and we say what we want, and that’s how it should be. One day I’ll be hopping up and down yelling “commie” at him and the next I’ll be joining the “cuck” chorus. He won’t need to care.

  5. Alrenous says:

    It’s curiously mysterious that anyone even noticed that studies no longer replicate. Few should have tried, and those few who tried should have been shouted down.

    • pdimov says:

      Miracles do happen given enough time. 50 years in this case if not more.

    • BC says:

      It’s still covered by crimethink. The few people who point it out never extended it to all science and the people published only talk about medical studies, which have always been unreliable because the medical community has never actually done real science.

      • Yara says:

        Peer review was a great idea, it just doesn’t go far enough; it should mandate that every single scientific experiment, to be considered valid, be replicated by three or more mutually hostile parties. Perhaps some gamification is in order as well: cash, awards, or miscellaneous recognition for successfully shooting down bullshit posing as science.

        “Publish or perish”, too, must die.

        The journals should probably be nationalized.

        • BC says:

          >Peer review was a great idea

          Peer review is about on par with the Poz in the pantheon of great ideas.

          > it just doesn’t go far enough; it should mandate that every single scientific experiment, to be considered valid, be replicated by three or more mutually hostile parties.

          So the system that peer review replaced?

          • Yara says:

            Jim’s Blog is the most progressive publication going.

            • lalit says:

              Great, now reactionaries are playing with the meaning of words. Or you are Trolling someone?

              • Yara says:

                Jim’s Blog takes science, Darwinian evolution, intellectual rigor, free and open debate, the importance of education, the public welfare, affordable healthcare, affordable housing, governmental effectiveness, clean & safe streets, multiculturalism, and diversity, especially diversity of opinion, seriously. Name a progressive plank and I’ll show you how Jim’s Blog makes it not just another cheap political slogan lie.

                • lalit says:

                  But….But…… But progressivism is about diversity in EVERYTHING but Opinion.

                  Sweet Lord, it’s amazing how Lefties capture the meanings of words and associate themselves with it. Progressivism, means in support of progress. Now who would be against that? Amazing how they appropriated that word.

                  Before that they appropriated Liberal. Liberal means chill, easy going, live and let live, who could be against that.

                  The Genius of Lefties is that they get their enemies to use the terminology set up by themselves. If the reaction was a force to be reckoned with, we would be calling Lefties, regressives, religious fanatics, Busybodies whenver referring to them.

                  What a masterpiece of Frame Control and making enemies fall into their frame. Why is evil endowed with Such Genius? *FacePalm*

                • jim says:

                  “The Cathedral” accurately depicts our enemies as the centralized and authoritarian movement that they in fact are.

                  The puritan hypothesis depicts them as the pharisaical holier than thou religious fanatics that they are in fact are, which account is more concisely expressed as “Social Justice Warrior”.

                  All men are supposedly created equal. Observed inequality must, therefore, be the result of “hate”. Evil noticers are supposedly causing the underperformance that they notice. Thus, war on noticing. Since underperformance continues, the punishment of whites and males must be endlessly escalated. Endless escalation of punishment must eventually manifest as ethnic cleansing and genocide.

                  I see white non Jewish social justice warriors getting crazier, as trapped in their own logic, they are reasoning their way to their own destruction. Jewish social justice warriors tend more to evil and less to madness, though, like Scott, male Jews are apt reason their way to self destruction to punish themselves for their maleness, while enthusiastically supporting the destruction of non Jewish whites. So Jews tend to be driven to madness by their maleness, while non Jewish social justice warriors are driven to madness by both their maleness and their whiteness.

                • Yara says:

                  Lalit,

                  I don’t think the “word-capturing” you describe is unique to progress, progressives, or progressivism. I think any clique with a preponderance of state + religious + intellectual power tends to define a subset of political vernacular as naturally as anyone eats, sleeps, or breathes.

                  It’s pretty obvious that “exit” doesn’t work, even in the realm of speech, because if you don’t have any say with regard to the common meaning of your words, it doesn’t matter which words you use: you might escape for a little while, but pretty soon they’ll have chased you down again.

                  So take the words, use them as they were intended to be used, and if someone attempts to engage you in conversation with his own corrupt word-meanings, force him to engage you with your word-meanings and don’t play at all.

                  First we force the Academy to stop preaching Creationism thinly veiled as Darwinism.

                • Yara says:

                  force him to engage you with your word-meanings OR don’t play at all

                  I.e. define the terms of conversation.

                  Sometimes even SocialistMatter gets it right: https://www.socialmatter.net/2018/07/02/express-heartfelt-apology-rolling-stone-journalist-amanda-robb/

                • peppermint says:

                  We can take the word marriage back because they never wanted it except to deny it to us and don’t have any way of keeping it. Same with capitalism and maybe even Christianity in the sense of what is signaled by claiming to be a Christian: Aryan sexual morality, not retarded cuck ideas.

                  Socialism is wholly theirs, as they invented the word.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              Personally i prefer using the term perennialist precisely to avoid this kind of waffling.

              After all, nothing more reliably leads to Real Progress than the Reactionary observation of those Things which are not so availed by the passage of days (or beliefs of beings).

        • Jehu says:

          Most people you meet if you ask them what Peer Review means think it is something like what we in engineering call a TRG (technical review group). In a TRG everything is questioned and validated (show me) at that time. The problem is peer review is nothing of the sort. The only things where peer review vaguely resembles this is in things like intelligence research on the nature side of the house, where political hostility gives one side of the ‘debate’ strict scrutiny. Most of the time peer review is just a shibboleth check and make sure you cited the peer reviewer’s own works.

        • It’s not peer reviews. Rather it’s ‘editor review’ because all articles sent to a journal must go through the editor first, who rejects 90+% of them in some cases.

        • pyrrhus says:

          Peer reviewers rapidly turned into Oath helpers…After all, who has time to actually analyze someone else’s research? Only physicists, who are the last true scientists, perform that kind of unrewarded work.

  6. pdimov says:

    >is now linking to out and out communists

    Which link is that?

    • Brother Jonathan says:

      The latest This Week in Reaction links to Jacobin Magazine (among others), under the heading of “Outer Left.” The context is mostly “lol the communists are owning themselves,” e.g.:

      > Trump is so powerful he is getting communists to openly admit that Alger
      > Hiss was a Soviet spy and the U.S. federal government, particularly the
      > State Department, was riddled with communists and Soviet agents in the
      > 1930s and 1940s. Please, Mr. Trump, I’m not sure I can take all this winning!

      It’s hard to see how this constitutes “going commie,” though in Jim’s defense one might reasonably argue that a restorationist blog should never link to Jacobin or similar communist sites under any circumstances.

    • JGD says:

      There is an entire section called “This Week In The Outer Left”. They link to the Baffler and Jacobin. It’s possible they link to them to make up for the lack of content to link to. This though also points to a problem of that site: content. As noted above, someone said it lacks hard truths. This was not always the case at Social Matter but their last few essays were so mild (we need activist right wing govt, book reviews and feminism + capital’s marriage) that they could have been published with real names. Blog.Jim tier it is not!

      • Roberto says:

        I agree with the “harsh truths” point, though the issue is even bigger than that: there are few individuals right now who produce high-quality, consistently interesting content. If someone like Moldbug — a blue-pilled softie, far from an edgelord — showed up and started frequently writing down the kind of material that makes one marvel at its ingenuity, TWiR wouldn’t have to scrape the bottom of the communist (empty) barrel for links.

        • The Cominator says:

          “If someone like Moldbug — a blue-pilled softie, far from an edgelord”

          Moldbug is hardly a bluepilled softy having been the guy who wrote the original great redpill..

          Hes just more “moderate” being a jewish Brahmin.

          Also from what I recall he wrote nothing about the woman question.

          • StoneMan says:

            As far as I know he wrote hardly anything about women, but he did signal familiarity with the “Red Pill” take on the subject.

            • Mike says:

              Moldbug was the beginning, he was interested in theory and noticing trends, not going for masterful polemics on societal issues like Jim does. Moldbug just was concerned with finding a way to make government work, and pointing out the inconsistencies with our current one. Twas a very theoretical guy, most of the stuff he talked about I don’t think he was sure would or should actually be implemented. Lots and lots of thought experiments involved. Also, I think it is important to remember that Moldbug wrote in an era where the neocons and neolibs were still firmly in charge. The climate he wrote in was different than the climate Jim is writing in.

          • Roberto says:

            >Also from what I recall he wrote nothing about the woman question.

            That’s the point. The WQ is more important than all the other Qs combined. If you got that wrong, everything else you do would be futile.

            If Moldbug cannot say, in however many words: “in our puritan-feminist Anglo-Jewish society (I myself am both Anglo and Jewish, so you can’t accuse me of prejudice!), women are accorded a higher status than men; it is detrimental for civilization, for the family, and for reproduction that women are accorded a higher status than men; in fact, men need to have a higher status than women in order for civilization to prosper in the long-term; therefore, we need to re-institute patriarchy and have the state religion and the state itself back up the authority of fathers and husbands,” if he cannot say *that*, then his meme power just isn’t strong enough.

            Inb4, “Curtis Yarvin cannot say that due to his personal situation,” that is bullshit – once upon a time he was still anonymous and could’ve voiced such a sentiment back then; and also, he actually wrote an anonymous article for Social Matter in 2015, following Bataclan’s Cultural Enrichment. If Moldbug wanted to say, “We need patriarchy,” he could already have said it.

            Verdict: he’s a blue-piller.

            • The Cominator says:

              Moldbug’s best points were on how our current ruling structure and institutions worked (or more accurately did not work) and he was brilliant in describing it. As a formerly bluepilled but very pissed off and cynical conservative I felt like I had seen the face of god reading Moldbug.

              His solutions to the problems were not as good and some of them were just impractical rubbish.

              He didn’t say bluepilled stuff about women, he just avoided the subject. Thats okay, when it comes to the far right spectrum neoreactionaries tend to be (by far) the most hardcore on the woman question.

              I don’t believe we hate should hate or denounce people because they aren’t perfect because nobody is perfect, expecting perfection causes holiness spirals.

              I agree with Jim on most thing and on some restoration of paterfamilias, but I want a more moderate destination then him on paterfamilias. Minor disagreements should not make us enemies.

              Shapiro otoh should be considered an enemy.

              • Roberto says:

                >I don’t believe we hate should hate or denounce people because they aren’t perfect because nobody is perfect, expecting perfection causes holiness spirals.

                Of course, he is not hated and not an enemy, but if you propose sundry outside-the-box solutions for the problems of modern society, and you are edgy enough to support the formal enslavement of low-IQ populations, and edgy enough to write about Kevin MacDonald back when almost nobody wanted to go anywhere near the JQ, and edgy enough to literally resurrect Monarchism as a viable social organization, but then you support Anal Marriage and say nothing at all about the WQ… well, what does that say about you?

      • Mike says:

        You have got to remember though, the majority of people obviously are not reactionary and probably were not reactionary from day one. You have got to have some way to draw them in, and I think we all know that making them go from 0-100 in one sitting probably is not the way to do it. The way i see it, people are so insanely leftist nowadays that an article such as Arthur Gordian’s on Feminism and Labor is NEEDED because people are so blue-pilled that they won’t even believe something that common sense.

        If you think sending everyone to the metaphorical trenches on Jim’s Blog is the right way to introduce people, you are wrong. Philosophical introspection and gentle pushing in the form of Moldbug or Doug Smythe (the Dissenting Sociologist) is always the way to go at first, and their insights still prove valuable later on as you get more and more “based” as well.

        • Jerk in the Box says:

          “Reaction” isn’t an ideology. The word itself is a slur. The concept embodied by the word is the notion that people should own people. The motivation of the slur is that anonymous, remote bureaucracies are more humane masters than actual people.

          Once in plain English, we can ask the relevant questions: forced to choose between extremes, which is better? with historical knowledge and scientific methodology, what must we do to calibrate the optimum balance, as measured by great art, literature, science, wealth, paternity certainty, and interstellar colonization?

    • jim says:

      The links to Jacobin articles.

      • Magaman says:

        The Jacobin linking preceded dumping Jim links but it points to a pivot. Jim calls it a commie pivot and I agree it’s a transformation into the neocon trotsky role. They want approval and by linking to far leftists like Jacobin they want their approval. Any hope they could convert those types is delusional and misunderstands both the left and their own position in this game. Jacobin doesn’t link to them or even recognize them so it’s pathetic. No one knows who is at the controls of Social matter but if they are pivoting this way then the accusation they are rationalists pretending to be right wing looks truer.

        • Obviously, we don’t hope to *convert* actual Jacobins—we want to string them from telegraph poles just like everyone else. Their conversion is not the reason we link them.

  7. javier says:

    I don’t think the founding fathers ever envisioned that blacks and women would be given the vote, and certainly would have built in provisions against it had they foreseen it. Remove the vote from women and blacks and the incentive to buy votes with welfare and feminism ceases, and society dramatically improves. Women get married and obey husbands, men sensibly close the borders, blacks are no longer protected by the state when they wander into the middle of the street or get rapey.

    But type-B, middle-class, normal working people just don’t mobilize for causes on their own; they need a charismatic Type-A leader to tell them what to do. A sufficiently powerful and persuasive leader could probably tell women it is in their best interests not to vote and that blacks should work, and they would love him for it. But women obeying husbands and blacks doing productive work is now utterly unthinkable, and even if by some miracle we could enact these changes, the door would always be open for someone to grab power by enfranchising them again.

    So yes I concur that democracy is bad and will have to go, one way or another.

    • Gilberto Carlos says:

      Yeah, most progressives 5 years ago could have not foresaw child trannies as holier than thou, but that’s what Moloch demands, so, they sacrifice to Moloch.

  8. is it weird that evil mad religionists managed to win so many wars against their supposedly betters? isn’t “good” by definition something that lasts longer?

    • Yara says:

      It isn’t weird at all. Mind-fucking the populace into supporting this or that seismic conflict for psuedoreligious-mystical “blood and soil”-related reasons always produces a superior fighting force compared to, for example, mercenaries. Hitler’s SS are arguably the most successful example of this, given their kamikaze-reminiscent mentality and awesome battlefield performance.

      If the question is why nondenominational Protestants managed to win so much, it’s because they were by far the most industrious and Industrious people. As much as one might like to trace a continuous trend of “leftist decline” over the last four hundred years, just one hundred years ago, well after the Civil War, before the ascension of Franklin “Class Traitor” Roosevelt, the Protestant elite of New York, as immortalized by Emily Post, were still chaperoning their daughters everywhere.

      • Jehu says:

        High trust groups beat the snot out of low trust groups in warfare anytime the odds and technologies are anything remotely resembling equal. Therein lies the Mystery of Holiness. Without enough holiness to inspire high trust in your society, you’re screwed in any conflict with a group that has high trust. With too much ‘holiness’, you’re Pozzed. The trick, and it is a difficult one, is to insist on enough holiness to get the benefits without making ‘holiness’ signalling a way to boost your status, which leads to the spirals Jim speaks of.
        Jesus talks about this explicitly when two of his disciples come to him to ask how they can get the highest status.
        From Mark 9
        But they were silent, for on the way they had been arguing with each other which of them was the greatest. Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the last of all and the servant of all.”

        So what did Jesus tell them? They’d been arguing about who had the highest status. Notice Jesus did NOT tell them they ought to be above such things. No he knew status-monkeys going to status monkey. Instead he told them to afford status to those who served the most. Like the good old boy and his wife that clean the church, or who otherwise help their fellow Christians. This is about the least destructive status competition you can have, resulting mostly in competitive pot lucks and the like. Notice he never said to adopt foreign children or to buy a Toyota Pious or to support illegal infiltrators or the like.

        • Yara says:

          Hitlerism wasn’t just about trust. More than perhaps any other historical figure, he managed to instill a deep, highly territorial, highly martial fanaticism in his men. One can trust one’s compatriots without possessing, collectively or singularly, insane conquistador spirit.

          • The Cominator says:

            Among the most admirable aspect of Hitler’s system was that it preached that the highest ethic was selfless loyalty.

            It did this so well that gentile wives of jewish husbands (unlike modern women who are completely SELFISH) most of whom were probably gold diggers in the Weimar period, stood outside Gestapo headquarters for days during the winter without food and refused to disperse when threatened with machine gun fire until their husbands were released. The loyalty programming in the Reich was apparently so good it overrode both female hypergamy and the self preservation instinct.

            That is one Holocaust story that Neoreactionaries should be very enthusiastic about telling. The Rosenstrasse women should be held up as the ideal wives in the future restoration state. That will subvert the holocaust mythos for anti Cathedral purposes.

    • BC says:

      The Qing dynasty lasted from 1644 to 1912. 268 years. During that period China suffered a massive decline in infastuture, culture, literacy, and tech with the largest declines being experinced in the tailend of Qing rule. Shitty ruling classes can take a long time to totally destroy a civilization, and the greater the civilization at the start and the longer it takes to destroy it.

  9. John Hunyadi says:

    I am not convinced that Deng is the kind of Restorer we should be hoping for. Yeah, he did great with the economy, but…

    Both porn and prostitution are illegal and discouraged in China at the same time, which is a pretty bad thing for law-abiding Chinese men. Women are just as pedestalized as in the West, maybe even more so due to the skewed gender ratio. Some web forums, even unrelated, are censored because free communication presents a risk to the regime. I wouldn’t want to live under a regime so insecure that it needs censorship.

    Putin is a “dictator” and doesn’t need censorship, the people vote for him anyway. Even if Russia may have some censorship, it’s nothing like the Great Firewall, and easily circumvented. Meanwhile, Nazarbayev keeps prostitution legal in Muslim Kazakhstan. Hell, even Erdogan keeps prostitution legal in Muslim Turkey.

    • BC says:

      >Both porn and prostitution are illegal and discouraged in China at the same time, which is a pretty bad thing for law-abiding Chinese men.

      Porn and prostitution are systems of exploitation of men. Both should be discouraged and prostitution being illegal in China seems to be more of a don’t be open about it sort of thing, rather than a hard ban like in the US.

      >Some web forums, even unrelated, are censored because free communication presents a risk to the regime. I wouldn’t want to live under a regime so insecure that it needs censorship.

      You live in a nation that endlessly censors the public. You’re just less aware of it because the west is less honest about it.

    • Roberto says:

      Great comment. Unlike BASED Russia which actually allows men to be masculine and women to be feminine, China literally executes men for “rape,” including “statutory rape,” as a policy.

      Rule-by-CIA in the Anglo-Judeo Empire is a tad bit less insane than that.

      • Mack says:

        The downside to being a secret state in a country full of people who think they still live in a democracy is that it’s hard to just execute people without questions being asked. People don’t understand how close a thing 9/11 was– it could have easily gone the other way– people were openly asking questions and talking about explosions for weeks afterwards, and Wikipedia was not successfully full converged until sometime during or after Operation Desert Storm.

        On the bright side, Mr. Trump seems to be doing an excellent job of whipping a certain class of people into a frenzy about the depredations of the Central News Network.

      • peppermint says:

        Justinian also had the death penalty for rape. As for statutory rape, 13 ad under is ovenworthy, most men have a big problem with men poaching 14-18, 19+ you better be eligible for a shotgun marriage.

        Someone needs to enforce the rule that you need to be introduced to a lady by her family before you start with her, or doing things right is cucking.

        Can you imagine how much nicer everything would be if a man had to meet a woman’s guardian at least before doing condom sex on her?

        • TBeholder says:

          Someone needs to enforce the rule that you need to be introduced to a lady by her family before you start with her

          While a good idea, it was an enforceable rule rather than a general guideline mostly in caves… and then in the golden age of unicorns. ;]

          Can you imagine how much nicer everything would be if a man had to meet a woman’s guardian at least before doing condom sex on her?

          Hintjens described the instinctual “vetting” behavior of in-laws as an adaptation allowing to weed out prospective mates harmful for the extended family. Seems right.
          Also, works both ways.

    • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

      “Porn and Prostitution illegal and discouraged in China”

      You guys literally sound like cathedralites talking about how great Wakanda was. Have you ever done even one google search to verify what you think? Every Chinese hotel room gets a bunch of cards with numbers slipped under the door at night.

      https://twitter.com/PaulBanks84/status/1025007597244612609

      Literally everybody in the world gives men a better deal than ball busting puritan Anglo land.

      • Roberto says:

        How are we supposed to know what’s *really* going on in China? The Cathedral, in all fairness, broadcasts its memes globally; the Mandarinate meanwhile is inscrutable n’ sheeeeit.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          Just use common sense. Obviously the Puritan infection is weaker in the areas briefly conquered and breaking away from the Anglo empire than the heart of the empire itself. Chinese girls do not behave well but Anglo countries definitely take the cake in terms of feminism. Relative divorce rates are a pretty good proxy if you don’t have a better one.

          • Roberto says:

            Marxism was a Jewish meme, taken very seriously and applied very extremely by the Han. Knowing that China has the death penalty for “rape,” might indicate that Anglo Puritanism is now taken seriously and applied extremely by the Han.

          • Roberto says:

            Btw, the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom was more Puritanical than modern America – it literally made sex illegal. Go figure.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              Marxism was imposed on China by the Anglos both by giving the bandits weapons through their pets, the Skype Union, and through imposing an arms blockade on the Chiang Kai-shek regime, which pretty much was an act of war. Prior to that the CCP was about to flee across the Sino-Soviet border. Even so, after Mao died, there was immediately a right wing coup and today China is more capitalist than the west, as Jim has also documented.

              Anyways this is a digression from our previous topic. Hans are definitely very degenerate and feminist compared to Ming loyalists, but saying they are as puritan as the west is a huge stretch. Again, just look at the relative divorce and single motherhood rates. Chinese girls at least try to larp as virgins.

              Taipings were inspired by Christianity and massacred to the last man. What’s your point?

              • Roberto says:

                The point is that memes from the West — Christianity, Puritanism, Communism, Feminism — can spread like wildfire among high-competence non-Western populations such as the Chinese, the Koreans, and the Japanese, who may even “out-do” those who came up with those memes in the first place.

                Per Moldbug, Communism is as American as apple pie, and *therefore* brought greater devastation to Russia and China than to America. The Taiping example proves that it’s not just economic leftism, but sexual leftism too, that might be insaner in China than in the Anglosphere. I say “might” because I don’t really know.

                Eruptions of Puritanism occur among all peoples.

                Second Temple Jews had the proto-Christian Essenes, who prohibited sex, and consequently disappeared; the Quakers produced the frothing-at-the-mouth barking-mad Shakers, who prohibited sex, and consequently disappeared (they have literally 2 members today); the Russian Orthodox produced the heretical Skoptsy who cut off their own genitals and breasts – and thankfully disappeared.

                Christian Taipings prove that lunatic Puritanism, that extreme sexual leftism, can strike the Chinese, too.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              Also rape outside of the west does not include “marital rape” and hookup regret, so the implications are completely different

            • jim says:

              Taiping Heavenly Kingdom was protestant Christianity with weirdly chinese characteristics.

  10. Thrasymachus says:

    “Nazis are socialists so there!” is so Jonah Goldberg. So “reactionaries” aren’t all that woke dudes.

    The past cannot be revived. The past is the past, and it is dead and gone. The modern world has arrived and must be accounted for. Any sane ideology will try to preserve the best of the past while looking to the future. National Socialism is the best so far.

    Balzac noted that northern European women had more freedom than southern European women. This is not feminine, but sane division of sexual labor. The women need to be able to run things at home while the men are out fighting and doing men stuff. Locking up the women Med style does not work for us. We trust our women because they are trustworthy.

    A fake Christianity that no one believes in is just dumb. Just stick with natural law, which gives you 95% of Christianity and let people work out the rest for themselves.

    • Roberto says:

      Everything wrong with the alt-right in one comment.

      Also: your weltanschauung glows in the dark.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      What exactly do the Nazis propose that is good, useful and sane that reactionaries don’t? If it is the JQ, I’m not sure why you think discriminatory legislation and segregation (or as the pre-moderns called them ghettos) or expulsion are poor answers.

    • The Cominator says:

      “We trust our women because they are trustworthy.”

      Women in modern society anyway are not trustworthy, I’m not even talking in the sexual fidelity sense I mean for most of them the idea that they keep their word is like a foreign concept.

      I’ve known literally two trustworthy women in my life and one of them changed for the worse and became a typical New England bitch after falling in with a female friend group (after resisting being part of any female friend groups for years) but she WAS genuinely a real NAWALT unicorn of trustworthiness for years and years before changing…

      Can women be trustworthy… maybe if the society insists honesty and trustworthiness are virtues to conform too but not in modern America which has the progressive religion which insists that everyone lie about many many issues and that women should follow their impulses.

      I disagree with “Purdah” too but not because I think women are trustworthy but because I think looking at the Arab world it causes a whole set of different problems. I like the East Asian model for how women are treated.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      I’m not going to counter-signal national socialism, national bolshevism or anything else.

      You’re wrong about natural rights though. If you’d lived under Hitler, you had the rights that the Fuhrer granted you, as well as some surprising ones you thought you’d lost forever, such as the ability to go out without seeing trannies and gypsies everywhere.
      What you most certainly did not have though was any ‘natural’ rights. That stuff’s pure Enlightenment tommyrot.

    • jim says:

      National socialism failed economically. They not only starved the Jews, they starved their fellow National Socialists, the Greeks.

      Nazism rapidly ran out of other people’s money and developed the symptoms that Venezuela is now showing.

      Socialism fails, and it fails in the same way ever time. It fails for the reasons explained by Hayek and Mises, and colorfully dramatized by Ayn Rand, and it tends to evil for the reasons colorfully dramatized by Ayn Rand.

      • Thrasymachus says:

        The idea that National Socialism failed economically is also Jonah Goldberg. It had an fast recovery from the depression and a strong economy until total war was declared by YKW on Wall Street, the City and Moscow.

        • Michael Rothblatt says:

          Who cares about Jonah Goldberg? German nobility hated National Socialism, hated Hitler and attempted to assassinate him numerous times. We can also listen to the Nazis themselves about who their enemies are, as “The Flag on High” sings:
          “Comrades shot by the Red Front and reactionaries March in spirit within our ranks”
          obviously marking both the Red Front and reactionaries as the enemy.

    • Yara says:

      >We trust our women because they are trustworthy.

      Welcome, newfriend. Enjoy your stay.

  11. anotherpoorlythoughouthandle says:

    The problem started when the closed down the comments section at Social Matter. Moderating and censoring comments is not only acceptable, but necessary. When you close down the comments it shows that you hate your audience.

    • The Cominator says:

      Yes closing down comment sections is always a really bad sign.

      Cathedral publications started doing it because people would read the comments and realize that they weren’t alone in hating the cathedral press. Its a very ominous sign when a supposedly non Cathedral right wing publication does it.

      • Mike says:

        I thought reaction doesn’t believe in free speech? Hahaha I was a bit weirded out by it too, it sounded like they had been deleting massive amounts of troll comments though.

        • Roberto says:

          Reaction, as Jim conceives it, believes in having a sane state religion, and in the liberty to say anything and everything that doesn’t clearly contradict the state religion; a “sane state religion” means a religion that doesn’t require its subjects to tell falsified lies and believe in falsified lies, in other words, it needs to be a religion that makes positive claims about the metaphysical world rather than positive claims about the physical one, and/or any claim it makes about the physical world needs to be unfalsifiable.

          All things that *can* be proved empirically, need to be allowed to be spoken, as per the Royal Society.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          The Chinese government allows a wide variety of speech, excluding those who seek to organize, but permitting most of the rest. They do this to understand the mood of the populace. Having a finger on the pulse of more that just the top NRxers is a good idea if you ever want to actually rule. Have to understand people, after all.

        • jim says:

          I censor infrequently but openly. Why should I knock back free content?

    • TBeholder says:

      Not necessarily — being spammed to death and not having competence/manpower to fight it off, or…
      But yeah. It’s curious.
      Oh, and the caveat:
      https://www.socialmatter.net/2014/09/17/universal-basic-income-probably-isnt-egalitarian/

      • anotherpoorlythoughouthandle says:

        Just set your website up so that comments must be approved and it takes a certain number of approved comments before a handle can comment freely. Simple, done.

      • jim says:

        Spam really is not a hard problem. What is a hard problem is trying to falsify the mood of the commenters. Whosoever has a problem with “spam” or “trolls” or “russian bots” is trying to gaslight you by telling you that everyone agrees with X, and you must be evil and crazy for disagreeing with X.

  12. Herodian says:

    I smelled something fishy when Myth20C guys suddenly moved to Thermidor.

    • Ioannes Barbarus says:

      Myth20C is barely even alt-right – far, far worse than Social Matter. They can’t get through a single podcast without boomer rhetoric about the gubmint violating their mandate from the people, and not being a real democracy. A long time ago a comment said the podcast didn’t seem very reactionary, and the host’s response was a limp “how can we do better?”

      • The Cominator says:

        Of course the government is not a real Democracy (well they even call themselves a Republic but its not even that). A real Democracy requires very very high Aasabiyyah across the electorate. Democracy is only for tiny homogeneous states that have this.

        Otherwise the government is ALWAYS either an Oligarchy or a Monarchy/Dictatorship. Democracy is about the illusion of consent, occasionally the oligarchy is interrupted by a storm of popular rage (Trump getting elected) but otherwise they just don’t exist outside of Switzerland.

  13. glosoli says:

    A question for you all, and I’d be very grateful if all of you would seriously consider it and provide a brief (or lengthy) answer, as it will help us all to define the sort of Reaction we seek:

    Jim wrote>’I support bilateral free trade agreements supported by the threat and actuality of trade wars ‘

    Jehovah says> http://www.giveshare.org/BibleLaw/lawhandbook/11.html

    ‘While fair and peaceable interrelations between nations were the norm, God had prohibited any interaction, trade, aid or treaties to be conducted with ungodly nations.’

    ‘Alliances and covenants (treaties) with pagan or ungodly nations are forbidden. Exod. 23:32; Exod. 34:12-16; Deut. 7:2-4; Judges 2:2-3; Ezra 9:12; Psa. 106:34-36.
    Covenants with pagan or ungodly nations leads to idolatry and adoption of pagan ways. Exod. 34:12-16; Deut. 7:2-4.
    Do not to follow the ways of other nations. Deut. 12:29-30.
    A treaty of peace, agreeing to do no harm to another friendly nation, can be enacted. Gen. 21:22-32; Gen. 26:28-31.
    Alliances made with wicked nations will not be fruitful. 2 Chron. 20:35-37.’

    So Jim is basically a free trade guy. That means freedom of movement of labour too of course, labour being a key trading asset. So open borders basically. This is a view I find repellent.

    Jehovah has a different view, that you should NOT deal with evil nations, only with other Christian nations, but you can have a non-aggression pact with anyone.

    Considering the entirely negative impact on trade (to the Brits and to the Americans) over the centuries, do you think our reaction should continue to embrace free trade.

    Personally, I think it’s pozzed, and proven to be a disaster, so it’s sure a puzzle why Jim embraces it.

    Separately, you guys choose as your reactionary visionary a fucking Jew!
    Those guys detest Christ, and seek to destroy God’s Kingdom on earth.
    They also seek your literal slavery, via debt.

    So a second very serious question, why do you cuck to a Jew, who wants you to have a King that his fellow Jews can tempt to sell out for their gold?

    That’s all I have to say for now, other than to note Jim took us off the debate he was losing on the negative influence of the (((financiers and big business))) rather quickly I see.

    • The Cominator says:

      “Jehovah has a different view, that you should NOT deal with evil nations, only with other Christian nations, but you can have a non-aggression pact with anyone.”

      This is Wilsonian progressive utopian crap and Trump ran very much against this stupid idealistic nonsense Foreign policy should be cold blooded.

      • glosoli says:

        First response, thanks.

        You consider God’s laws to be ‘stupid idealistic nonsense’ and prefer the Trump approach, which you (for reasons unknown) think is cold-blooded.

        Personally, I think the cold-blooded approach is to steer well clear of dealing with evil nations, as they tend to fuck you over, as Britain has seen all through its wonderful experience in the EU. But you’re for that set-up, thanks for replying.

        I gather you’re not a Christian then, some sort of Pagan maybe, or a Muslim perhaps, or, surely not, a Jew?

        • The Cominator says:

          When you bring morality into foreign policy it is ALWAYS stupid idealistic nonsense.

          I regard Trump as the should be monarch and emperor ordained by God which as a Christian you have an obligation to obey unless he orders you to commit a terrible sin.

          • glosoli says:

            OK, you think you’re MUCH wiser than God, despite the evidence of the past c. 300 years of Britain and America getting shafted by trade.

            You like Trump (whose daughter disavowed Christ to marry a Jew), and you think I, as a Christian, should ignore Jehovah’s wisdom on the matter (i.e. I should disobey my God to make some extra shekels).

            You are a Jew right, have to be?

            • The Cominator says:

              Morality and foreign policy don’t mix because even if God has universal morality man does not, ancient Israel was terrible at following Old Testament law as the Old Testament itself attests. If the ancient Israel can’t then we cannot.

              Our current elites other then Trump are evil (Trump may be amoral but not actively evil) thus having morality as a component of foreign policy will generally mean we don’t deal with good nations (like Putin’s Russia) and deal with evil nation’s (like Sweden).

              • glosoli says:

                Ok, you’ve made your point, anti-God, defensive of the Israelites, no answer to my JQ.

                I get the gist, I consider you my enemy and the enemy of Jehovah, and the enemy of a worthwhile reaction against the left.

                • Roberto says:

                  I’d be willing to believe that God actually revealed Himself to you, but your maniacal aggression against random commenters here suggests that you’re just a nutter.

                • glosoli says:

                  No aggression, just my view.

                  Will you answer the question I posed please, I’m genuinely interested in where people stand.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Not a jew (Irish and Kraut) though I’ve been accused of it before elsewhere but not for supporting Trump or being a foreign policy realist.

    • StoneMan says:

      Trade is typically good for the people when exporting and typically bad for the people when importing. The sovereign may choose to trade, not to trade, to trade with tariffs, to trade without tariffs as he sees fit. Likewise with “freedom of movement” of labor. Trade isn’t an ideological question reactionaries lose sleep over, it’s a question of a particular policy for a particular nation at a particular time. It’s just a detail.

      “Jim is basically a free trade guy. That means freedom of movement of labour too of course… So open borders basically.”
      Don’t bear false witness against thy neighbor, Glos. You and I both know damn well that Jim isn’t for open borders.

      • glosoli says:

        Ok, so we have two in favour of some man (a sovereign) deciding who and what he trades with, and against the wisdom of God (despite all the evidence of the past 300 years). Interesting.

        Would you mind also declaring if you have any religious faith at all, and if so, who do your worship and obey? Thanks.

        I’m no Vox Day fan, but he did prove that if you state you’re for ‘free trade’ that has to include labour, otherwise you need to re-state what trade you would choose to restrict. No false witness.

        • StoneMan says:

          “Against the wisdom of God”
          I think that the many links to biblical passages you provide should be taken into consideration when the hierarchical state church is advising the sovereign on spiritual matters relating to statecraft. Ultimately Glos it isn’t possible for the Bible to give clear and specific answers to every particular question that arises in the process of governance, therefore ultimately you are relying upon interpreters. The King should be relying upon religious interpreters whose religious authority is clear, whose rank and station is clear, whose interpretation is orthodox and whose power is explicitly of a qualitatively different, parallel order from the power wielded by the king.

          I was raised as a Protestant and I am in the process of converting to Catholicism. I find the arguments for Catholicism more compelling, though frankly I would take any Christian church which is Hierarchical and Patriarchal. Catholicism is as close as I can get, being the least pozzed of all hierarchical churches. Perhaps I will have to wait for Christ’s return.

          Basically Glos, when you say “These are God’s laws and they should be our laws” I’m going to argue with you. If you were to say “These are God’s laws according to (insert hierarchical Christian church here) and they should be made the state church come the Restoration” I would say “Great, I hope the sovereign considers your suggestion”.

          • The Cominator says:

            “I was raised as a Protestant and I am in the process of converting to Catholicism.”

            WHY???

            The proper NRx high church is Orthodox not Catholic. Catholicism puts a priest above every king and a highly subversive clergy with international allegiance in every nation.

            Orthodox is better.

            • StoneMan says:

              I’m listening. I respect the Orthodox church, having attended one as a young man when living abroad. Care to make the case?

              • The Cominator says:

                Lets start with secular reasons. The Vatican is just a 3rd world lobby for open borders and has been for a long time. The powers that the Pope claimed at the time of Gregory did not exist at the founding of the Church. If the Bishop of Rome had claimed such powers during the time of Constantine most likely Constantine would either have him burned alived or locked up as a madman. Furthermore the Pope all but claims to speak for God personally, something that is not delegated in the bible at all.

                Francis is NOT a negative force for reaction, on the contrary by being so OPENLY shitlib (whereas his predecessors supported shitlib immigration policy while talking conservative on some issues) hes destroyed Vatican influence among bluepilled Catholic conservatives.

                Now in more theological terms… Orthodoxy is more true to ancient Christianity and more suitable for a monarchy. If you believe in Sola Scriptura then some kind of Protestantism is better. If you believe in a succession of bishops governed according to rules more in line with Christianity as it existed in ancient times Orthodoxy is better. Catholicism is blasphemous in both cases.

                • StoneMan says:

                  I will meditate on this. Unfortunately there is no Orthodox church in my town. Obviously not a major consideration in spiritual matters but an inconvenience to be sure.

                • Mike in Boston says:

                  I am a poor quality Orthodox and have no excuse to speak on this; but The Cominator is right about Orthodoxy being congruent with reality as ably explicated by Jim. On the question of warrior-priests, see the Orthodox bishop-princes of Montenegro, who kept their country free from the Turks. On holiness spirals, reflect on the fact that the Orthodox stereotype of holiness is the hermit who lives in celibacy and absolute poverty; contrast that sort of “skin in the game” (as Nassim Nicholas Taleb– an Orthodox!– puts it) with the modern leftists whose holiness signaling gets him a comfy, renumerative gig in the Establishment media.

                  Where our host’s common sense might part ways, I surmise, with the teachings of the church is that, in the end, Christ declared that His kingdom is not of this world; while this blog, for all its truth-telling, focuses on this world. I’m not sure, though would be pleased to be proven wrong, that Reaction admits of Saint Ignatius admonishing his fellow believers to allow him to be torn by the wild beasts, as long as he attains to Christ. But ‘this is a hard saying; who can hear it?” As far as the matters of this world are concerned, I am grateful for the level-headed empiricism to be found here. Solzhenitsyn admonishes us to “Live not by lies”, and Reaction is empirically true as far as it goes, while the Establishment counter-narrative is just wishful-thinking denial of reality.

                • jim says:

                  That Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world does not mean that the Church has no earthly mission. It means no more earthly priest-Kings like Simon Maccabee or Melchizedek

                  It means that the earthly mission of the Church, and the earthly authority of the Church, is separate from that of the Sovereign after the pattern of the Chrismation of Solomon.

                • TBeholder says:

                  and the earthly authority of the Church, is separate from that of the Sovereign after the pattern of the Chrismation of Solomon.

                  Or, it’s the priest’s job to tell his monarch what is right, not what to do.
                  It rather curiously worked with Ivan IV, who admitted himself he is prone to vices, but in the end was fairly popular most of the time in life and was remembered as a good monarch later.

                • Koanic says:

                  > It means no more earthly priest-Kings like Simon Maccabee or Melchizedek

                  While your statement is a nice turn of phrase and arguably true, it is not what Jesus meant. He meant he did not intend to rule from Jerusalem until his second coming.

              • Nikolai says:

                I was in a similar position to you about a year ago and I ended up joining the Catholic Church. No church is perfect and many criticisms of the RCC are completely merited. The Clergy are fervently pro-open borders and lately I’ve been getting e-mails from them asking me to sign petitions urging Congress to vote for whatever lefty immigration bill is on the floor that week.

                The laity are mostly Rubio-tier cuckservatives. They will talk a lot about the writings of the Apostles and medieval Saints, but will look at you funny if you endorse a policy to the right of the 1950s popular opinion. If you have a gf and you openly treat her in a patriarchal fashion, your parish “friends” will go behind your back and beg her to break up with you. If she refuses they’ll tell the parish priest that you’re abusing her and he’ll call you into his office and to yell at you for an hour while threatening you with imprisonment. (Not an exaggeration, this all actually happened to me).

                All that said, I don’t regret joining the Church. I was an atheist and regular Mass attendance eventually turned me to a believer. Spiritually speaking, it’s immensely fulfilling. I have great respect for the Orthodox Tradition, but I think the Roman Rite is the best way for a western man to get in touch with Christ. Though I’m Eastern European and I spent some time in an Orthodox parish, I just found Catholicism more appealing. I’m not sure one could ever really feel at home in an Orthodox Church if one isn’t part of a traditionally Orthodox ethnic group.

                The Catholic problem of flawed men in high positions is not really an argument against the Church’s structure any more than Caligula and Stalin are arguments against monarchy. Every system has failure modes, but some systems (democracy, low church prots) rarely ever have success modes. I’m 99% sure if the elites stopped pushing globohomo, the Church would go back to preaching Christianity instead of the virtues of modernity.

                But in the end, I recommend you try out both Catholicism and Orthodoxy (don’t mess with that prot nonsense) and try to discern which way God is calling you.

                • jim says:

                  > I’m 99% sure if the elites stopped pushing globohomo, the Church would go back to preaching Christianity instead of the virtues of modernity.

                  Yes, but right now, it is preaching globohomo poz

                  And in the eleventh century, it retreated before Romance, making female consent to marriage mandatory (a prescription widely ignored until the nineteenth century) And we have the horrifying unsuccessful priestly celibacy holiness spiral.

                  Seems to me that the Roman Catholic Church only functioned well when the Holy Roman Emperor was strong. When his grip weakened, the Church went after the goodies.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It saddens me to say this, but it seems the church is dead.

                  When democracy gave people the illusion of a right to a say in how they were governed, even the most evil liberal had no idea this feeling of empowerment would spread to all domains of life, but it did.

                  We’re now all experts in aesthetics, theology and a million other matters we’re totally incapable of judging.

                  The church is as dead as western art.

                  Until the second coming, it’s time to grieve.

                • Nikolai says:

                  I must say, I’ve never heard of the Church going feminist in the 11th century. Are there any events from that time period comparable to King George’s failure to divorce Queen Caroline?

                  Carlylean Restorationist you shouldn’t blackpill too hard. Yes the situation is bad, unprecedentedly bad, but I hold out hope that Trump will win out over the elites and we’ll finally have a Throne to keep the Altar in check. Defeat is not inevitable, that’s just what they want you to think.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  11th century feminism is a reference to the stuff described her

                  https://alrenous.blogspot.com/2017/10/ancien-feminism-courtly-love.html

          • glosoli says:

            >These are God’s laws and they should be our laws” I’m going to argue with you.

            Let’s be men about this. You’re not arguing with me dude, you’re arguing with Jehovah, who told us to use His laws and not to add or subtract from them. So, as with CR, you’re very much a #fakeChristian.

            I’m not interested in touching on the Catholic thing in this thread, it’s too easy to tear it to shreds really. Perhaps you should hang fire on converting for a year or so, and you can join my church and we’ll build a new hierarchy and a reaction worth having.

            >they should be made the state church come the Restoration” I would say “Great, I hope the sovereign considers your suggestion”.

            You place the man above God, just as the Jews did in Magna Carta.

            BTW, you do know what God said to the Israelites when they wanted a King right? And the rules He gave to the Kings, which they mostly ignored? And what subsequently happened to Israel? No lessons the reaction can learn there? Like, ditch the King, God is the King.

            • StoneMan says:

              “You’re not arguing with me dude, you’re arguing with Jehovah”
              I’m arguing with a fellow member of Christ’s laity.

              “you do know what God said to the Israelites when they wanted a King right? And the rules He gave to the Kings, which they mostly ignored?”
              I am not an Israelite, nor a King. I am a gentile living in a very pozzed world and I do not presume to have the necessary qualities or wisdom to understand God better than those who have dedicated their lives to the task.

              • glosoli says:

                If you choose to disagree with God’s own word on trade (and no doubt other issues) and believe you can do better yourself, or via other men, and you choose to think you’re arguing with me instead, sadly, you are lost and deluding yourself.

                Good luck with the Catholics, you will fit in very well, they also ignore the bible. Man, the Catholics, wow.

                You do know the bible tells you, God tells you, His word is easy to understand? It is really easy. Men that choose to ignore that, or choose to add shit to it (confession boxes, purgatory, roasaries, priests that can’t even father children or marry), it’s just incredible how the Pozz is so strong with men like you. You heard of the Reformation? We need another,not our men joining the enemy.

                • peppermint says:

                  > You do know the bible tells you, God tells you, His word is easy to understand? It is really easy.

                  Yes, the only reason people disagree is ((Satan)), everyone knows deep down inside that

                  > confession boxes

                  Did ((Jesus)) give Peter the authority to forgive sins? Can bishops delegate that authority to priests?

                  > purgatory

                  Arguably Catholic doctrine somewhat exceeds ((Scriptural)) authority in this respect and with some mariological assertions. However, this claim is unfalsifiable, plausible, historically well attested, and unlike Zeus and Poseidon fucking everything with a vag, doesn’t obviously lead to poz.

                  > roasaries

                  Prayer beads to say a prayer for each of. Usually blessed by a priest. ((Jesus)) wrote one of the prayers and ((Gabriel)) partly wrote another. Are prayer beads idolatry? Is the crucifix you find in people’s houses a prohibited graven image?

                  > celibacy

                  A discipline of the Roman rite. Anglican priests who sign up with the Pope get to keep their wives. Also retarded and can be abandoned as soon as there’s a decent Pope.

            • jim says:

              My interpretation of Jehovah’s laws differs from your own.

              Here is my interpretation: The Canaanites were using poz against the Jews. Much as the State Department uses progressivism to overthrow governments and dominate other nations, the Canaanites used Moloch worship to overthrow governments and dominate other nations. So God tells the Jews “Don’t let the Canaanite NGOs in”. Pretty sure it was OK to let Canaanite dried salted fish in.

              If you buy into that sacrificing one’s children is a sign of immense and sincere holiness, rather than the most vicious possible holiness status seeking, you are going to wind up thinking the Canaanite leadership is holy and Good, and the King and priests of Israel are not holy and good, whereupon the Canaanite State Department and the Canaanite New York Times instigates a color revolution against Israel, against the Hebrews, and against the Jews. And if you socialize with outsiders who loudly proclaim such holiness, you are apt to be impressed.

              • glosoli says:

                And of course frequent visits to Canaan (or them visiting you) to buy/sell salted fish would never involve socialising, because we all know that’s not how the Jews do business?

                I don’t think you’re that stupid Jim, so what’s the deal?

                • jim says:

                  Frequent visits to Canaan to buy and sell fish, and the Canaanite equivalent of the state department takes advantage of it to impress people with the superior holiness of State Department officials, big problem.

                  And if I was Grand Inquisitor of nation that the US State Department was trying to subvert, to poz, and to instigate a color revolution against, I would make trade contacts difficult and require them to be at arms length.

                  But right now we have the reverse situation.

                • glosoli says:

                  >I would make trade contacts difficult and require them to be at arms length.

                  Yes, you will always choose to deal with the evil ones, thinking you can keep them ‘at arms’ length’ because you think you’re smarter than God, who told us just not to do it.

                  But you’ll end up infecting your whole nation anyway, because you really like that salted fish, but more so, because you don’t actually believe Jehovah exists so you don’t owe him obedience, and you think you’re smarter, like the Enlightenment Frenchies.

                  Rather than dance round the houses Jim, why not be a man, and admit these things, s everyone knows your true colours? Come on, no fancy allegories, just state the fact you don’t believe any of it, and you think you can do it better, despite history’s long record of evidence to the contrary.

                  I’m off to be, your reaction is a load of pozz, bon nuit.

                • jim says:

                  > Yes, you will always choose to deal with the evil ones, thinking you can keep them ‘at arms’ length’ because you think you’re smarter than God, who told us just not to do it.

                  The interpretation of this law is irrelevant, because we are the evil ones. America and the American empire is the society using trade and trade contacts to corrupt other societies. Other societies are not using trade and trade contacts to corrupt America and the American empire.

                  But if the interpretation was relevant, you mistake yourself for God, and claim to be holier than God.

                  The divine prohibition on foreign trade is not a general prohibition that foreign goods and foreign commerce is bad, but a narrow and specific prohibition against trading with powerful and dangerous societies that are trying to subvert, corrupt, and overthrow your social order and your state. Translated to modern times, it is telling Duterte not to let in Soros.

                  You are expanding the scope of this prohibition, thus claiming to be holier than God.

                  The intent and purpose of the prohibition was to stop Carthaginian priests from using trade contacts to impress Israeli yokels as holier than Israeli priests in the way that today’s State Department HIV positive progressives impress Indian yokels as holier than those that practice the traditional religion of their country.

                • lalit says:

                  Indian Yokels is absolutely right. Nailed it. Nothing more to add.

                  I can take some solace from the fact that the Jews were once Yokels. Perhaps we too can make it back to to some sense of pride and honor, though the odds are against it.

                  Better go back to some powerlifting as Singh says. There is nothing more to do.

            • glosoli says:

              No, God said let me help you destroy evil nations, and you can have their lands:

              ‘And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them’

              ‘But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 6For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.’

              A covenant would include cross-border trade. Their groves were to be cut down, not bought in a trade deal.

              Do you all know that holy means ‘separate’, apart from. You either serve Jehovah, or you serve another master. The second option involves pozzing, as that master WILL require unrighteousness from you, and you will seek to serve him, even if that master is yourself, or some fancy King.

            • jim says:

              Laws need to be interpreted. The Jews had added a great pile of interpretation, which Jesus subtracted from by personally fulfilling the law so we don’t have to.

              You are interpreting God’s law, and I am interpreting Gnon’s law, and I think your interpretation is crap, fragments ripped from their context.

              Laws are issued to deal with problems, and to apply the law in our time, you have to recognize the problem that the law is intended to address.

              A prohibition on unclean foods is necessarily affected by agricultural processes, refrigeration, and hygiene technology, and a prohibition on congress with decadent nations on grounds of decadence is irrelevant when our own nation is the source of the decadence.

              • glosoli says:

                As I already said, you’re an atheist, so I don’t give a monkeys what you think about the bible, because you don’t actually believe ANY of it anyway.

                To you it’s just an intellectual exercise, nothing more. And that’s all it was to the Enlightenment French. Smarter than God, I know, let’s invent Gnon, or Rationality, or some other shit.

                You lefties, all the same.

                • peppermint says:

                  You’re clearly new at this. Say you don’t give a fudge, cheese and crackers as an exclamation, basically use unhealthy high-carb snacks for emphasis. Ned Flanders says diddly but that’s his thing.

              • glosoli says:

                >and a prohibition on congress with decadent nations on grounds of decadence is irrelevant when our own nation is the source of the decadence.

                So what is the point of your reaction then? Just go jump off a cliff if you’re that defeatist.

                You have to form a new nation, and build from there.

              • lalit says:

                Glosoli’s behaves exactly like the Christian missionaries we see all over India. If Alexander of Macedon turned up at India’s borders now, we would all surrender instead of giving battle for it is far more honorable to a vassal of Alex than to be beaten by Progressive Christianity or Islam. It is the shame that is intolerable and that I have to be around to witness it.

                What a time to be Alive!

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Lalit

                  The Reformation Christianity that glosoli supports became a joke and a punchline once it comically failed to conserve the girl’s bathroom.

                • lalit says:

                  Considering that Hinduism is into it’s Nth iteration as a Joke religion, I can totally understand Christianity having become a Joke out here in the West.

                  The only problem, Christianity is not a Joke back home in India. Over there they have power and they use it. It is serious business.

                  And of course, Jim has talked about Christianity in Timor Leste. Not a Joke there. The one place where Hinduism is not a Joke is Nepal. Everywhere else it is a Joke.

                  So I understand the plight of Christians in the West as Jim understands the plight of Hinduism in India.

            • Gilberto Carlos says:

              I find very hard to believe in a god who agrees with everything some guy claiming to be holier than me believes.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Gilberto I just don’t think that’s true, at all.

                I think you find it intuitively obvious that stealing, murder, adultery, envy/covetousness, etc. is wrong.

                Hate to break it to you, but others don’t share those prejudices.
                You might prefer to be an atheist but you’re not.

                • peppermint says:

                  > stealing, murder, adultery, envy/covetousness, etc. is wrong.

                  Is uncivilized. Which is why we need police to beat people who do that, instead of social workers to pout and and read the Book to people who do that.

                • Gilberto Carlos says:

                  Yeah, this has nothing to do with believing in the god a crazy guy spouting that he is holier than me said I should believe.
                  The guy holier than me thinks murder is right as long as he can justify that his god has told him to murder.

                • peppermint says:

                  the argument is (1) all killing is wrong, you have to be a nazi to support the death penalty (2) nazis don’t recognize that all killing is wrong and if we can’t stop them they’ll do the killing thing (3) so antifa kids are destroying property and committing assault with the intention that someone will die, they have to to stop future killings

                  Jim and George Washington have an answer to the problem of violence. The best any individual can do is protect his own and leave everyone else alone.

                  Does Christianity have an explicit guidance for us, or will we have to uphold George Washington and the Constitution in addition, as the Mormons do?

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          I’m an alienated Christian. The bible moves and inspires me and the majority of it makes sense to me. Everything Christ stands for, achieved, achieves and did/does is holy to me. I will not set foot in a modern church except as a tourist, and when I do I try to contain my spiritual responses if there are observers. I have no intention whatsoever of having ‘the discussion’ with a modern Christian.

          I agree with you that we Trumpists ought not claim to be for free trade. Free trade ultimately means the free allocation and movement of labour.

          Nobody here supports the latter and the Carlyleans among us don’t support the former either. Capitalism in the sense of atomised individuals selling their services as a good on the open market is toxic and should never have been tried.

          Vox Day is often insightful on free trade, largely because he doesn’t hold any residual affection for the American Revolution, ie. libertarianism.

          Neither do I: I’m anti-libertarian. I can’t think of much they’re right about outside of the evils modern democratic governments do, and even there they often harmfully obfuscate and exculpate the other actors.

          • 7817 says:

            “I’m an alienated Christian. The bible moves and inspires me and the majority of it makes sense to me.”

            This describes me as well.

            However, i still participate in church, even though parts of it seem silly and/or wrong. It would be vastly preferable (to me) to have a few believers to meet with regularly.

            If I study the bible on my own, however, and view church honestly as a social club with a bit of spiritual value on the side, it is not without value. The trick for me is to try to avoid the virtue signaling part, but as long as i don’t pretend to be a good boy or pretend to believe bullshit, there’s value in finding similar people.

        • JG says:

          “Ok, so …”

          No.

          This guy glosoli will never persuade anyone with a different view. He’ll just immediately declare victory. Biblical literalist word-thinker.

          • TBeholder says:

            In other words, he’s a Pope of one-man Church, and has negligible chance to grow it.
            So that’s what lies beyond the Holiness Spiral: hipsterisation.
            Curiously, with another function of holiness, the result could be be someone like Lovecraft, freaked out by fish and his own shadow.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          Let those who claim to hear the word of god so much clearer, demonstrate it first through mastery.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          @glosoli
          “Would you mind also declaring if you have any religious faith at all, and if so, who do you warship and obey? Thanks.”

          My faith is Ad Astra. And anyone who tries to confine civilization to the Earth is ovenworthy.

          Slay those who try to impose thy apefirmative action on Prophet Elon Musk’s SpaceX. Verily, behead those who try to stop BFR.

          Amen.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Jim isn’t a free movement of labour guy. He’s a free trade guy with nuance: he supports import tariffs to preserve strategic industries and any other policy, within reason, that the God-Emperor believes will help the nation. He does however retain the free trade rhetoric to a point, which has been controversial recently, but most of us here entirely empathise. Not many on these boards were NOT libertarians until fairly recently, and those who’ve never been libertarians have probably not recently been social democrats, to put it rather mildly.

      I’m not entirely sure theologically that your inferences are right. The passages you cite don’t explicitly forbid *trade*, they forbid *treaties*, and yes that would put us at odds with Trump, but let’s be honest here Glosoli: this isn’t a MAGA blog. Jim is not a naive Trumpist: he’s a nuanced Trumpist, as is pretty much everyone on the alt.right and in the Reactosphere.

      Nobody here thinks that voting Trump in 2016 was the solution to our problems, but almost everyone here thinks it helped.

      (I hope that’s a fair representation.)

      For what it’s worth, I tend to agree with you that our interactions with evil nations should be limited, but for the record, certain types of trade, such as resources we don’t have or jobs we don’t want to do, can certainly be legitimate with evil (or evilly run) foreign nations including Turkey, Germany, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

      That will mean you’ll find yourself in a minority on that single issue, but that’s ok. I’m in a minority on the single issue of fully nationalising agriculture and construction.
      I’m sure someone else will have their own little quirks.

      Try not to make it an ‘in or out’ issue, because your chances of persuading everyone here that *trade* with an anti-Christian nation is in all cases illegal and immoral aren’t good.

      • glosoli says:

        I’m not really trying to persuade anyone of anything.
        We all know how world trade has grown over the centuries, and (hopefully) we can all see where it’s got us.

        This is just one issue that will separate me from (I imagine) most readers here, I am just interested in seeing how many guys choose to literally ignore the counsel and laws of God, and how many want a nation that obeys Jehovah and considers him the source of wisdom, as opposed to Enlightened man (cos you do all consider yourself more Enlightened than God right). Heh, really, you couldn’t make this shit up, fucking reaction, it’s the Enlightenment Lite.

        CR, If you’re claiming to be a Christian, you’re a really bad one, Jesus will say He never knew you, if you choose to ignore God’s word on this subject (and no doubt many others), and do your own thing (i.e. trade with evil nations). Take that as a wish that you save your soul and repent.

        So, that’s 3-0 in favour of ignoring Jehovah.

        • The Cominator says:

          Glos its not us who consider ourselves wiser then God that is you.

          You literally want to create a state holier then ancient Israel (which as the Old Testament indicated could not follow God’s law) before the second coming. Something that the bible indicates cannot and will not happen. Something that the Scottish Covenanters tried to do before getting utterly crushed by the more reasonable Puritan Oliver Cromwell who opposed Puritans who tried to be more holy then God.

          So if you complain about us ignoring the word of God you are hoisted by your own petard.

          You are something of a one man Holiness spiral.

          • glosoli says:

            You ever think it’s interesting that Jehovah chose the Jews as His people? You think God didn’t know what they were like ? You think God didn’t know what was the likely result? (He told them what they would do when He gave them His law, and what He’d hit them with as a result). And that because of that, he’d need to send His son, and through that, the gentiles would receive the Word and the Light. And you forget, somehow, we have the Holy Spirit, Israel did not.

            Frankly, it’s defeatist and sad to have a view that we should just ditch the bible and God because the Jews were so bad, when we know how good England became with God’s ways.

            No gas-lighting please, I only desire God’s ways, you’ll never hear me suggest my own ideas or laws, nothing more righteous, nothing less, just God’s way.

            • The Cominator says:

              The bible says that man will never establish God’s kingdom’s on earth. Jesus Christ himself will establish it when he returns.

              You propose to establish God’s kingdom with man when the bible says God must establish it personally. You ignore your own God’s word.

              • glosoli says:

                Jesus told us that only Jehovah knows the time of Jesus’ return.

                He did not tell us to forget Jehovah’s law in the meantime, He told us the opposite, to obey His will, His laws and His commands.

                Good try, but you argue for satan.

                • StoneMan says:

                  Jim’s blog is not the rock on which to build your church, Glos.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Glos I’m not telling you to not personally follow the law in your own life. That is on you unless you try to murder someone enforcing it…

                  I’m telling you that no state will ever perfectly follow God’s law until the 2nd coming according to your own God’s words.

                  You cannot establish the kingdom of Christ on earth, according to the bible Jesus Christ will personally establish the kingdom of Christ on earth.

                • glosoli says:

                  >I’m telling you that no state will ever perfectly follow God’s law until the 2nd coming according to your own God’s words.

                  You once again argue for defeatism, and as you’re not even a Christian, once again, you lie.

                  Do not waste your time again conflating the return of Christ at some point in the future with a concession from Jehovah to ignore His laws in the meantime, that’s pure heresy, pure lies.

                • glosoli says:

                  Re Jim’s blog, just a few weeks ago he offered to host my own blog for me, so he could help promote it and told me the movement needed good men.

                  He’s gone silent on that since, and, if I’m honest, it’s because, like most here, he has no faith, he prefers the rule of man to the rule of God, even as he writes about the evils of the Enlightenment. It either makes no sense, or it makes a lot of sense, if you catch my drift.

                  So, I suspect my time here will be limited, as I want a proper reaction, led by obedient priests, not a leftward reaction led by atheists informed by (((moldbug))). I won’t just go away, or stop giving my view, so we’ll see what happens.

                  Maybe some in the peanut gallery will stop and think, look back at England, when the pozz really started, and come to the same conclusions as me. It only will take a few faithful men to get things going.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Glossy you don’t need Jim to host your blog. Sure it might bring some revenue for Jim, and that would be a welcome thing, but you don’t NEED that: blog providers are very very tolerant – blogspot for example.

                  Seriously go for it, and promote it here.

                  I’ve listened to hundred of hours of ‘Common Filth’ and whilst some of it’s not for me, some of it really IS, and your blog would probably be similar.

                  Please do it, you’ve definitely got readers here.

                  I don’t have to agree with you: I don’t agree with Jim either. But my life’s WAY better for reading Jim and if you can improve my life even 1%, moving me towards the kind of worship you prefer, then everyone’s a winner.

                  Please, do it.

        • jim says:

          I don’t agree with your reading of the bible.

          When I read the bible, I read it from the point of view that social technology has not advanced since biblical times, and in many important respects has deteriorated, and they were dealing with the same problems we are dealing with, that biblical commands are commands to deal with these problems, and that biblical commands are commands that should be interpreted as “Deal with this similar problem of your time in an analogous way” “Not deal with the problem in the exact form it took in our time in the exact same way we dealt with it in our time”. The story of the Garden of Eden is not a prohibition against eating apples.

          The prohibitions on contact with Canaanites was because the Canaanite equivalent of the State Department was trying to corrupt their society with Moloch Worship, trying to persuade them that the important people in Canaan had superior holiness to the important people in Israel, not trying to corrupt their society with dried fish.

          • The Cominator says:

            Glos also ignore Jesus admonitions against holiness spiraling and the fact that in revealations the kingdom of God is not to be established until the return of Christ.

            Glos much like progressives wants to establish God’s kingdom on earth rather then make the best of the fallen world we live in.

            • glosoli says:

              OK, so you’re clearly very purely evil.

              I hope all other readers take note of your distortions, your father is proud of you, liar.

              • The Cominator says:

                If God meant for man to establish the kingdom on earth why were the Covenanters defeated, and not just defeated but defeated worse then Scotland was ever defeated in English history to the point that Cromwell’s forces could occupy and subdue the whole of Scotland and that the Covenanters were henceforth thoroughly discredited.

                • glosoli says:

                  >why were the Covenanters defeated

                  They had won, they rules Scotland for over 10 years, then they broke this rule, and it ended badly. Stupid Scots.

                  ‘Alliances and covenants (treaties) with pagan or ungodly nations are forbidden. Exod. 23:32; Exod. 34:12-16; Deut. 7:2-4; Judges 2:2-3; Ezra 9:12; Psa. 106:34-36.

              • R7 Rocket says:

                @glosoli

                See, Pope glosoli will establish God’s Kingdom on this mortal dimension, instead of Christ Himself doing it. But is Pope glosoli worthy?

                To test this worthiness, I propose that glosoli be crucified until dead… wait three days to see if he rises from the dead.

          • glosoli says:

            You read the Bible as a man who doesn’t actually believe that Jesus is the son of God, nor that Jehovah is our Creator, and we owe Him literally everything.

            You read it as a man who thinks he knows better than God, so you reinterpret it.

            You read it much as an Enlightenment French man read it, and that’s why your reaction is pozzed and doomed to fail.

          • 7817 says:

            That human nature does not change is one of the most valuable insights of reading the Bible, since everyone is under the impression that society is progressing to perfection.

            Excessive literalism is just as bad as reading the whole thing as a fairy story.

    • Gilberto Carlos says:

      Don’t put words on other peoples mouths.
      Jim has never declared himself to be for open immigation, free trade can happen without it, and Jim doesn’t ever said he has a blind love for free trade, just that he is in favor of trade when it’s benefitial to both sides.

      You can twist the jewish handbook to say anything, because it has too many contradictions.

      You come here as someone nobody knows, spew jewish-written bullshit, twists the ideas of others just like a subversive tribesman, and call other people jews.

      You choose as your savior a Jew to worship and then came here complaining because we read moldbug, which, most of us accept is only a man, and most of us disagree on things with him, Jim has not ever said he would blindly follow Moldbug.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Absolutely right. The greatest service Moldbug performed was ridding libertarians of their Enlightenment/AmericanRevolution prejudices.
        For me, it was his waxing lyrical on Thomas Carlyle, but for others it’s the whole “do you live in an inner city? if not why not – who’s oppressing you, the government?” thing.

        Moldbug’s specific programmes (eg. Patchwork) are problematic, but that’s fine: I’m glad I read Mises, and I’m glad I read Marx. We don’t have to agree with the people who influenced us. Heck, even Noam Chomsky’s part of the puzzle: “Manufacturing Consent” is a very good inroad into Cathedral Theory.

        Ultimately though, we’re all going to end up more Morgoth kinda people.

    • jim says:

      > ‘Alliances and covenants (treaties) with pagan or ungodly nations are forbidden. Exod. 23:32; Exod. 34:12-16; Deut. 7:2-4; Judges 2:2-3; Ezra 9:12; Psa. 106:34-36.

      Exodus 23 not only commands trade restrictions, but commands genocide.

      This is not intended to be generally, routinely and widely applied. All the items you quote apply to particular extreme and special situations.

      Again, you are going holier than God.

      • glosoli says:

        Again, as an atheist, you think you are wiser than God.

      • calov says:

        Everyone should know, if they don’t already, that glosoli is reading the bible in a retarded American sectarian way. There are few if any examples of Christian exegetes interpreting Exodus, et. al, as demanding that the Church genocide ungodly nations, and whatever examples there are are wrong anyway. The Israelites had a direct command to do this for a specific purpose, and the command was attested by 9 plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, and God descending in fire on Sinai to pronounce the Ten Commandments. On the other hand Christ’s Church is a spiritual kingdom and so does not rule with a sword, as Christ makes clear to Pilate in John’s Gospel (If my kingdom were of this world, my disciples would have picked up swords to defend me.) Temporal earthly power is maintained by the sword, and some temporal governments may be composed of Christians who want to maintain an established church. But a temporal government or nation is not, as such, the kingdom of God, and so does not have an earthly promised land and a mandate to kill its inhabitants. Nor are Christian states obligated to observe the civil laws of Moses mandating Jubilee years or trade with pagans (besides which, even Solomon and David traded with pagans from Ethiopia and Lebanon, etc.) They are required to uphold the moral law found in the ten commandments, not dietary laws, ceremonies, and civil laws given to the Hebrews.

        Glosoli is a perfect example of why the American system of letting every fanatic misinterpreting his bible anoint himself a teacher is terrible misgovernment, dangerous to civil order and people’s souls. I say this as a protestant. You didn’t see this kind of fanaticism tolerated in protestant Europe (except maybe in places like Switzerland and the Netherlands), so it isn’t a necessary evil for protestantism.

        • The Cominator says:

          “Everyone should know, if they don’t already, that glosoli is reading the bible in a retarded American sectarian way. ”

          No American fundi Church that I recall in history endorses his views or ever has, not even the New England Presbyterians of the Mass Bay colony went as far as him (Charles II might have “encouraged” them to leave England but Cromwell kicked them out of the government, if Cromwell ran Puritanism it would have turned out fine).

          Glos views are closest to the Scottish Covenanters and thank god Cromwell beat the shit out of them so badly that they never came back.

          “Glosoli is a perfect example of why the American system of letting every fanatic misinterpreting his bible anoint himself a teacher is terrible misgovernment, dangerous to civil order and people’s souls.”

          You need to let idiots have their own views, its when they try to organize you must intervene.

          Generally right wing religious Christians are for the most part our allies right now (Southern Baptists especially, they not only voted for Trump in the election they generally voted for him in the primaries) and I don’t see much of a rift developing anytime soon.

          • calov says:

            I’m a right wing religious Christian, so I agree that American conservative Christians are allies. Anyone who reads the Bible and actually does believe it will come to the conclusion that women can’t be allowed to vote. However, the American democratic approach to the interpretation of the Bible is destructive to society. It’s only gotten worse with time. Along with Luther, I think the best way to deal with heretics is to drive them from the country, and to kill heretics that repeatedly want to subvert the true church.

        • jim says:

          The bible specifically refrains from telling us the specific purpose, and could reasonably be interpreted as commanding that the reasons to be erased from history and systematically forgotten, but we know from various sources that the Canaanites had a religion where high status people would demonstrate their devotion to the state religion by burning their children alive in human sacrifice to Moloch, and that they evangelized this state religion to their neighbors, including the children of Israel, with some success.

  14. Issac says:

    The Catholic may dither long about reaction, singing the praises of the throne and alter, but his body and soul belong to the priestly class and will always there return. When given to explain the world he has only his catechism which proscribes catholic socialism, and duty bound he will defend it from all comers.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      I just don’t think that’s true at all.
      I’m no fenian but you can’t seriously claim that Charles The Hammer, James II, Metternich and Salazar were ‘christcucks’.

  15. R7 Rocket says:

    Referencing the earlier post about barnacling…
    The Pentagon is now interested in the military utility of SpaceX BFR. The Pentagon is a great counter to the Eye of Soros.

    https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2018/08/02/air-force-may-one-day-deliver-cargo-space-rocket-general.html#.W2NVcm1iRhQ.twitter

    • Mack says:

      There can be little doubt that Musk is a political genius. His enemies fight each other and he sails through straight and true.

  16. Mister Grumpus says:

    Fucking stellar.

    These “Jim’s Notes” “For Dummies” pieces may not be intellectually super-interesting to you, but they’re super valuable in terms of IRL effect.

    And of course your timing is perfect. Surely you can see in your server logs that your hits and uniques are going up-up-up.

  17. Neurotoxin says:

    “Locke and Jefferson were Trotsky and Lenin…”

    …wut?…

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Jim’s at his most interesting when he’s that radical.

      Think about it: what differentiates you from a Tom Woods?

      That essence right there is the living proof that you fundamentally agree with Jim: equality per se is the problem andit started with the Enlightenment, so if you reject it, you don’t just reject social democrats and cuckservatives: you also reject Murray Friedman economics.

      Sorry but it’s THE TRUTH.

      • Neurotoxin says:

        “Sorry but it’s THE TRUTH.”

        It might be. I don’t know; I want to think your comment over more.

        One sign that you might be right is that I had no idea who Tom Woods was until you mentioned him and I looked him up.
        (In case anyone else is wondering, he’s some sorta libertarian commentator/personality.)

    • jim says:

      If all men are created equal, our civilization is going to be erased from the earth, and we and our children will be killed.

      If all men are created equal then every male military age black Muslim in Subsaharan Africa can reasonably argue that the fact he is worse off than me proves I must have done him wrong, and therefore he can and should come and take my stuff, that he has a right of asylum that obligates me and entitles him.

      “All men are created equal” is what you say when you are raising a mob to knock over the apple cart, in the hope of being able to snatch some of the apples.

      • The Cominator says:

        That is a key thing about equality, its always a rallying cry to overthrow something and 99% of the time for theft too.

        Because nobody ever really wants to just be equal (that is an intermediate goal at best).

      • Neurotoxin says:

        “If all men are created equal then every male military age black Muslim in Subsaharan Africa can reasonably argue that… he can and should come and take my stuff.”

        “Reasonably”?!

        In any case, they will argue that anyway. If it were proven that “all men are NOT created equal” – say rich groups have better genes than poor groups – they would argue that the distribution of genes is itself unfair, and therefore… they have the right to take your stuff. In fact, that argument is already being made by leftists who don’t want “Eat the rich” to depend any particular results in Biology.

        • The Cominator says:

          “In any case, they will argue that anyway. If it were proven that “all men are NOT created equal” – say rich groups have better genes than poor groups – they would argue that the distribution of genes is itself unfair,”

          See Spandrell’s “Biological Leninism” article.

          And yes its ALL unfair but so is life in the fallen world…

        • jim says:

          > > “If all men are created equal then every male military age black Muslim in Subsaharan Africa can reasonably argue that… he can and should come and take my stuff.”

          > “Reasonably”?!

          Are you suggesting that blacks in subsaharan Africa are poor because stupid, lazy, feckless, and violent. How terribly racist of you.

          Since it cannot possibly be that they are poor because stupid, lazy, violent and incapable of thinking about the near future, the reason they are poor must be that I am oppressing them with my totally unjustified white privilege.

          If all men are created equal, the disadvantages of blacks cannot be their own fault, so must be our fault. So whites must be punished until things improve.

          And if some things never improve, whites must be punished till the last white is tortured to death.

          Do you doubt this. Then you must doubt that all men are created equal. Racist!

          • Neurotoxin says:

            “If all men are created equal, the disadvantages of blacks cannot be their own fault, so must be our fault.”

            OK, I now see what you’re saying. You’re pointing out that this is how the left actually talks. I was getting hung up on the fact that it does not actually follow.* But of course, that’s is not relevant for the left’s rhetoric, since the left doesn’t care what actually follows.

            (*E.g., because if different groups are equal, they could still be at different Nash Equilibria in a social game with more than one NE, etc.)

            • jim says:

              It is as obvious to leftists as it is obvious to me that the problem with subsaharan Africa is not multiple Nash equilibria.

          • calov says:

            Yeah, but surely the founding fathers didn’t mean “all men are created equal” in any way that Luther and Augustine couldn’t have subscribed to (the same Luther who said it pleased God when princes slaughtered “the murderous, thieving hordes of peasants”).

            • calov says:

              Or Augustine: Confessions, Bk. 9, Ch 9:

              Moreover, even though he was earnest in friendship, he was also violent in anger; but she had learned that an angry husband should not be resisted, either in deed or in word. But as soon as he had grown calm and was tranquil, and she saw a fitting moment, she would give him a reason for her conduct, if he had been excited unreasonably. As a result, while many matrons whose husbands were more gentle than hers bore the marks of blows on their disfigured faces, and would in private talk blame the behavior of their husbands, she would blame their tongues, admonishing them seriously — though in a jesting manner — that from the hour they heard what are called the matrimonial tablets read to them, they should think of them as instruments by which they were made servants. So, always being mindful of their condition, they ought not to set themselves up in opposition to their lords. And, knowing what a furious, bad-tempered husband she endured, they marveled that it had never been rumored, nor was there any mark to show, that Patricius had ever beaten his wife, or that there had been any domestic strife between them, even for a day. And when they asked her confidentially the reason for this, she taught them the rule I have mentioned. Those who observed it confirmed the wisdom of it and rejoiced; those who did not observe it were bullied and vexed.

            • jim says:

              I assume you are being sarcastic, but sarcasm over the internet does not work well.

              • calov says:

                Sorry for not being clear.

                I don’t really want to defend Jefferson et al, because they were wrong; but when he writes “All men are created equal,” I always assumed he meant it in the same way that Christians in previous centuries might have said the same thing. That is, equal in that all created by one God in His image, but certainly not equal in gifts or in the station they should occupy.

                Augustine believed women should see themselves as slaves of their husbands and not talk out of turn, lest their husbands beat them. Luther said the princes of Germany were doing service to God when they killed rebellious hordes of peasants, even though both would have said people are equal before God; all people will be judged by God with no favoritism as to their rank or wealth or abilities.

                Surely that’s what Jefferson meant when he said “All men are created equal”, yet continued to own slaves and wrote in private letters that negroes were intellectually inferior to Europeans and likely incapable of self-government.

                The point is probably nitpicking though, because “All men are created equal”, whatever Jefferson meant by it, now means that white people should be punished, as you’ve pointed out.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  What framers thought by created equal is equality before the law i.e. no privileges (such as tax exemption) for the members of the clergy and the nobility. Of course, pretty soon everyone came to believe that everyone is exactly the same, because of the spirit of the times i.e. the Enlightenment. Namely, some influential Enlighteners believed that everyone indeed is exactly the same and if we implement mandatory public schooling we are going to have a nation of geniuses running around. And even though other influential Enlighteners mocked them for it, blank slate won out in the end. So in the current year™ you are considered literally Hitler if you believe that everyone is not exactly the same.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The founding fathers were the left of their day, deep in the holiness spiral already. They may or may not have meant what they said, but certainly meant to say what they said, and its plain English meaning is how the current progressives interpret it. It’s the typical case in a purity spiral that everyone knows where it is going, no one actually wants to go there, but everyone wants to be the first to go one step further, rationalising that that is harmless.

                • jim says:

                  > in a purity spiral … everyone knows where it is going, no one actually wants to go there, but everyone wants to be the first to go one step further,

                  Exactly so.

                  And one step further is arguable not too harmful, provided that is only one step.

                  As we walk several steps further down this road, we will see white mothers hacking their white children to death for being too white.

                  Whites hacking each other to death for excessive whiteness was baked into the cake when Jefferson said “all men are created equal”, and the fact that they did not immediately get to hacking each other to death was an unprincipled exception.

                • Yara says:

                  Fortunately, we can throw out the bathwater without losing the baby.

                  Clearly, all men are not literally created equal by Divine Providence. Some men are dramatically more equal than others.

                  Equally clearly, ruling elites tend to regress: the more elite, the more regression. Meritocracy is vital to civilizational excellence.

                  Why does this have to be a purity spiral of ever-accelerating holiness? Clearly, the inmates are running the asylum.

                • Mister Red says:

                  For a group supposedly obsessed with men created equal and egalitarianism, the old WASP elite was awfully interested in eugenicism until the Jews came along.

  18. imnobody00 says:

    A great summary of the Puritan hypothesis that fills many holes and is very enlightening. Thank you for sharing.

    I have been wondering for years how the European left fits in this Puritan hypothesis. The Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the 1848 revolution, the Russian revolution, etc.

    I understand that, after WWII, the European left was replace by the Puritan left, but, before that, what? The Puritan hypothesis puts the root of everything in the Anglo-Saxon world and does not explain all the Continental developments.

    Is somebody so kind to explain me how the European left fits in the Puritan hypothesis?

    • Mack says:

      Sure.

      In short, the Puritan hypothesis is bunk. The Puritans were not uniquely evil and they are not emitting mind-control rays from beyond the grave. The Puritans and latter-day progressives share nothing in common. What’s special about the Puritans is that they established the institutions that eventually took over the world, namely the Ivy League and similar.

      The key to understanding what connects the Puritans and the progressives is military technology. Bismarck said that politics is the art of the possible, and Clausewitz said that war is the continuation of politics by other means— which is to say that the difference between politics and war is of degree, not of kind— another way to put it might be to say that politics is the pressure release valve of a boiling pot of water, the mechanism by which hairless monkey men avoid chimping out on each other with sticks, spears, rifles, and nuclear warheads, and live to fight another day. Naturally, the fight is over when you’re dead, but also the fight is only over when you’re dead; for politics to be successful, political losers must willingly go gracefully into that good night.

      Why does this matter? It matters because if the musket was sufficiently advanced in 1524, the German Peasant’s War would have had a dramatically different outcome. Keep in mind that Central Europe is infamous for its high concentration of aristocratic wealth, so the number of aristocratic forces involved in this bloodbath was probably quite small, relatively speaking.

      [The German Peasant’s War] failed because of the intense opposition by the aristocracy, who slaughtered up to 100,000 of the 300,000 poorly armed peasants and farmers. The survivors were fined and achieved few, if any, of their goals. The war consisted, like the preceding Bundschuh movement and the Hussite Wars, of a series of both economic and religious revolts in which peasants and farmers, often supported by Anabaptist clergy, took the lead.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Peasants%27_War

      It is by no means an original observation that democracy was born of the rifle. Even today, people everywhere feel it in their bones, which is why the Second Amendment is the hottest political hot-button today: the overdogs desperately want to disarm the underdogs, and the underdogs get thoroughly rustled at the prospect. If the underdogs had no firearms, they would never wrangle the right to have them today. If a new small armament outmodes the firearm, the Second Amendment will become irrelevant as a political issue, eclipsed by conversations about the ethics of letting small dog-sized robots with small turrets for tails fall into the wrong hands and/or putting an automatic turret on every corner to defend against such.

      If only Orwell could see us now.

      • jim says:

        > The key to understanding what connects the Puritans and the progressives is military technology.

        That is nerd thinking, the result of being stuffed into the toilet by alpha males in school. Because I was one of the guys stuffing nerds into toilets, I know how frustratingly ineffectual violence is.

        Ideas are more powerful than guns, and fashion is more powerful than ideas.

        Indeed feudalism ended when gunpowder could knock down castle walls, but aristocracy continued just fine without castles. The power of Kings ended because George the Fourth was fat, had a bad tailor, and was publicly cuckolded. The power of aristocrats was ended by giving uniforms to camp followers.

        Conscripts had guns in the Napoleonic wars, but aristocrats had power and status till after the Crimean war. Aristocrats were defeated by officers being given baggy clothes, and forced to share the same baggy clothes with camp followers.

        • Mack says:

          >Because I was one of the guys stuffing nerds into toilets, I know how frustratingly ineffectual violence is.

          Ineffectual at what, exactly? Napoleon smashed a whole lot of shit. Garibaldi, having putatively united Italy, looted Naples like a conquering general. Sherman imposed Reconstruction by fire and steel. Hitler found violence quite useful and effective. Stalin was a byword for terror. The Great Leap Forward made Mao a god. Little Rock was integrated at point of bayonet. Today, our government regularly nukes families at a woman’s merest suggestion. Today, yesterday, and tomorrow, governments sustain themselves through taxes forcefully extracted by their subjects.

          When Trump can fire bureaucrats at will, an act of outrageous violence, we will know he has won.

          • peppermint says:

            > examples of fashion
            > see violence works

            • Mack says:

              Q: What should George IV, King of England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and Hanover, ruler of the empire on which the sun never set, done in response to his being publicly cuckolded by a tag-team of his cousin and her friendly neighborhood priest?

              A: Cut off her fucking head, then cut off his fucking head.

              “Violence doesn’t work.”

              Fat and clothing irrelevant.

              • peppermint says:

                If Jim had been there, he would have argued that cucking the king is treason and the people must see loyalty rewarded and treason punished.
                The Puritans would have said sex is beneath the majesty of the royal family. Between that time and now, there’s been this perception of grandeur of a cuckold who has a house and a hotwife and is too busy being big brained to pay attention to being cucked, now everyone mocks cucks so George would be able to execute the traitors.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                The king’s ability to cut off peoples’ heads is his ability to command the army to victory. Getting soldiers to follow you, when they themselves are your instrument for coercing others to follow you, always rests on consent at some level. Monarchy is a legal theory, not a practical reality. Someone whom others follow voluntarily is someone who is fashionable.

                Another problem than fashion is will. It isn’t that hard to be fashionable if you are king if you try, even if you would not be that fashionable as a citizen in a democracy. But with mean reversion and churn, you just cannot guarantee that your hereditary monarch will have a strong will.

                • Yara says:

                  The pinnacle hereditary monarch is Charles II, an inbred abomination the result of the absolute primacy of inherited title. Elected monarchy, officially or unofficially, is the original form with which humans have the most experience, but 4 years is far too few. 20 should probably be a minimum term, and with a moderate preference for a competent son as successor.

                • jim says:

                  Looked like a smart guy to me. The Royal Society and modern corporate capitalism are his work.

                • Roberto says:

                  >tfw no king AI (lmao)

                • Yara says:

                  >Looked like a smart guy to me. The Royal Society and modern corporate capitalism are his work.

                  The other King Charles II.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The fashionable men are those who are followed, by definition, just like alphas are the men women want to be wanted by, by definition. There is no strong connection to physical appearance in either case. The English Civil War, and Stuart Restoration, is before the point at which the left won the claim to be the cool guys, with the Royalist nickname “Cavalier” being approximately a synonym for “cool guys”.

                  The main left victory of the Glorious Revolution wasn’t changing laws, which barely changed, but getting rid of the cool and legitimate dynasty and replacing it with a semi-legitimate house of hicks who couldn’t speak English. This dynasty then spent the 18th century kicking the shit out of Europe and India, which was almost enough to let them establish a real dynasty. George IV’s failed marriage did not end the dynasty, any more than Henry VIII’s failed marriages did. Rather, it was ended by the inability of the elite to have legitimate children, George IV being stuck married to a faithless wife, and his successor William IV being stuck married to an infertile wife.

                • jim says:

                  That George IV was fat, lazy, and screwed the wives of the men on whom his power depended is, I think, the most significant factor. No one rules alone, and screwing the wives of aristocrats is the traditional path for dynasties to lose power.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  George IV’s personal failings cannot have helped.

                  Nor can William IV being a cuck who seems to have gone out of his way to pass Reform.

                  But it is more than a coincidence that both men failed to produce legitimate heirs because they failed to form married families. While George IV essentially failed to reproduce in the modern Western style, William IV had five still-born children with his wife and ten healthy children with his mistress.

                  If William IV had been able to legitimise his mistress, the throne would not have passed to Victoria, and the Hanoverian house would have survived. Maybe in the hands of a more or less competent and assertive man, but in the hands of a man who bore the name Hanover.

                  It is easy to cuck when you really are weak.

          • jim says:

            Smashing a whole of stuff did not in fact work for Napoleon. Stalin was a priest killing priests, not a warrior killing warriors. Sherman was the servant of a holy crusade by Harvard to convert people to the state religion of New England by fire and steel. Mao’s power did not grow out of the barrel of a gun. The long march was Mao losing the revolutionary war, and fleeing to Russian controlled territory to hide behind Russian troops near the Chinese border.

            • Anon254 says:

              Along these lines: out of all the competing heresies/holiness spirals of the last few centuries, why was it that the Puritans won?

              • jim says:

                Puritans went singular the slowest, because Cromwell stopped them for a while, then Charles the Second stopped them for a considerably longer while. Everyone else self destructed before they could conquer the world.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                Because they were gifted a continent.

    • TBeholder says:

      Puritans didn’t appear out of nowhere. It was most holier-than-thou movement of Protestants.
      Who appeared in continental Europe because by the time Catholicism rotted beyond embarrassing, because anything this big is always going to have spin off sects and because the reformers were the only viable movement to sweep it away.
      A little earlier Catholicism was stronger and able to supply enough of those willing to fight holier-than-thou with holier-than-thou (and occasionally as cheerfully genocidal as Colonnes Infemales later, if less thorough).

    • jim says:

      French revolution descends from the false Popes of Avignon. Self destructed in Napoleon, replaced by a muppet left created by the Anglosphere left.

      Nazism descends from Lutheranism, but Wiemar leftism is Jewish and anglosphere, the poz of conquest.

      Communism is Jews getting Puritan/Evangelist envy, and resuming their natural role as priests. Marx was consciously inspired by the Diggers who gave Cromwell such a fright, and modeled communism both on Judaism and on the Diggers. Marxist dialectic is talmudic, vanguard of the proletariat are the Jews ruling the world, “History” is the God of the Jews rather than the Puritan derived “arc of history”.

      Russian leftism derived from anglosphere left, through Alexander the Liberator yielding his role as the fount of all honors to British intellectuals, but in the final stages of the Russian left singularity, Communism, which is in substantial part Jewish derived, gets the upper hand. Weimar leftism is in substantial part anglosphere derived, but Nazism is Lutheranism gone holy.

      • Koanic says:

        Bravo! It’s like identifying the different strains of the T-virus in Resident Evil.

      • calov says:

        Really, having studied Lutheran theology for almost 20 years, you’re wrong about this. You could argue more easily that Lutheranism leads to socialism or social democracy than Nazism, since all the formerly Lutheran countries are socialist. Lutheranism did set a precedent of having communal education and communal care of the poor.

        But in reality both socialism and Nazism are completely antithetical to Lutheranism. Both deny original sin. Once that’s gone it’s pretty much impossible to get anything like orthodox Lutheranism.

        I suppose Nazism can be said to descend from Lutheranism in that it came out of a formerly Lutheran country, and also that Luther sorted embodied what it is to be “German” for a lot of people. And that he vehemently denounced the Jews. But the immediate religious predecessor of Nazism was not Lutheranism, but Prussian Unionism, in which the Lutheran churches had been forced to submit to union with the Calvinists by the Calvinist Kaiser. If you read Lutheran theologians in the 16th and 17th centuries you realize that union with any other church apart from doctrinal unity is the antithesis of the Lutheran spirit. Beyond that, most of the protestant church in Germany since the enlightenment had left the Reformation, Calvinist or Lutheran, far behind and embraced the project of biblical criticism, the quest for the historical Jesus, etc.–viz. Albert Schweitzer.

        Hitler’s race theories would never have found a home with an old Lutheran, but could quite easily with someone who had embraced liberal protestantism, since Hitler’s race theories had their roots in Darwinism.

        • jim says:

          Observe that when Hitler Nazified the Churches, the Lutheran Churches took to it so smoothly that they hardly noticed the transformation.

          So it clearly is not true that Lutheranism is antithetical to Nazism. One the contrary, Nazism is Lutheranism only more so, just as progressivism is puritanism only more so.

          • The Cominator says:

            The top Nazis (and the most fanatical ones) were almost to a man lapsed Catholics. Goering is the only notable exception and he was probably the least blindly fanatical and the most reactionary (and he never totally bought into the Jewish mind control ray meme). Hitler also initially built his base in Catholic Bavaria even if Protestants later on went over with greater enthusiasm.

            So I don’t see it as being linked to Lutheranism so much.

            • jim says:

              The areas where Hitler won electorally were the Lutheran areas.

              • The Cominator says:

                But the leadership was except for Goering all lapsed Catholics even if in the end they did less well in Catholic areas (stubborn Center party support was a more likely explanation for that then anything). I think East Prussia (the area where the Nazis won the most) was more Calvinist then Lutheran as well.

                So if the leadership was all raised Catholic I don’t see how it could be a culturally Lutheran movement. Lutheran areas just didn’t have the Center party.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  Hitler loathed Catholicism and the Habsburgs. He loathed it so much that in a letter he wrote how he laments helping Franco and how he should have supported the Reds. In another letter he commented how Mussolini is a cuck for not doing away with the king and the pope. Lapsi usually hate what they lapsed from…

                • jim says:

                  “Myth of the Twentieth Century”, the book by Alfred Rosenburg, Commissar for the Supervision of Intellectual and Ideological Education of the NSDAP (aka Rosenberg office), treats Lutheranism as pre-nazism.

                  Rosenberg saw Martin Luther and the Reformation as an important step forward toward reasserting the “Aryan spirit”, but is ultimately ambiguous in not having gone far enough.

                  So: Nazism is more Lutheran than Luther. Lutheranism did not go far enough. Nazism is, according to the Commissar for the Supervision of Intellectual and Ideological Education of the NSDAP, Lutheranism that has gone far enough. (Though perhaps a bit further would be better)

                • The Cominator says:

                  He admired and loathed it at the same time. His attitude towards Christianity in general (he hated it going by the Table Talks) was more clear.

                  The idea of strict orderly hierarchy where things are obeyed without question no matter how crazy is more Catholic then Protestant.

                  Himmler explicitly said he drew inspiration for the SS from the Jesuits.

                  Moldbug seemed to (for some reason I cannot fathom given that I like the rest of his work) also like Catholicism, but Eastern Orthodoxy with national churches and no Pope even theoretically above the king is a much more suitable religion for NRx.

                • jim says:

                  “positive christianity” aimed to eliminated Catholicism and unite protestantism – thus it perceived itself as institutionally continuous with Lutheranism, not institutionally continuous with Catholicism. If Nazis had succeeded, its religious apparatus would have been staffed with priests from a Lutheran, not Catholic background.

                  Coordination consisted of suppressing the confessing church, the faction that resisted the de-semitification of Christianity, while gradually bringing the other protestant churches towards nazism, much as today’s nominally christian churches are being brought towards progressivism. Had the operation run to completion, the new Church would have been a unified Lutheran descended Church.

                • jim says:

                  Official Nazi party reality is that Nazism is more Lutheran than Luther – that Lutheranism was a big step in the right direction, but did not go far enough.

                  And if you were a Lutheran priest who doubted that Nazism was more Lutheran than Luther, you were apt to get into trouble.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim you are wrong about Lutheranism, National Socialism as an ideology pretty much boiled down to whatever Hitler thought National Socialist ideology should mean at the time.

                  I wouldn’t cite Rosenberg (who Hitler and the other top Nazis thought little of, Hitler put him in charge of the party during his jail sentence because he considered him weak and unlikely to take power).

                  Hitler said about the myth of the 20th century

                  “I must insist that Rosenberg’s “The Myth of the Twentieth Century” is not to be regarded as an expression of the official doctrine of the party. The moment the book appeared, I deliberately refrained from recognizing it as any such thing. In the first place, its title gives a completely false impression… a National Socialist should affirm that to the myth of the nineteenth century he opposes the faith and science of our times… I have myself merely glanced cursorily at it”

                • jim says:

                  > Jim you are wrong about Lutheranism, National Socialism as an ideology pretty much boiled down to whatever Hitler thought National Socialist ideology should mean at the time.

                  You are denying that national socialist ideology has any ancestry. On the face of it, seems unlikely.

                  If Nazism had in the beginning been whatever Hitler said it was, would have been no need for a night of the long knives.

                  Hitler, on taking power, decided that National Socialism was whatever he felt it was that morning, but this ignores the question of why such a belief system existed and was useful and effective on the way to power.

                  Cromwell let the Jews in, and progressivism lets the Jews in. Luther kicked the Jews out, and Nazism kicked the Jews out.

                  As soon as you ask “Where did this system of ideas come from?” – Well they did not come from Hitler. Hitler saw a crowd, noticed which way the crowd was going, put himself in front of that crowd, and said “I am your leader”

                  And after Hitler was in a position to execute any Nazi that disagreed with him, then, to stop the purity spiral and holiness spiral, he then announced that Nazism was whatever he said it was that day.

                  Hitler came to power on a holiness spiral, and on achieving power, the continuing holiness spiral became a threat to him (and indeed everyone).

                  So you need to look at earlier holiness spiraling.

          • calov says:

            They were not Lutheran in a sense that Luther would have recognized. That ship sailed when the Kaiser forced the union between Lutheran and Reformed churches in Prussia. It probably sailed earlier than that, with Rationalist theology in the 18th century.

            Besides this there was significant resistance to the Deutsche Christen movement. But even so the theology of Luther and the Reformation was only one party in the protestant church politics of Germany in 1933, and a marginal party at that.

            When you read “On the Jews and their Lies” even, you see how far Luther’s concerns about the Jews were from Hitler’s. Luther’s problem with the Jews was that they blasphemed Christ. Nor was Luther anything like a socialist, national or otherwise.

            On the 4th commandment, “Honor your father and mother” he writes in his Large Catechism:

            In other respects we are, indeed, all alike in the eyes of God; but among us there must necessarily be such inequality and ordered difference, and therefore God commands it to be observed, that you obey me as your father, and that I have the supremacy. ..Now, what a child owes to father and mother, the same owe all who are embraced in the household. Therefore man-servants and maid-servants should be careful not only to be obedient to their masters and mistresses, but also to honor them as their own fathers and mothers, and to do everything which they know is expected of them, not from compulsion and with reluctance, but with pleasure and joy for the cause just mentioned, namely, that it is God’s command and is pleasing to Him above all other works.

            • jim says:

              > They were not Lutheran in a sense that Luther would have recognized.

              Harvard is not Puritan in a sense that Cromwell would have recognized, but it has institutional continuity going all the way back to the people thrown out of the state established Anglican Church by Charles the Second, who sailed off to America (or in some famous cases back to America) to recreate the officially established Puritan Church with its headquarters in Harvard. If tje Nazis had not been militarily overthrown, their church would have had institutional continuity with Lutheranism.

              • Mister Red says:

                The Church of National Socialism would have had institutional continuity with Lutheranism as Harvard has institutional continuity with Congregationalism, yes, but you miss a point of critical distinction: the Church of National Socialism would have had biological continuity, which Harvard has not had since about 1960.

  19. TBeholder says:

    and the War of Northern Aggression a worse thing, the Puritans conquering those states whose state religion was different from their own to impose a single unified state religion, headquartered in Harvard, on all of the United States. The War of Northern Aggression was not fought to make slaves free, nor to impose tariffs on the South, but to erase the Episcopalianism of Charles the Second and to capture the schools and universities for Harvard.
    […] The founding fathers were Deists because they were holier than Jesus, and the progressives are holier than God.

    This ascribes a lot of unity to large coalitions.

    I’m with Gumilev on this: the sane assumption is that a common man cares little about who will be an unseen ruler, and does NOT fight for intricacies of this or that theology, because he doesn’t know them, but rather fights either for and against much more common and accessible principles, or simply because they know which side of their bread has butter on it.
    So e.g. Jeanne d’Arc was a living flag of a coalition that involved great variety of people, some of whom wanted power, or guarantees, or felt strong about some theological point… but the common folk didn’t care for this — what they wanted enough to risk their lives could be said in one breath: “belle France” (i.e. France for the French, France First, and Make France Great Again).

  20. Danila Bagrov says:

    Jim, this was a monster post and a great post. I wish you had attacked Social Matter more however, who lamely tried to exile Myth of the 20th Century even though Myth didn’t need them and was better than them. Did you know that they are *Canadians*? Can you believe that?

    • jim says:

      Pretty sure I just read them out of the movement. If your posts are not arguments for a restoration, and thus arguments for Kingship and against equality, then you are not the blog of the restoration. More would be redundant. A post celebrating the wisdom of the founders, or breathlessly reporting that Hiss was in Stalin’s pocket, is a post that is for democracy, for equality, and against Kingship. “Democrats are the real racists.”

      Perhaps we need a catechism to clearly identify who is with us and who is against us. Whosoever can and does say the catechism in good faith is with us.

      • Koanic says:

        Maybe? That’s no kind of attitude for the Grand Inquisitor! Have you SEEN the IQ scores of your Assistant Torturers?!

        Detailed checklists are a must.

        • Roberto says:

          The SM guys are not all bad. Rather, they made some serious mistakes, the bigger one (IMO) being completely erasing Jim from TWiR, the smaller one being their severe lack of “quality control,” i.e. that they link to every retard who makes some peculiar noises.

          I suggest, instead of purging them from Reaction right now, they should be asked to bring back Jim to TWiR and to stop linking to communists. If they refuse both those requests, *then* will be the time for escalation.

          • Purge us… FROM WHAT?

            • Mister Red says:

              A brand name only matters if you have something to sell. If you’re extracting a tax, the only name that matters is the address of where to send the cheques. Demotism is the sale of a leader. Despotism (or oligarchy) is the imposition of a leader (or several).

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              Quite – who cares about Social Matter?

              I’ve skimmed Social Matter a couple of times, but never read it. It’s trying to be the New York Times of reaction, which is pointless, because the New York Times is only a public face of power, not a centre of power. The purpose of the New York Times is for the inner party to tell the outer party what it is meant to think. We don’t have an outer party, so Social Matter serves no practical purpose. It’s a LARP fantasy by its writers, who even set their bar so low as to LARP as a PR agency rather than its clients.

              The purpose of Moldbug was to create our inner party. The purpose of jim was to restate Moldbug more concisely and to clarify several important issues Moldbug chose not to touch, particularly those concerning sex.

              If we win, it will be by winning inner party defections, probably by persuading them that any alternative action will end in their deaths and the deaths of their children. Winning support from the outer party by arguing that we will achieve cathedral goals a bit more efficiently than they will is the libertarian approach, an approach that begins and ends in irrelevance and defeat.

              • The Cominator says:

                Cromwell great post.

                And btw about your name, even as a reactionary monarchist and even as NRx isn’t too fond of the Puritans Oliver Cromwell was a truly great man.

  21. nig says:

    NRX drama is gay

  22. Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

    Jim, can you do a post on the midterms? I hate saying this but looks like your coup prediction is not going to pan out and republicans are going to be wiped out. I’m astonished Trump has the time to push the PRC to be more free market, not that it’s a bad thing, while ignoring his impending impalement at the hands of the Cathedral after both houses are full of Alexandria Cortez’s.

    • peppermint says:

      > Democrats collapsing
      > media never been so unpopular
      > everyone knows and says out loud that entertainment media is pedophiles raping each oher
      > antifa/blm banners against pedo-bashing
      > jobs for White men
      > migrants going home
      > congress “slowly discovering” DoJ, FBI, Clowns lying to Congress
      > Mueller never at any point had anything after all that investigation into porn stars and golden showers

      Guys the Republicans will surely lose

      • jim says:

        If no wall, likely Republicans will lose, as demoralized Republican voters stay home.

        If Democrats win, convict Trump of being Trump, losing legitimacy in the process. Loss of legitimacy leads to a chain of ever lefter coups.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          So you agree with me? Doesn’t look like wall or even DACA (given court ruling) will be repealed pre midterms.

          • jim says:

            Looks like it. If no wall, Republicans don’t vote. If Republicans don’t vote, Trump impeached, eventually convicted, imprisoned, a chain of ever lefter coups goes forward.

            What we will not, however, get, is return to what passed for normal in 2008. If Trump is not King, there will be chaos.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Last time Hilary won the “popular vote” (okay I know there’s vote fraud, but you know what I mean) and in the last two years a couple million trump voters have been replaced by vote bankers, so I don’t see where your optimism comes from, the polls were pretty accurate last time, and this time the buses full of Puerto Ricans will arrive on time.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      If you’re canvassing opinion, ROL, give Fash The Nation a fair hearing too. The blue wave’s fantasy-land gaga nonsense.
      The lesson to take from Occasio Squat Sandez is that the mainstream left’s abandoned the working class. What she stands for is more welfarism, which is fine for the client voters but genuine workers HATE shirkers.
      If the right reclaims socialism (as in state ownership and delivery of key strategic goods and services, NOT NOT NOT redistribution, inequality blah blah blah) the left will be completely *done*.

      I expect Jim’s analysis is pretty bang on though: IF there’s a blue wave, and no wall, then it’s war, and not on our terms.

      Bunker time.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        So you don’t believe in the polls? I think they were pretty accurate last time – not necessarily because they were accurate, but because the Cathedral will make sure they are accurate. After screwing up in 2016, i don’t think the left will do worse given they have spawned more voters and learned their lesson.

        What’s the TLDR version of Fash the Nation’s argumet against the blue wave? If your assumption is working class voters, I highly doubt it because they are already as pro trump as possible given the constant propaganda blast. Also, keep in mind that in low turnout elections, the ones with the meatpuppet voters who always show up win.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Basically the same argument Jim made up there somewhere: the media’s hated like never before; the polls were wrong in 2016 every single time; the public understands that the President is the underdog, which is rather interesting to many people; Trump’s achieved quite a lot in terms of tariffs and job protection – including the return of some jobs.

          However, Jim may well be spot on: lack of wall is a huge problem.

          Remember also though that the media’s relentless campaign may very well work against them: if people believe Trump’s a neo-Nazi who’s deporting people left right and centre, that can only strengthen his appeal.
          Remember ordinary people have NEVER wanted immigration. Any time they’ve been asked they’ve said “no thankyou”.

          We shall see. Hope for peace but steel yourself for some unpleasant times.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Policy-wise, if I were the President I’d be going after the black vote. MS13 types aren’t taking over white neighbourhoods nowadays, they’re taking over black neighbourhoods. We’re seeing substantial black flight from many places.
          Trump could easily expose the lie of white supremacy and rampant anti-negro sentiment (whether honestly or disingenuously) and turn the tables: the Democrats are importing people to take YOUR jobs and they’re even ethnically cleansing you out of YOUR OWN territories.

          Whites would have no problem with any of that because

          A) He’s sticking up for whites and insisting to blacks that whites aren’t oppressing them
          B) Whites have no interest in places like Detroit and Chicago in any case (gentrification notwithstanding, but Starbucks people aren’t our people)

          • peppermint says:

            The president’s primary enemy is the media. Blacks are easily led. Another major enemy is the bureaucrats and ngos responsible for redistribution. Blacks are easily bribed. They’re 9% of the population and falling, and they don’t turn out to vote.

            You can say Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a black even by the standards of today’s blacks, was imposed upon them. Lyndon Johnson, the worst traitor in American history, had the blacks voting Democrat for the past 50 years. Well, it’s over anyway. They are irrelevant whether or not they continue to bloc-vote for Democrats, because Democrats must concern themselves with keeping swipples and spics in line.

        • jim says:

          We are dealing with madmen who are getting madder. If they were capable of competent and cohesive action, we would not have this problem.

  23. vxxc says:

    “Social Matter, without changing its claim to be the blog of the restoration, has gone commie.”

    (((Those Damn Puritan Entryists Again!!)))

  24. vxxc says:

    The Real Dire Problem: all of you are talkers.

    You talk too much and act not at all: your struggle is confined to blog posts and comment sections.

    You’re all in a purity struggle over hair splitting.

    You wave page views at each other when holiness contests are resolved by the blog owner aka High Priest of that particular Temple.

    Imagine if Trump were only judged by talk instead of action.

    He talks and double talks and tweets to create distraction and space SO HE CAN ACT and SO CAN HIS GOVERNMENT.

    Get off social media after you’ve made your points and either ORGANIZE for real world to perchance ACT.

    Or go punch a spic or a nigger if that’s your thing.

    ORGANIZE
    to perchance…
    ACT.

    Even if ACT is only taking over your precious Home Owner Association…or whatever or wherever you hang your hat.

    ^^note^^^if this prompts a debate on the practicality or morality of taking over your HOA or…more likely your Dungeons and Dragons set^^^^ you have completely missed the point …again^^^

    • jim says:

      The time for war is not yet.

      Need right authority. War is a collective act. Until we can act collectively to make war, need to talk, not act.

    • Hey VXXC: Long time, no see. The reason you think our “struggle is confined to blog posts and comment sections” is that it is the only part that you can see. If you’d bother yourself to come inside What’s Actually Happening, it would look way different.

    • Koanic says:

      The fact that you assume this says much more about you than it does about the rest of us. Deeds and words proceed from the same heart. It sounds like you are not smart enough to think of anything productive to do. In which case, go punch a nigger yourself, and enjoy the free room and board. You’ll be doing your part to bankrupt the state you hate.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      You have missed the point again. What you are saying is that if we compete in the democratic institutions they will wisely select the wisest governors with the wisest plans. If that were the case we would not be in this mess.

      What will really happen if we create a political institution, is that it will be destroyed or coopted by the other political institutions, because the political institutions look the way they do not because their members are especially evil but because they are evolutionarily tailored solutions to winning political battles.

      Earlier you said that we should start backyard militias because they will exponentiate into armies. If that happened then backyard militias would exponentiate into armies every time leftism popped up and we would not have a leftism problem. But we do have a leftism problem.

      You are pushing unwise actions using the rhetoric and with the underlying assumptions of our enemies.

Leave a Reply for Bane Blumpf