Oligarchs

The big winner of the Democratic Party presidential nominee debate was, of course, President Donald Trump.

The commies called out the oligarch for being an oligarch, and the oligarch called out the commies for being commies. The commies lost and the oligarch lost worse.

Following the debate Bernie Sanders gleefully referred to “our networks” – implying that some nominally private networks are in fact owned by the Permanent Government / Democratic Party, and frequently answer to commies. As obviously they do.

The word “Oligarch” in its old and correct meaning is a member of the permanent government. Newer usage, however is to refer to members of the permanent government that substantially exercise power as capitalists on the revolving door between regulators and regulated, such as Jon Corzine, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and Jeff Bezos. Soros’s wealth comes from buying up worthless third world debt, and then having the World Bank, which is to say the American taxpayer, make it worth something.

Oligarchs(new meaning), is a small subset of oligarchs(old meaning) Bloomberg and Bernie are both oligarchs(old meaning) but only Bloomberg is an oligarch(new meaning)

Capitalists are not usually oligarchs, though some capitalists such as Bezos are also oligarchs. The Microsoft/Amazon conflict is a capitalist versus oligarch conflict, with the oligarchs(old meaning) coming in on the side of their fellow oligarch, and President Donald Trump coming in on the side of the taxpayers, and also on the side of his fellow capitalists at Microsoft.

Under Obama, the oligarchs ran wild, looted the nation, and proposed to loot it a great deal worse (the infamous Trans Pacific Partnership). This gave the commies plenty of entirely justified complaints and arguments, which is why Bernie Sanders is doing OK despite being two steps behind Judge Ruth Ginsberg in front of death’s door.

The elite is losing cohesion, leading to anarcho-tyranny and internal conflict, which internal conflict was on display in the recent Democratic party debate. Oligarchs(new meaning) should exercise power from behind the scenes, relying their allies(oligarchs in the old meaning) to tell the voters “hail fellow non white, hail fellow oppressed woman, hail fellow gay”. When they have to put their own faces forward, they are in trouble. It shows that Bloomberg does not trust the Democrats to look after the interests of his sort of people the way Clinton and Obama so generously did.

Oligarchs(new meaning) are worried that their fellow capitalist Donald Trump is stabbing them from in front, while fellow oligarchs(old meaning) are going to stab them in the back.

The Transpacific Partnership was a plot by oligarchs(new meaning) against capitalists, a gigantic pile of lobbyist written law and regulation.

As a result, we are now seeing the rich oligarch(new meaning) face of the Democratic party and commie loser face of the Democratic party on display simultaneously, with Bernie Sanders being a wealthy oligarch(old meaning) and commie loser simultaneously.

A lot of people say that a president Bernie would not do anything, because being rich from political gravy, he is not inclined to do anything, because he is a fellow oligarch(old meaning), and the oligarchs(new meaning) in the government would not allow him to do anything.

But the holiness spiral, running leftism ever lefter, has installed a lot of commies in the Permanent Government. A president Bernie, unlike President Trump, would have enough of his own people in the Permanent Government to get stuff done by executive order, and he, unlike Trump, has people that will cheerfully carry out some quite extraordinary executive orders, which is how Hugo Chavez destroyed Venezuela and Allende destroyed Chile. I don’t think he intends to turn America into the Soviet Union, and if he does intend that the Permanent Government will not allow it. But he does openly and enthusiastically intend to turn America into Venezuela, and there are plenty of people in the Permanent Government who are mighty keen on that idea.

Leftism always fragments into leftists fighting each other, and leftism always solves this by cohesion around the leftmost faction. I was expecting an anti white to be the leftmost faction and that the anti white Democratic leader would try to build unity around getting rid of white people, starting with old white people in the Democratic Party, with Nancy Pelosi getting the first pass of the salami slicer, but Bernie Sanders is the leader of the leftmost faction. If Bernie Sanders loses the candidacy, Democratic Party / Permanent Government chaos and internal conflict will continue. If he wins the candidacy, the oligarchs will bend the knee. The left always does, sometimes after a few left on left mysterious disappearances and “suicides”.

351 Responses to “Oligarchs”

  1. Strannik says:

    Jim, you stated this;

    ”jim says:
    2020-03-02 at 01:45

    It is not likely that Putin would intervene in the Church to install a patriarch who was in the pocket of people trying to overthrow him. The Vatican worships pagan idols as aspects of Gaia, but it does so at the instigation of Harvard, and Harvard is trying to overthrow Putin. Therefore, Putin believes, and he should know, that the Patriarch he in effect appointed is not in the pocket of the Vatican.”

    Putin is not a Dictator, firstly, but rules by popular will, from a people grateful for his wise leadership over the years.

    And second, Putin has very good relations with the Old Believers, being the first Russian leader ever to meet with their leaders just as he would the leaders of the alleged ”official” Orthodox church, and he is encouraging all Old Believers all over the world to return to Russia and is helping them do so with government monies.

    • Not Tom says:

      plz to be moderating this tuft of pubic hair until it grows in the direction of the reply button

      • R7 Rocket says:

        Strannik should start new threads instead of replying normally, because he is the Patriarch of Moscow, dontcha know.
        Respect Strannik’s authoritah!

    • polifugue says:

      Strannik, if you’re going to be a heretical schismatic, learn to reply at the very least.

      When at the rightmost column, follow the line at the left of the column upward to the reply button of the column to the left of the rightmost column. Click reply. Then, your comment will appear at the bottom of the comments at the rightmost column.

  2. Strannik says:

    Mike you asked me a question;

    ”Mike says:
    2020-03-03 at 01:43

    If I’m understanding him correctly, he is attacking the state church of Peter the Great, and not the Tsars before him. Am I correct in intuiting that Strannik?”

    The Nikonian Schism happened under Tsar Peter’s father Tsar Alexei, who succumbed to the Vatican change agents that I mentioned a while back (Paisius Lagarides, etc..) and instituted a what amounted to a new state church. No Old Believer has ever gone against the Tsars, even when as Alexander Solzhenitsyn said they killed around 15 million of them over a 300 year period. In fact, for most of post-Schism history, most Cossacks were Old Believers and were very loyal to the Tsars. The last bodyguards of Tsar Nicholas that he trusted before his abdication were Old Believers to a man, and he had ended the persecution in 1904 himself.

    So yes, just as the State church of the Anglicans went liberal and is now totally corrupted, the same happened after Tsar Peter and his reign with the ”state church” his father had set up. And when Tsar Nicholas was overthrown by the provisional government in 1917, the ”Holy Synod” of his ”official Orthodox Church” were among the first to throw Tsar Nicholas to the wolves and support the new regimes.

    These are the facts.

    • Mike says:

      If we are going to continue our arguments seriously you’ve got to get better at replying to the original thread bud.

  3. Strannik says:

    Your Blog Jim, so I’m answering you. So let’s talk. You said to me after I made my comment about uncorrupted Apostolic teaching being the possession of the Orthodox Faith, that;

    ”The devil can quote scripture to his purpose. You have paraphrased and selected those teachings to fit with Harvard and Rome.”

    I have? You’ll be hard placed to find a more dire enemy of Old Rome (Constantinople being New Rome and Moscow the Third and Final Rome)and what they’ve become than myself.

    ”It is an evasive and ambiguous paraphrase of Apostolic teaching that is all too amenable to being applied in ways consistent with the objectives of Harvard entryists. And it is apparent from what is happening on Constantinople and what happened in the Ukraine that Harvard and Rome have entryist agents in the Orthodox Church.”

    Of course they do. That’s what the earlier Schism of 1653-1666 AD was all about, change agents like Patriarch Nikon, Paisius Lagarides, Arseny the Greek, and other agents or dupes of the Jesuits.

    ”I am talking about Charles the Hammer appointing Bishops with big hammers to break Saracen skulls in place of Bishops who favored turning the other cheek despite the fact that Christians were well and truly out of cheeks.”

    I am not aware of any Bishops of the once-Frankish Orthodox church who weren’t in favor of war against the Muslim enemies of Christ.

    ”He allotted land to warriors, and allotted Bishoprics to warrior priests”

    Priests and Monks are not to shed human blood under most circumstances. The Holy Monk Alexander Peresvet who fought and killed and died at the battle of Kulikovo in Russia against the Golden Horde’s champion was a notable exception but still was a Canonical one in his case.

    ”and for several hundred years afterwards the Church had a saner policy in regard to just war, and only returned to suicide on the just war question at about the time of the Napoleonic wars.”

    The Orthodox have never wavered in holding to Just War, always have, always will.

    ”It is “peace on earth to all men of goodwill“, and the Saracens had demonstrated a serious lack of goodwill. Charles the Hammer had a decisive influence on Church doctrine, just as Constantine did.”

    The doctrine was always there and never seriously in doubt.

    Regarding the power of the Tsars in Ecclesial matters;

    ”For the last several centuries, the Sovereign of the Russias has had the right and exercised the duty of doing things considerably more forceful than what other sons of the Church may do, and before the fall of Constantinople, the Sovereign of Constantinople had the right and exercised the duty of doing those things.”

    Except that in both cases, the Emperors cucked out to the West and the Papacy and surrendered Orthodoxy over to the forces of Innovation and Latin Heresy.

    ”You are proposing Harvard’s “separation of Church and State”, which always winds up with the destruction of Christianity and its replacement by Harvard’s post Christian holier than God religion.”

    No, actually I’m not. I’m saying that historically, harmony without confusion is possible with Godly Right-Believing Christians in both State and Church.

    ”You always have a state religion. If priests have independence from the state, they will struggle with the state for power, for what is rightly Caesar’s, which is leftism, and you wind up with a leftist Church, which eventually becomes a holier-than-God postchristian Church, which is what happened to Harvard, which was originally New England’s Vatican, the headquarters of the official governmental state religion of New England. The states of the American Hegemony now have a postchristian state religion.”

    I’d say instead; ‘you always have a state religion, but the proper way is mutual reinforcement of each institution by the other without confusion or domination.’

    ”Priests who argue for “independence” or supremacy are always plotting to take power that rightly belongs to someone else. Empirically, observing their deeds and their fruits, we can see that they are always evil people intent on doing bad things, piously invoking other worldly goals while in this world coveting what is not theirs. Happens every time, and has been happening for many centuries. Bad people doing wicked things.”

    Not disagreeing there, because men have a sickness called sin; ”Psychopathy” ”Soul-Sickness”, estrangement from God and our fellow man. The good news is that Christ as the Divine Physician established a Hospital called the Church, Orthodoxy, which has the His cure for sin. However, it is also true that the Clergy of the Church are themselves sick with sin as anybody else, and have need of help also. So we’re called to help each other in this life, and struggle manfully against sin with God’s help.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      @Strannik

      You arouse suspicion by sounding more like Pastor Rod Dreher than a Russian Orthodox Patriarch.

      And the use of enemy language such as “psychopathy.”

      https://blog.jim.com/culture/psychopathy-is-an-anticoncept/

      • Strannik says:

        The term has centuries of use in the Orthodox Church and literally means exactly what it literally means in Greek; ”Soul Sickness”. The new language might have perverted the words for some but that’s really kind of irrelevant. It isn’t ”enemy language”; they hijacked it instead of making their usual barbarous neologisms.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          @Strannik

          Centuries? Nope.

          • Strannik says:

            In English. But It’s not an English word in origin; ”Psyche”, or ”Soul”, and ”-pathy”, ”sickness/illness”

            • Not Tom says:

              Yeah, you see, we’re all already familiar with the tactic of claiming that a word is actually very old because similar-sounding words are very old or the root words that make up the word are very old. By that logic, “sexist” and “racist” are extremely old words indeed. That little escape hatch will not open for you here.

              And you’re still starting new threads, writing long and boring posts full of bald assertions and word salad. Spammy behavior, as explained in a previous thread. Stop the spam, apply some brakes, maybe you won’t get red-flagged.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              @Strannik

              And yet English-speaking Orthodox Christians did not use the term before the mid-1800’s

              • Strannik says:

                Actually you’re right R7 Rocket, so I have to give you credit on that one when I double-checked my information. All the more reason in my mind to bring myself into sync with the ”Old Believers”, for there is no innovation theologically there.

        • jim says:

          > The term has centuries of use in the Orthodox Church

          Bullshit.

          • Strannik says:

            As I wrote above to R7 Rocket, I was mistaken. However the concept of the true Church as being by analogy a Hospital for the sick is a valid one, regardless of the vast numbers who no longer avail themselves in this day and age of Christ’s Healing.

            He died and is alive, Jim, and He will return again to render unto each man according to his works. People who don’t believe that have no relation save pragmatic utility perhaps to His Church.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              @Strannik

              “He died and is alive, Jim, and He will return again to render unto each man according to his works. People who don’t believe that have no relation save pragmatic utility perhaps to His Church.”

              The old Pastor Rod Dreher and Mitt Romney shaming trick. “I made a promise to GOD” says Mitt, before betraying President Trump.

              • Strannik says:

                ”Shaming”? What the hell are you talking about? I’m pointing out that Jesus Christ died, rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. If one doesn’t believe that, then whatever they are they’re not truly a Christian and have no business therefore in telling Christians how to operate their churches or in what to believe or not to believe.

                If there’s no common ground there in that belief, then all this talk is just futile nonsense.

                And as far as betrayal of the legitimate rulers of one’s nation goes, it’s a sin, a very grave one. ”For it is as the sin of witchcraft to rebel, and as the sin of idolatry, to refuse to obey”, Scripture says. Every American is duty bound to accept all commands of President Trump, the legitimate President of the United States, in all things except sin itself, or risk their eternal salvation.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Strannik

                  Emulating the back-stabbing Mitt Romney isn’t a good look for you.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I’m pointing out that Jesus Christ died, rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

                  The fundamental premise isn’t in dispute, only the fridge logic being used to get here from there.

                  Every American is duty bound to accept all commands of President Trump, the legitimate President of the United States, in all things except sin itself, or risk their eternal salvation.

                  It’s your definitions of “sin” and “salvation” that are the problem. When we discuss sin, we are generally talking about Old Testament law and especially the ten commandments, and when we discuss salvation, we are generally talking about human flourishing and the concomitant rewards in the afterlife.

                  These are additional spiritual incentives on top of the material ones; God wants you to forego murder and sodomy, not only because it is pleasing to God, but because it is good for Man. The point of this is to reinforce the fact that even lords and kings are ultimately answerable to God’s will, even if their worldly actions might appear to be consequence-free, unlike those of a peasant. However, there are material explanations for this as well.

                  God does not give us commandments that make Man worse off – I dare you to try to find even one of those in the Old Testament. However, some of the “church fathers” that you and Nikolai like to speak of (as if they are all just a single unbreakable entity, and must be accepted either all at once or not at all) innovated new commandments that are quite contrary to human flourishing, and thus very likely not to have come from God at all, but rather from the other guy.

    • jim says:

      > Your Blog Jim, so I’m answering you. So let’s talk. You said to me after I made my comment about uncorrupted Apostolic teaching being the possession of the Orthodox Faith, that;

      > > “The devil can quote scripture to his purpose. You have paraphrased and selected those teachings to fit with Harvard and Rome.”

      > I have? You’ll be hard placed to find a more dire enemy of Old Rome (Constantinople being New Rome and Moscow the Third and Final Rome)and what they’ve become than myself.

      That is another piece of ambiguity, of which I encounter so many in your comments. What is your position on Moscow’s theological authority? I keep getting the feeling that your position on that matches Harvard’s.

      Or, as I asked “Allah”, whose side are you actually on? It eventually turned out he was not on Turkey’s side either. He is on the side of Turkey as the Iranian Mullah’s intend it to become. Not a Cathedral shill, but a shill, in that he was profoundly evasive and unclear about whose side he is on.

      • Allah says:

        Ha, no. All I want on this matter is that Turks, not the West, get to dictate what happens with Iran after their eventual collapse. Looking back, you were right about Soleimani also.

        • Not Tom says:

          I can’t speak for everyone, but I for one do not particularly give a shit what happens to Iran as long as its inhabitants aren’t pointing guns at Americans.

          However, I don’t think it’s ultimately the West that you’ll have to negotiate with, it’s Russia. The American empire is already weakening in the region, and Russia has been expanding its influence over Iran every day.

          It would be cosmic irony indeed if Turkey and Russia ended up at war over regions of the middle east. Many of us – I think most – agree that U.S. troops should be at the diametrically opposite side of the globe when it happens; just don’t say we didn’t warn you.

      • The Cominator says:

        Jim as I’ve said I’m pretty sure I know the guy from another forum, he is many things and he was even something of an economic Stalinist for a while but a Cathedral shill… No. He kind of moved away from economic leftism via my continously arguing the merchant class isn’t the real enemy.

        I know we are rightly very paranoid about spooks, shills and entryist here because we get so damned many of them (and EVERY fucking right wing board has them… and also completely non political boards) but he isn’t one. Hes politically rather eccentric. Anyone who supports Trump (even back when he was pretty close to an economic Stalinist) and Putin is while not exactly one of us is an enemy of the Cathedral.

        The Orthodox Church has very unfortunately endorsed St. Jerome though to a lesser degree than the Papist Church with the authority (as far as I know) of council. He support St. Jerome for that reason even though his better judgement would tell him that St. Jerome’s bullshit is contrary to the nature of fallen man, toxic and is a slippery slope to the kind of faggotry the Papist Church has.

        I don’t mind Orthodoxy as is btw, I just worry the St. Jerome crap is a bomb that can explode into faggotry at any time. He thinks being a believer that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Orthodox Church (and no doubt cites that the Orthodox Church heldup better behind the Iron Curtain than the Western Churches have heldup under the Cathedral as evidence to justify his faith).

        • Not Tom says:

          “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” is all very well, but he should preach the Gospel of St. Jerome elsewhere.

      • Strannik says:

        Jim you replied to me;

        ”That is another piece of ambiguity, of which I encounter so many in your comments. What is your position on Moscow’s theological authority? ”

        If and whenever there is an actual Patriarch of Moscow, he has the spiritual authority of any other bishop, but has a more honorable place among his peers due to the dignity and primacy of the capital of Holy Russia itself. He or any other Patriarch or Metropolitan is not a kind of ”Pope”, for the Head of the Church is Christ Himself.

        and you said;

        ” I keep getting the feeling that your position on that matches Harvard’s.”

        I think Harvard’s position if any matches that of the Vatican’s for all practical effect, so of course I do not match them in their ideas.

        My ”side” is to try to be on the side of God, the only ”side” that matters in this life or the next.

        I keep getting the feeling that your position on that matches Harvard’s.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          @Strannik

          “If and whenever there is an actual Patriarch of Moscow,”

          The actual Patriarch of Moscow is Kirill, handpicked by Czar Vladimir Putin himself. It certainly won’t be someone who sounds like Cuck Pastor Rod Dreher, I hope.

          • Strannik says:

            No, the situation is far more complicated than that, and I’ll leave it at that.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              @Strannik

              -Denies that Kirill is the Patriarch of Moscow by obfuscating-

              Someone who emulates cuck Pastor Rod Dreher and back-stabbing Cuck Romney isn’t in a position to tell Czar Vladimir Putin that his choice of Kirill as Patriarch of Moscow is wrong.

              You think you’re holier than Patriarch Kirill? Not with your use of enemy language and your advocacy of surrender of the Church’s Earthly mission.

              • Strannik says:

                You’re being fucking ridiculous. Not every Orthodox even recognizes Kirill, and most traditionalists don’t. He’s an ecumenicalist and a theological liberal, and there are suspicious rumors that like his former boss Metropolitan Nikodim, that he was made a secret Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Not every Orthodox even recognizes Kirill

                  And did the Franks all recognize Milo’s religious authority? Did the ancient Hebrews all recognize Zadok’s religious authority?

                  Do you believe that popular support is important in some way?

                • jim says:

                  > You’re being fucking ridiculous. Not every Orthodox even recognizes Kirill,

                  And most of those that don’t are working for Harvard and the state department.

        • JanMartense says:

          I think Harvard’s position if any matches that of the Vatican’s for all practical effect, so of course I do not match them in their ideas.

          Thinking that it is the Vatican which is secretly corrupting Harvard, and not the other way around, is so mindbogglingly retarded that it honestly discredits your whole worldview. Anyone with half a brain can see which priesthood holds institutional power and which does not. You won’t get fired from your job, doxxed and assaulted for not being Catholic. It is further obvious to anyone with half a brain that the epicenter of modern poz lies in Massachusetts, not Rome.

          If I’m massively misinterpreting your position (e.g., if you hate the Pope for theological reasons but realize who’s actually in charge atm), then I apologize, but that’s certainty not what you sound like right now. Understanding the Puritan origins of Progressivism is one of the most important things to come out of Moldbug and modern reaction.

          • Strannik says:

            Harvard, and Protestantism, would not have existed without the Papacy and it’s very Protestant innovations itself, centuries before. The Latin Pope was the first Protestant. I do believe it’s a case of Harvard thinking that they control the Vatican, and for Vatican purposes that suits them just fine as far as their relationship goes. So for all practical known purposes, it’s Harvard which we see at the center of all this.

            • JanMartense says:

              Harvard, and Protestantism, would not have existed without the Papacy and it’s very Protestant innovations itself, centuries before.

              Thanks for clearing that up; this is certainly true. But the problem is, the exact same logic could be used to discredit pre-1054 Nicene Christianity, just one step removed: “Oh, without Christianity, we wouldn’t have had Catholicism, and without that we wouldn’t have had Lutheranism, and without that we wouldn’t have had Calvinism…” etc. etc. And in fact, we see idiot Pagans use that exact rationale to try to push their idiocy. “Har har, you see, I’ve explained to you how liberalism wouldn’t have existed without Christians, btfo Christians” as if we didn’t already know that.

              Modern progressive beliefs were preceded by Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Anglicanism, but none of those faiths actually created them or their holy institutions. Puritans did.

        • jim says:

          > > “That is another piece of ambiguity, of which I encounter so many in your comments. What is your position on Moscow’s theological authority? ”

          > If and whenever there is an actual Patriarch of Moscow, r there is an actual Patriarch of Moscow, he

          Well, well, well. “not our president”.

          There is an actual Patriarch of Moscow – and Harvard refuses to recognize him for much the same reasons as it refuses to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and insists on treating Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel.

          You are not canonical Orthodox, for Orthodoxy recognizes the authority of national Orthodox Churches, you are not biblical, because you are in violation of 1 Timothy 2.

          And your talk about the Church’s other worldly goals is a cover story for the pursuit of power in this world. You are obviously not working in a Cathedral ngo, for some of your comments would give Human Resources fits, but though you are not a Cathedral shill, you are a shill.

          We also pursue power in this world – but we stab our enemies in the front, rather than in the back. You are not a Cathedral shill, but you are a shill. We aim to establish a national church that is theoretically Episcopalian (Recently existent Episcopalianism is dead, their churches are museums and real estate, because the congregation entirely stopped turning up) but is Orthodox, in communion with Orthodoxy, and recognizes and is in communion with other national Orthodox Churches.

          As Boldmug tells us: The trouble is basically that sovereignty is conserved. If you try to design a political system that discards some element of sovereignty, like the right of the state to promote truth and suppress error, a parallel, informal state will rush into this gap and fill it.

          Since control over information is incredibly powerful in the age of broadcast media, this parallel state will become the strongest organ in the actual government. It will be completely irresponsible and unaccountable, since it’s not even part of the official state. But there is no political, economic, or intellectual check on its operations.

          And when you cast doubt on the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow, you are arguing for this power to be informal and unofficial, rather than formal and official – you are backing the horde of leftists eager to knock over the apple cart and grab some of those lovely apples, you are backing the parallel and informal state.

          • Strannik says:

            Very incorrect Jim, very incorrect, you’ve got Harvard on the brain the way some have Jew on the brain;

            ”Well, well, well. “not our president”.

            There is an actual Patriarch of Moscow – and Harvard refuses to recognize him for much the same reasons as it refuses to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and insists on treating Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel.

            There’s an actual bishop in Moscow, actually several, just not Nikonians/Sergianists from the Soviet ”official church”unless they get things right…

            ”You are not canonical Orthodox, for Orthodoxy recognizes the authority of national Orthodox Churches, you are not biblical, because you are in violation of 1 Timothy 2.”

            Laughably untrue. It’s like you weren’t even reading when I talked about the ”Old Believers” and their Bishops and Priests, and the Schism of 1653-1666 AD.

            ”And your talk about the Church’s other worldly goals is a cover story for the pursuit of power in this world. You are obviously not working in a Cathedral ngo, for some of your comments would give Human Resources fits, but though you are not a Cathedral shill, you are a shill.”

            There’s a Russian saying; ”don’t judge my corn by your bushel”. It takes quite a bit of mental gymnastics to think i’m a ”shill” or that all this talk of mine is for the aim of worldly success. What a joke.

            ”We also pursue power in this world – but we stab our enemies in the front, rather than in the back. You are not a Cathedral shill, but you are a shill. We aim to establish a national church that is theoretically Episcopalian (Recently existent Episcopalianism is dead, their churches are museums and real estate, because the congregation entirely stopped turning up) but is Orthodox, in communion with Orthodoxy, and recognizes and is in communion with other national Orthodox Churches. ”

            Odd. That means you want to be part of the same bunch that is ecumenicalist and liberal in their theology, and are lapdogs of the State; whatever State comes along…

            ”As Boldmug tells us: The trouble is basically that sovereignty is conserved. If you try to design a political system that discards some element of sovereignty, like the right of the state to promote truth and suppress error, a parallel, informal state will rush into this gap and fill it.”

            Problem is, when the temporal power is encroaching on the things of the Church, the teachings which come from Christ Himself, the temporal power is then encroaching on His Sovereignty.

            ”Since control over information is incredibly powerful in the age of broadcast media, this parallel state will become the strongest organ in the actual government. It will be completely irresponsible and unaccountable, since it’s not even part of the official state. But there is no political, economic, or intellectual check on its operations.”

            That sounds like a problem within the temporal power due to the technological possibilities of the modern era, something that the spiritual power should be concerned about also.

            ”And when you cast doubt on the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow, you are arguing for this power to be informal and unofficial, rather than formal and official – you are backing the horde of leftists eager to knock over the apple cart and grab some of those lovely apples, you are backing the parallel and informal state.”

            You’re trying to fit everything in this impossible ‘Bed of Procrustes’, when in fact I’m all for the power of Orthodox Bishops-but they have to actually be Orthodox Bishops.

            Imagine my shock at the irony of a guy like you defending the Soviet retread and Crypto-Papist sitting in the Patriarchal throne, when I’m defending the actual traditionalists who had nothing to do with the Soviet government as much as possible.

            I believe that we can think this through better.

            • jim says:

              > Very incorrect Jim, very incorrect, you’ve got Harvard on the brain the way some have Jew on the brain;

              Harvard is trying to overthrow Putin, and Putin’s people, as well as worrying about ngos, worry about “spiritual security”, meaning worry about Harvard cucking the Orthodox church.

              It is obvious what Harvard are doing, and it is as obvious to Putin as it is obvious to me, and this is what the current power struggle in Orthodoxy is about. Harvard wants to knock over Putin’s apple cart and grab some apples, as they did in the Ukraine, using the same methods that they used in the Ukraine, and lots of people are hovering around wanting their share of those shiny apples. All your pious theology is directed at those shiny apples.

              I repeat again. There is always a state church, and opposition to a formal and official state church is yet another rerun of the English Puritans in 1640 establishing an informal and unofficial state church that was ten times as intrusive, arrogant, authoritarian and repressive as the official state Church. Which is what they got in 1640, and what we now have in the American Hegemony.

              As with communism and socialism, we have been around this track over and over again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

              • Strannik says:

                No, what I am saying is that the present ”official state church” is precisely part of the 5th column at least unconciously, because it’s whole existence was born out of a desire on the part of Russian intellectuals in the 1600’s to be Westerners, liberal Westerners, and the first institution taken over was the ”official church”.

                • jim says:

                  It is not likely that Putin would intervene in the Church to install a patriarch who was in the pocket of people trying to overthrow him. The Vatican worships pagan idols as aspects of Gaia, but it does so at the instigation of Harvard, and Harvard is trying to overthrow Putin. Therefore, Putin believes, and he should know, that the Patriarch he in effect appointed is not in the pocket of the Vatican.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts.

                  State Church under the Tsars was good. If you are attacking the state Church of the Tsarsç all the way back to 1600, you are a Cathedral progressive and an enemy of Orthodoxy.

                • Mike says:

                  If I’m understanding him correctly, he is attacking the state church of Peter the Great, and not the Tsars before him. Am I correct in intuiting that Strannik?

              • info says:

                @jim

                How is it that all state churches so far have turned to crap and pozzed?

                • jim says:

                  All state churches that are subject to the American Hegemony are subject to Harvard, thus are instantly assimilated and disappear.

                  The Russian State Church, on the other hand, is unpozzing, and the faithful of the Chinese Pope are doing OK

              • info says:

                Not to mention that christianity seems more robust and its believers more orthodox in non-state churches?

                • jim says:

                  A supposedly non state church disappears the faster the more it is assimilated to progressivism. The congregationalists are ancient and forgotten history, the Presbyterians recently vanished, the Anglicans at vanishing point, and the Roman Catholics about to follow them. The unitarians supposedly continue to exist, but the Cathedral artificially keeps them on life support because they are actually zerotarians.

                  So what you are seeing is survivorship bias. Surviving churches are those that better resisted our officially unofficial State Church.

                • Dave says:

                  In all the places I’ve lived my fifty years, Unitarian Churches are as common as Burger Kings, yet I’ve never met a Unitarian nor heard mention of anyone being a Unitarian. They’re just empty buildings, derelict except for their fresh rainbow flags, spoken of only when giving driving directions.

            • JanMartense says:

              I’m all for the power of Orthodox Bishops-but they have to actually be Orthodox Bishops.

              That right there is the perfect summary of your problem. You have concluded that the regular, institutional Orthodox Church is insufficiently holy for your tastes, and therefore gone on to conclude that YOU know Church doctrine better than the Church itself. YOU are, in fact, a perfect example of what Nrx calls a “holiness spiral.”

              Jim points out above that a formal state church is less repressive and arrogant than an informal one. To elaborate on that: the reason is that in an ‘official’ doctrine it is clear what is good (holy) and what is not. The official Bishop can say, “fasting is good, starving yourself to death is bad,” and there is no ambiguity. In an unofficial church, what is good and bad are not clearly defined (in liberalism this is by design) and so there is always a sense of paranoia as to what is truly good. “Is fasting really enough? Hmm, maybe I should starve myself to be safe…” And you end up with a competition wherein all the most status-hungry people develop ever more extreme ways to demonstrate their goodness, which inevitably become so extreme as to be evil. This is exactly how Puritanism became Progressivism over time.

              Now. I’m definitely not accusing you of being as bad as they were. The doctrines of the Purtians and their descendants were in many ways exceptionally evil, even among the history of informal religions. But the mechanism is similar. You’ve concluded that the main Church isn’t good enough, and so have decided to accept your own “variation” on it. Thus you have implicitly rejected the clarity of official doctrine, and accepted the free-for-all of ambiguous doctrine. There are a ton of “old believer” traditions, which one is correct?

              If the Moscow Patriarchate ever declines and people instead turn to the ambiguous plethora of old believer churches, we will see radical and illogical doctrine become more and more prevalent as people try to ensure in ever more creative ways that they are regarded as holy and good.

              If you doubt me that these churches could be subject to holiness spiraling like the Calvinists, look up the “Filippians”, who apparently concluded that the path to “goodness” involved setting themselves on fire. That is precisely why we need a Pope or Patriarchate.

              • Strannik says:

                Jan, you stated that;

                ”That right there is the perfect summary of your problem. You have concluded that the regular, institutional Orthodox Church is insufficiently holy for your tastes, and therefore gone on to conclude that YOU know Church doctrine better than the Church itself. YOU are, in fact, a perfect example of what Nrx calls a “holiness spiral.””

                No, it’s real simple. The state church of the ”Nikonians” admitted it was an error, what they did, in 1974, and lifted all anathemas previously put on so-called ”Old Believers”. I studied what they said and what they admitted to, and then studied the ”Old Believer” side of things. The Nikonian Schism WAS the ”Holiness Spiral” instigated by the zealous Patriarch Nikon and his henchmen, who were literally agents of the Papacy as it turns out by Nikon’s own admission when they had him defrocked, among others.

                You continued;

                ”Jim points out above that a formal state church is less repressive and arrogant than an informal one. To elaborate on that: the reason is that in an ‘official’ doctrine it is clear what is good (holy) and what is not. The official Bishop can say, “fasting is good, starving yourself to death is bad,” and there is no ambiguity. In an unofficial church, what is good and bad are not clearly defined (in liberalism this is by design) and so there is always a sense of paranoia as to what is truly good. “Is fasting really enough? Hmm, maybe I should starve myself to be safe…” And you end up with a competition wherein all the most status-hungry people develop ever more extreme ways to demonstrate their goodness, which inevitably become so extreme as to be evil. This is exactly how Puritanism became Progressivism over time.”

                But, what had and had happened is that the ancient Orthodox have followed the rules and teachings of the original and authentic state church, and have avoided the liberal innovations of the usurping ecclesial regime. So we can see from history that actual Old Believers never had that issue you speak of come up, ever.

                Further;

                ”Now. I’m definitely not accusing you of being as bad as they were. The doctrines of the Purtians and their descendants were in many ways exceptionally evil, even among the history of informal religions. But the mechanism is similar. You’ve concluded that the main Church isn’t good enough, and so have decided to accept your own “variation” on it. Thus you have implicitly rejected the clarity of official doctrine, and accepted the free-for-all of ambiguous doctrine. There are a ton of “old believer” traditions, which one is correct? ”

                That is simply not true. When the Nikonians took over, they lost a lot of credibility with the people, and that’s when a lot of sects and superstition ran rampant in Russian society. There’s only one ”Old Believer” tradition; the original Orthodox teachings and liturgies of their ancestors of all Russia, the same ways as had been from the beginning of Orthodoxy in Russia back in 988 AD.

                And so you continue;

                ”If the Moscow Patriarchate ever declines and people instead turn to the ambiguous plethora of old believer churches, we will see radical and illogical doctrine become more and more prevalent as people try to ensure in ever more creative ways that they are regarded as holy and good. ”

                As I said there’s no ”ambiguous plethora”. The ”Old believer” teachings are the same as St. Basil the great, as St. Mark of Ephesus, as St. John Chrysostom, and so on.

                But here’s your main pitch;

                ”If you doubt me that these churches could be subject to holiness spiraling like the Calvinists, look up the “Filippians”, who apparently concluded that the path to “goodness” involved setting themselves on fire. That is precisely why we need a Pope or Patriarchate.”

                Firstly, we don’t need a Pope, we have Christ not the Usurpers of Christ.

                Second, those people didn’t lock themselves in barns, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn and others admit, they were locked in by Streltsy and the buildings were set on fire. The other story is just a Nikonian lie, among many.

                And as I’ve said elsewhere, in the midst of all this persecution and denial of any rights, the Old Believers (even the ones in groups that came to see the Tsars as Antichrist!) did not resist the rulers of Russia set over them by God, ever, and were more than happy to help defend Russia when Napoleon and Hitler and others invaded

            • Not Tom says:

              lapdogs of the State

              Straight-up lolbertarian faggotry.

            • polifugue says:

              The problem with Strannik is not that he is a Progressive in the sense of the English Puritans, but that he is a tradcuck in the sense of the 17th century “Old Believers.”

              The reason why Strannik rejects Kirill and has his bizarre view of church and state is he comes from a schismatic heresy. The Old Believers trace their origin to a protest against liturgical reforms made by Patriarch Nikhon of Moscow. You can read an overview of the schism here:

              https://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers

              If you want to know how the modern Russian Orthodox Church sees the schismatics, OrthoChristian.com is a more authoritative mouthpiece of the Orthodox Church. You can read a more revealing overview here:

              http://orthochristian.com/60716.html

              In short, the Old Believers were the Russian equivalent to the Puritans; for example, many of the earlier schismatics rejected the sacrament of marriage. However, patriarchy in practice was not abandoned as they managed to survive. The Old Believers were a fifth column in Tsarist Russia, and they used the Leftists to push pressure on the Tsar, the inevitable result being they were severely persecuted by the Communists.

              Here is an overview of how the Cathedral views the schismatics:

              https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/a-17th-century-russian-community-living-in-21st-century-alaska/275440/

              The current condition of the Old Believers prove the points made by Jim and everyone else on this blog. Just as all state churches that are subject to the American Hegemony are subject to Harvard and thus disappear, the above article describes much of the decline of the schismatics. Many communities send their daughters into secular education, the inevitable result they turn into prostitutes and disappear. Many men have to leave the community to find wives outside of the church as a result. When we look at surviving Old Believer communities, many are returning to Russia to escape the evil eye of the Cathedral.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcm2b-UbDkc

              Overall, the problem with Strannik is not that he is an evil Progressive, but that he is a member of an old heresy distinct from Progressivism. He’s not a real Orthodox Christian, just a heretic akin to the Donatists or Sedevacantists. Strannik might consider himself a “Traditionalist” because in a sense he is more traditional than most in his area, but he’s really a tradcuck stuck in 17th century Leftism, and should not be seen as a representative of the Orthodox Faith. Strannik is neither an evil man, nor is a man of ill intent, but he is not the answer this blog is looking for.

              That being said it doesn’t mean that I have vindicated the entirety of this blog. For example, Saint Jerome and the ever-virginity of Mary is not going away as Jerome was a saint from the First Ecumenical Council. I understand that this blog has a reservation against celibacy, and I understand that much of that is the result of the fruits of Catholicism, but I implore readers to see that celibacy can be a good thing if one is called to it.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5pwfLRI-R8

              If one wants to read about how the Orthodox Church views St Jerome and Mary, read the following. In other words, just because the Orthodox Church as a positive view of the ever-virginity of Mary doesn’t mean that it would prevent women from getting married at 14 years of age or earlier.

              http://orthochristian.com/94703.html
              http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/evervirgin.aspx

              • Strannik says:

                Evidently you don’t know the difference between a heresy and a schism, and schism is what both sides are accusing the other of, not heresy.

                And the idea that the Old Believers were some sort of 5th column (when in fact as Solzhenitsyn said they were the ‘conscience of Russia’ and endured the Gulag when everyone else broke>>>) again is a damned lie, as they were faithful to the Tsar literally when nobody else was, and in fact are far from Leftist as most Russian Capitalists before the Revolution were in fact Old Believers. It’s due to Ancient Orthodoxy that I ended my intellectual dalliance with Socialism entirely, their position on work and wealth and honesty, industriousness…

                The most that some groups of Old Believers can be accused of, the source of some misunderstandings, is that some are more ”blackpilled” about the state of the world since the 1600’s, that we’re living in the Age of Antichrist. Some find it hard to believe that there can be priests or bishops or sacraments left, but even then it doesn’t effect their unchanging adherence to Orthodox doctrine.

                But fine, I’m done here, the stupid paranoia and unwarranted hostility isn’t worth posting at all. What you guys want is an echo chamber. As I said, Jim’s blog, it’s his blog after all…

              • jim says:

                The doctrine that Mary remained a virgin is intolerably hostile to marriage, and reflects sodomite hostility to those they contemptuously refer to as “breeders”. It also obviously absurd, since Jesus had at least one brother. Religion should stay away from claims that are falsifiable and false.

                Mariolatory is one of the clearly just grounds on which the protestants rightly attacked Catholicism and got mighty good mileage out of that attack. If you require adherence to the ever virginity of Mary you are not only sacrificing your congregation to sodomites, you are leading with your chin in debate.

                • polifugue says:

                  I quote this from my source listed above:

                  It is likewise incorrect to think that the brothers and sisters of Christ were the children of His Most Holy Mother. The names of “brother” and “sister” have several distinct meanings. Signifying a certain kinship between people or their spiritual closeness, these words are used sometimes in a broader, and sometimes in a narrower sense. In any case, people are called brothers or sisters if they have a common father and mother, or only a common father or mother; or even if they have different fathers and mothers, if their parents later (having become widowed) have entered into marriage (stepbrothers); or if their parents are bound by close degrees of kinship.

                  In the Gospel it can nowhere be seen that those who are called there the brothers of Jesus were or were considered the children of His Mother. On the contrary, it was known that James and others were the sons of Joseph, the Betrothed of Mary, who was a widower with children from his first wife. (St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Panarion, 78.) Likewise, the sister of His Mother, Mary the wife of Cleopas, who stood with Her at the Cross of the Lord (John 19:25), also had children, who in view of such close kinship with full right could also be called brothers of the Lord. That the so-called brothers and sisters of the Lord were not the children of His Mother is clearly evident from the fact that the Lord entrusted His Mother before His death to His beloved disciple John. Why should He do this if She had other children besides Him? They themselves would have taken care of Her. The sons of Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus, did not consider themselves obliged to take care of one they regarded as their stepmother, or at least did not have for Her such love as blood children have for parents, and such as the adopted John had for Her.

                  Thus, a careful study of Sacred Scripture reveals with complete clarity the insubstantiality of the objections against the Ever-Virginity of Mary and puts to shame those who teach differently.

                  *From St. John (Maxomovitch), The Orthodox Veneration of Mary, The Birthgiver of God (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994), pp. 31-33.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The names of “brother” and “sister” have several distinct meanings. Signifying a certain kinship between people or their spiritual closeness, these words are used sometimes in a broader, and sometimes in a narrower sense.

                  I kinda saw that argument coming. I’m not very familiar with the debate but it just sounds like the sort of argument I’d expect: if the plain language implies a contradiction, redefine the language.

                  Maybe it is true in this case. I’m asking because I don’t know. Does anyone here know if the original, untranslated, unrevised language actually allows for this sort of ambiguity? Or is it just the way these words are used in modern English?

                  It’s a common tactic of heretics to rely on anachronistic meanings of words in order to justify novel interpretations, so I tend to be skeptical by default of “this could actually mean…” type arguments, but I’ll reserve judgment until someone in the know can explain the original text.

                • jim says:

                  Irrespective of the biological facts, the fan fiction concerning the family of Jesus changes the meaning of the Old and New Testaments. It is clear that the original authors of the Old and New Testaments did not approve of wives and husbands neglecting their marital duties.

                • info says:

                  Both prophecy and the use of greek disproves this argument:
                  ichthys.com/Bartek/VI. Mary as a perpetual virgin.pdf

                • jim says:

                  Good point. a man and a woman “came together” is ordinarily used in Greek to mean “they had sex”, and if used in the other meaning, makes no sense in context. Joseph is pissed because Mary is pregnant “before they came together”. “Before” implies that if she got pregnant after they “came together”, would not have been pissed.

                • info says:

                  @Not Tom

                  Read the pdf. There is no allowance for ambiguity to the extent that the commentator says.

                  There are greek words that could be used to state that jesus had relatives no brother and sister.

                  Even as aramaic speakers they are proficient enough in greek to do so as demonstrated by the greek new testament.

                • info says:

                  Even the argument that jesus if he had brothers would have entrusted mary to them.

                  But Jesus prioritizes the spiritual states of believers over familial ties
                  https://biblehub.com/bsb/matthew/12.htm

                  Which makes John an inner circle apostle whom Jesus loved the most trustworthy

                • info says:

                  The area where Jesus disciples were at were multilingual and cosmopolitan at the time and the lingua franca was greek due to the hellinization of alexander the great

                  So whilst they spoke aramaic they were also speaking greek on a regular basis too when it came to trade and the hellenized urban areas nearby where they traded and worked.

              • jim says:

                Conserving seventeenth century leftism.

  4. Strannik says:

    Karl you said;

    ”Your phrase of “both nations” implies that there is only a single US nation and only a single Russian nation. This implies that in your opnion common ancestors and common culture are not what defines a “nation”. What do you think defines a “nation”? Is a common passport enough?”

    Russia and America are at present Nations in the Westphalian Nation-State sense of the word. Are they ideal as presently constituted? Perhaps not. Both are multi-ethnic Empires, but as such I have no problem with that as far as my loyalties go. Ideally I’d like to see the true Faith as the confessional religion of the State as in the times of the later Roman Empire and of Holy Rus, but that’s not what we have at present of course.

    • Not Tom says:

      Come on man, reply properly and blockquote already. Or don’t blockquote, but at least reply in context. Maybe it’s no big deal if you accidentally thread-restart once in a while, and if people hadn’t already explained the problem to you multiple times, but you’ve done it six times on this post alone in spite of people asking you politely to stop.

      When you do what you’re doing, you make it much harder to find the original author’s post and what they were responding to. It takes everything out of context and makes everything all about you. This blog isn’t all about Strannik and his ideas. Your replies aren’t more important than everyone else’s replies.

      Maybe WordPress is partly to blame for not having hyperlink support like UR, but that’s the way it is here, and the rest of us all find a way to deal with it.

    • Karl says:

      After the peace of Westphala every state had just one religion. This is not the case in Russia, but arguably the case in the US as the cathedral is rather intolerant.

  5. Strannik says:

    R7 Rocket you stated;

    ”If you’re wondering why people here are suspicious of you ”

    One, I don’t give a rat’s ass if you and the whole crew here are ”suspicious” of me, but if deigned to wonder, i’d consider it more likely that the ”suspicion” is all in your head to begin with.

    ”and why I asked you a RedPill on women question (which you passed).”

    Super. Do I get a medal? Is the next step a code word and secret handshake into the inner sanctum of your club?

    ” It is the red flags we see in your posts.”

    Lol, is that the royal ”we” you’re using, or are you the group telepath?

    ”One of those is the advocacy of ineffective strategy.”

    I take it then that you’re the ”effective strategist” of your group?

    ”Did the early Christians content themselves with a shrinking church and heresy in the clerical ranks… even while being persecuted?”

    Is the Church a kind of State? Or is the State a kind of Church?

    All the facetious talk aside, the Church is not the State, and the State is not a Church, one has a higher spiritual goal, the other has an earthly and temporal task to fulfill while ideally being in harmony with the goals of the Church. It would be nice if that era returned, but I can’t count on it happening if it’s not the will of God for that to be so. Therefore, I can expect if otherwise, a toleration at best for the Church and at worst, an absolute persecution.

    ” The answer would be no. They did everything possible to grow the church and they stamped out heresy in their clerical ranks even while they were persecuted from time to time by pre-Christian Rome.”

    ”from time to time”? Son, the Pagan Roman Empire was the most fierce persecutor of Christians of all time until the 20th century. Most of the Orthodox Fathers of the Council of Nicea bore the marks of torture and persecution on their very bodies dating back to the era of the Emperor Diocletian. The Emperor Constantine the Great was truly a Godsend, and I pray for a similar warrior of God to deliver His People, but who knows if that will happen soon? Only God.

    • jim says:

      > the Church is not the State, and the State is not a Church, one has a higher spiritual goal, the other has an earthly and temporal task to fulfill while ideally being in harmony with the goals of the Church.

      The “higher spiritual goal” of the Church is invariably invoked as an excuse for abandoning its earthly mission, and for sacrificing its earthly mission to supposedly higher spiritual goals.

      If you ditch the earthly mission, you are ditching the higher spiritual goal.

      Celibate priests are an abandonment of the earthly mission of earthly families that echo the patriarchy of God, and holiness spiraling the Good Samaritan is an abandonment of the earthly mission of peace on earth to all men of good will outside the tribe, and cooperate/cooperate equilibrium within the tribe.

      The “higher spiritual mission of the Church” is invariably invoked as justification for ignoring the poisonous fruit of the poisonous tree.

    • jim says:

      ” It is the red flags we see in your posts.”

      Lol, is that the royal ”we” you’re using, or are you the group telepath?

      There are red flags in your posts. But I don’t think you are a paid shill. You sound like a genuine believer in a Christianity that, while it has not sold out to Harvard and heresy, nonetheless still has some old heresies that intolerably undermine earthly civilization.

      Saint Jerome and Saint Paul are fundamentally incompatible with each other. The contradiction is not between the Abrahamic Christianity and Pagan derived Christianity. It is between Saint Paul and Saint Jerome, between Jesus taking a whip to holiness spiraled Judaism, and subsequent holiness spiraling in the Church institutionalized by Saint Paul.

      Jesus took a whip to the money changers in the temple, and we need to take a whip to the faggots in the Cathedral.

      There should not be a rule against priests and deacons marrying, because there should be very few single priests and deacons in the first place. You need men successful at patriarchy in the priesthood for the same reason you need them in the Boy Scouts. A single priest should be viewed with the same suspicion and presumption of guilt as a single scoutmaster should be viewed.

    • Not Tom says:

      I take it then that you’re the ”effective strategist” of your group?

      Condescending sarcasm is not warranted here. No, R7 is not our strategist. He is referring to canon and representing it accurately. Surely as an Orthodox you understand the concept of a canon. You are pushing ideas and strategies that are not only outside the canon but explicitly opposed to it, and you are being called out on it.

      Of course, you are not required to stick within our canon and never challenge it. We shouldn’t ask that of anyone, lest we become lazy and complacent. However, we can and do expect people to present evidence and rational arguments to back up their challenges to the canon. Simply claiming “that’s my canon, because Orthodox and various bullshit intangible spiritual reasons” does not meet the bar.

      I see you claiming to hold Tory ideas (e.g. women as property, absolute executive power) but pushing what is essentially the Whig agenda (separation of powers, no state religion, muh-constitooshin tier spergitude). I predict that you’re not going to be able to hold both positions for very long. Something has to give; either you’ll accept that Whig policy does not lead to Tory rule, or you’ll realize you were really a Whig all along.

    • Polifugue says:

      Strannik, I don’t like how you use dialectics when describing the role of the church and the state. Just because the Orthodox Church has a transcendent spiritual mission doesn’t mean that it is separate from its worldly spiritual mission. The main symbol of Orthodox Russia is the double-headed eagle, with one head the church and the other head the state. All of the ecumenical councils were called by the emperor, and the different church divisions (Russian, Antiochian, Greek, etc.) are divided by political jurisdiction. Separation of church and state is antithetical to Orthodoxy as it has existed since the beginning. It’s pure insanity.

      The job of the Orthodox Church is to provide families, children, and good morality i.e. patriarchy to the congregation. While it is excusable for now that Orthodoxy largely doesn’t do that given it has just risen out of the dark age of Communism, if the Orthodox church doesn’t figure out that women don’t have a right to fornicate from 13 to 30, and doesn’t find a way for its women to marry before 18, it will die and will deserve to die out. All Orthodox nations are dying out, so it’s not conditional, it’s mathematical. Certainly Russia today is better than Russia 20 years ago, but 1.75 kids per woman is still unacceptable.

      Orthodoxy has tremendous potential for expansion given that Russia is outside the domain of the Cathedral. While Poland has horrifically gone homo, Russia has not. If the Orthodox church can say that women should marry young, not fornicate, and should be assigned and pressured into early marriage and should not be allowed to commit adultery, then Orthodoxy will be the religion of the future for the West.

      I’m giving you a red-pill on women test which should be more amicable to the traditional Orthodox system:

      Women misbehave because:

      [A] Capitalism makes them misbehave, by economically incentivizing reckless high time-reference behavior over long-term planning. The capitalist class benefits from one night stands and sterility, as it benefits from third world immigration of spendthrift cheap labor to replace frugal whites.
      [B] The Jews make them misbehave, since the Jews own the media and the entire entertainment industry from Hollywood down to the tiniest pornography studio, and use them to direct propaganda at women, telling them to fuck blacks and lowlifes. The Jews deliberately intend for dysgenesis to occur, as part of their long-term White Genocide plan.
      [C] Sorry, but this is a misleading question. Women don’t misbehave at all. All misbehavior is done by men, who are vile pigs.
      [D] Lecherous men make them misbehave, since men are ultimately responsible for all female behavior (including misbehavior), and unlike women, men have self-control and moral agency. Thus it logically follows that any female misbehavior would merely reflect bad decisions taken by irresponsible and lustful men.
      [E] Because of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, women are subject to death and decay, and as such women follow blind biological instincts to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads as soon as they are physically able to in order to survive and have offspring. As all women are fallen as the result of ancestral sin, women instinctively resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads. Stable monogamy has always been a conspiracy by men against women.

      • jim says:

        Strannik, you really need to answer this question, because you are piously selling us Orthodoxy that does not smell all that Orthodox.

        • Strannik says:

          Well Jim, the answer is ”E”, but I take exception to a number of things Polifugue has said concerning Orthodoxy that are somewhat in error.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        How are (D) and (E) different?

        Women follow instincts, men can plan and cooperate. If women are misbehaving it’s because men have failed to cooperate to restrain them. Sometimes the motivation for this failure to cooperate is lust but more frequently it is envy mixed with lust.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          Because the problem is female sexuality not male sexuality.

          Strannik understands this, that’s why it’s highly unlikely that he is a fed shill.

          • jim says:

            Strannik is not a fedshill, but he is a conservacuck, conserving ancient progressive victories against the latest progressive intrusions.

            We need to be included in Orthodoxy, but I suspect that conservacucked orthodox would not be willing to include us, while they are happy to include Harvard’s agents from Constantinople. Harvard’s puppets in Constantinople are deemed orthodox, but I doubt that we would be.

            And that is why he needs to answer certain questions – not to prove he is not a fed shill, for he has adequately proven that, but so that we can assess just how conservacucked he and Orthodoxy is.

            For example, separation of Church and State. That is Harvard Orthodoxy and Donatist heresy, not Christian Orthodoxy. Donatists inevitably turn into commies, and the first time they turned into commies was sixteen hundred years ago.

            • Strannik says:

              My attitude, and that of Orthodoxy on separation of Church and State, is that of the Church Fathers, of ”Harmonia” between Church and State both working within their respective aims. The aim of the State is the Earthly well being of society, of it’s citizens and subjects, but having to be composed of Orthodox Christians necessarily would take a charitable interest in the salvation of all. The aim of the Church is that salvation of it’s members, being caught up into the life of the Triune Deity in this life and in the world to come. While it has an earthly interest insofar as Christians live in the world but are not to be of the world, the interests of the Church are truly higher than those of the State. Different, but higher. Therefore, there should neither be an Erastian supremacy of the State over the Church, nor a Papist supremacy over the State or a confusion of offices. This doesn’t change and like everything else within Orthodox Christianity, should not change for it concerns the things of God. I understand you take a dim view of celibacy, while I do not, but that’s not something subject to change as Orthodoxy, guided by God the Holy Spirit, has the balanced and proper view that steers between the extremes of an unholy sex-hating gnosticism and an unholy sensual and worldly materialism that hates anything or anyone that might rise above the lusts of the flesh and thus places stumbling blocks against the continent and chaste. I’m sure you can see the wisdom of this, that people often sin and err either by excess or defect of one idea or another, right?

              • Not Tom says:

                …the balanced and proper view that steers between the extremes of an unholy sex-hating gnosticism and an unholy sensual and worldly materialism

                That’s not orthodoxy, it’s Hegelian dialectic.

                Also, gay.

                • Strannik says:

                  No, because it’s the nature of error to take a known truth revealed by God through His Church, and deny that truth by either an exaggeration which distorts that truth or a denial of said truth. A historical example would be the opposite heresies of Monophysitism and Nestorianism, two diametrically opposite errors concerning the Nature of Christ but both unable to see the complete doctrine that Christ is One Person with Two Natures, Human and Divine.

                  Don’t make everything about faggotry. That’s gay.

                • jim says:

                  > Don’t make everything about faggotry. That’s gay.

                  A great deal of Christian doctrine, ancient and modern, is the result of plots to sodomize the choir boys, and a large part of the rest is plots to overthrow the sovereign.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I’m not making it about faggotry, it already is about faggotry. It’s the means of transmission of faggotry in the church. Literally.

                  All you ever do to defend your positions is blurt out tedious and meaningless mysticism and metaphysics flavored babble that’s barely distinguishable from a Derrida passage. “Harmonia”. “Salvation”. The “Holy Spirit”. And instead of using widely shared, time-tested definitions of words like “truth”, you obfuscate them with word salad and get snippy when called out. It’s true because it is. Because God said so, because my priest said so, because everyone else is wrong and I just know it.

                  It’s that kind of obnoxious cogdis christcuckery that drives believers away. What you espouse is not so different from the “religious right” evangelicals who failed so catastrophically in 1980s America and created endless comedy fodder for the atheist liberals. What do you have to offer other than moralfagging?

                  God manifests his will through material cause and effect. No cause and effect, no God. A thing isn’t true merely because you believe it is true and dogmatically assert it to be true. I can appreciate Jim’s efforts to square the circle between materialism and theism, but if you’re not going to meet us halfway on this then enough already; you talk like a fag and your shit’s all retarded.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  God manifests his will through material cause and effect.

                  Fantastic phrasing, I’m going to steal / spread this.

              • jim says:

                Strannick, that cloud of fog could have been emitted by one of Harvard Ngo agents in the Orthodox Christian church of Constantinople.

                King Solomon had a problem with the high priest. Charles the hammer had a problem with Christian clerics who had holiness spiralled “peace on Earth”, and Putin has a problem with clerics who are secret agents for Harvard’s postchristian Christianity and who seek his overthrow and the destruction of Russia.

                What do you think Solomon, Charles the Hammer should have done, and what should Putin do?

                • Strannik says:

                  Jim, you said;

                  ”Strannick, that cloud of fog could have been emitted by one of Harvard Ngo agents in the Orthodox Christian church of Constantinople.”

                  If you can’t handle 2000 years of uncorrupted Apostolic teaching, there’s little I can say at this point. Your worldview in any case is essentially Pagan and worldly, and your hopes and vision are entirely of this world.

                  ”King Solomon had a problem with the high priest.”

                  King Solomon had a problem with accommodating numerous pagan wives and their tutelary gods.

                  ”Charles the hammer had a problem with Christian clerics who had holiness spiralled “peace on Earth””

                  No, he didn’t have problems with Christian clerics, not sure what history you’re talking about here, because the Church was all too happy to have his aid in it’s missionary work and supported him in his battle with the Muslims.

                  ”and Putin has a problem with clerics who are secret agents for Harvard’s postchristian Christianity and who seek his overthrow and the destruction of Russia.”

                  You say ”Harvard”, whereas I say ”Vatican” which proceeded it in any case.

                  ”What do you think Solomon, Charles the Hammer should have done, and what should Putin do?”

                  He should do what all men should do and are called to do; be faithful sons of the Church and guard it against heresies within and persecution without. But we are in a time when even good men are too secular and too worldly it seems, and so the Church, the Remnant Faithful, must rely only on God. As it says in Scripture; ”trust not in princes”….

                  I suspect that these are not the answers you want to hear, and I feel that you are too invested in this blog and what you’ve already said here to change, so my time commenting here is done. I wish you well, and like you I personally hope that Trump and Putin and others can fix things politically at least for a time.

                  But I rely only on God.

                • jim says:

                  > > “Strannick, that cloud of fog could have been emitted by one of Harvard Ngo agents in the Orthodox Christian church of Constantinople.”

                  > If you can’t handle 2000 years of uncorrupted Apostolic teaching

                  The devil can quote scripture to his purpose. You have paraphrased and selected those teachings to fit with Harvard and Rome.

                  It is an evasive and ambiguous paraphrase of Apostolic teaching that is all too amenable to being applied in ways consistent with the objectives of Harvard entryists. And it is apparent from what is happening on Constantinople and what happened in the Ukraine that Harvard and Rome have entryist agents in the Orthodox Church.

                  > > “Charles the hammer had a problem with Christian clerics who had holiness spiralled “peace on Earth””

                  > No, he didn’t have problems with Christian clerics, not sure what history you’re talking about here

                  I am talking about Charles the Hammer appointing Bishops with big hammers to break Saracen skulls in place of Bishops who favored turning the other cheek despite the fact that Christians were well and truly out of cheeks. He allotted land to warriors, and allotted Bishoprics to warrior priests, and for several hundred years afterwards the Church had a saner policy in regard to just war, and only returned to suicide on the just war question at about the time of the Napoleonic wars.

                  It is “peace on earth to all men of goodwill“, and the Saracens had demonstrated a serious lack of goodwill. Charles the Hammer had a decisive influence on Church doctrine, just as Constantine did.

                  > > “What do you think Solomon, Charles the Hammer should have done, and what should Putin do?”

                  > He should do what all men should do and are called to do; be faithful sons of the Church and guard it against heresies within and persecution without.

                  For the last several centuries, the Sovereign of the Russias has had the right and exercised the duty of doing things considerably more forceful than what other sons of the Church may do, and before the fall of Constantinople, the Sovereign of Constantinople had the right and exercised the duty of doing those things.

                  You are proposing Harvard’s “separation of Church and State”, which always winds up with the destruction of Christianity and its replacement by Harvard’s post Christian holier than God religion.

                  You always have a state religion. If priests have independence from the state, they will struggle with the state for power, for what is rightly Caesar’s, which is leftism, and you wind up with a leftist Church, which eventually becomes a holier-than-God postchristian Church, which is what happened to Harvard, which was originally New England’s Vatican, the headquarters of the official governmental state religion of New England. The states of the American Hegemony now have a postchristian state religion.

                  Priests who argue for “independence” or supremacy are always plotting to take power that rightly belongs to someone else. Empirically, observing their deeds and their fruits, we can see that they are always evil people intent on doing bad things, piously invoking other worldly goals while in this world coveting what is not theirs. Happens every time, and has been happening for many centuries. Bad people doing wicked things.

                • Not Tom says:

                  If you can’t handle 2000 years of uncorrupted Apostolic teaching

                  “Uncorrupted” being the key word.

              • Polifugue says:

                Strannik, upon reading I don’t think that there is a problem with the dichotomy between church and state that you present. From a philosophical perspective, the aim of the Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Christian is first and foremost “theosis,” in which body, soul and nous are in line with God. And yes, I would agree that the paramount aim and mission of the Orthodox church is the salvation of its members. The key here is “the interests of the Church are truly higher than those of the State. Different, but higher.” And this works well, the church should be primarily concerned with church matters, and the state should be concerned with state matters.

                I agree with the statement, “there should neither be an Erastian supremacy of the State over the Church, nor a Papist supremacy over the State or a confusion of offices.” As a matter of policy, the sovereign should not override the church concerning church matters, and the church should not override the state concerning state matters. In short, I don’t think that the separation of church and state that you give is best described as a separation of church and state but rather a description of the function of each, which is fine. The Orthodox faith still has an interest in making itself the state religion.

                At this blog we indeed take a dim view of certain aspects of celibacy, because we see it as holier-than-thou Pharisaism masking deviance and leftism, while covering a lack of promoting traditional family values, such as marriage and the family, which is necessary for the survival of civilization. In other words, we don’t think that just because a man becomes a monk it doesn’t make him any better than a man who has an obedient wife and well-behaved children. It’s hypocrisy for a church to proclaim celibacy as a wondrous thing while neglecting to take care of and protect its women and promote families, fathers and husbands.

                This doesn’t mean that we want to abolish the monasteries entirely, it just means that we want monasticism and monastic celibate life to assume a status more in line with being quiet and humble. In other words, monastics are just like any other set of Christians, just ones with a different lifestyle.

                • Strannik says:

                  Your reply is reasonable and measured, quite moderate, but not exactly what I’ve seen written from Jim and some of the crew around here.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Your reply is reasonable and measured, quite moderate, but not exactly what I’ve seen written from Jim and some of the crew around here.

                  OK, I see where this is going now.

                  Tradcucks don’t consider themselves entryists, yet have a perennial habit of fleeing the left, joining up with some right-wing group, and then demanding that said group “moderate” itself to their particular norms. In practice, it’s really not much different from coastal shitlibs fleeing Democrat devastation to inland states and voting Democrats into power, or blacks fleeing black crime to suburban white areas and then setting up their own ghettos there.

                  In no other dynamic does this occur. Or at least, if it does occur, it’s recognized as the self-serving gasbaggery that it truly is. A drummer doesn’t join up with a band and then immediately, within a matter of days or weeks, demand that they do more to incorporate 5-minute long drum solos. A lawyer does not join the Bar and then immediately demand loosening up the Bar requirements. An oncologist does not join the National Eye Institute and insist that they spend more time on cancer research. Every normal human is repelled by such behavior and every every normal group immediately expels or ostracizes such members.

                  But in matters of political philosophy, it is apparently completely acceptable to demand that others in the group accommodate your preferences almost immediately after you join – as long as your preferences are to the left of the group’s.

                  I really would like these various right-wing movements – NRx, alt-right, and so on – to be welcoming spaces for conservatives who feel confused, frustrated, and isolated. But they just cannot help themselves. Every single god damn time a new one comes in, they just will not shut up about how everyone else is too extreme and that they are 100% certain that they themselves are in the Goldilocks zone of moderation where everything is in perfect balance. It’s tedious, repetitive, and destructive.

                  I liked you at first, Strannik. I was one of the ones encouraging you to speak freely and not worry about being labeled a shill. Remember? I still would not label you as a shill. But when you as an individual join up with some larger group, it is your responsibility to conform to the group’s norms, not the other way around. That doesn’t mean you give up your own identity and your own beliefs, but it does mean you moderate them in your own discourse to avoid pissing off the others. And when the group’s identity is explicitly right-wing, that means you moderate yourself to the right, and – for example – shut up about the pure radiant beauty of celibacy and the sheer unadulterated brilliance of Separation of Church and State when speaking publicly to a group that is largely predicated on Warrior Rule and the Red Pill On Women.

                  Are you getting any of this? It doesn’t matter that your claimed adherence to Russian Orthodoxy puts you to the right of the mainstream, or even to the right of most people you’ve met. You’re very clearly to the left of most of us, and that’s not grounds for you to criticize us, it’s grounds for you to moderate your positions, at least until you’ve earned the group’s respect.

                  [cue the “it’s just blog comments bruh lol y so serious I’ll say whatever tf I want” inanity that inevitably accompanies every post on asabiyyah and ignores years of accumulated wisdom on identity and memetics]

                • alf says:

                  Tom I agree with everything you say, except that I think it’s a very common dynamic. It’s a typical male shit-testing. ‘hello fellow friends, you know, you could really make some waves, if you’d just be willing to drop X Y Z.’

                  It’s entryism, but it’s also something to be expected, and something that can be dealt with.

                  Strannik, if you find us too right wing death squad for your tastes, fair enough. But if you like to stick around and see what happens, try to stay on Tom’s good side.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  I know I’m far newer to the place than you two, but I really can’t understand how you guys think this type of person should be handled.

                  I’ll go with ancient wisdom and say that if it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. He sounds like a commie because deep down he is a commie and he feels very holy, just like every other commie. Which is why he won’t shut up about being holier than any of you and use a condescending tone, revealing his inner thought process.

                  What was that quote Jim used recently? It doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white, so long as he catches mice? Well, this cat is not going to catch any mice, because not a cat, because he dresses right wing, like wignats, but he is a progressive.

                  Just one more faggot who is the product of democracy telling every rando without even the minimum of 120 IQ that he actually has a valid opinion and he should be heard. Or that because he is human, and all humans are equal, his ideas are actually as good as any. This guy is as egalitarian as it gets.

                  I hate discourse in the internet because it’s populated with people like this, precisely because they can hide behind the anonymity and pretend they’re some hot shit everyone should be listening to, instead of the broke, fat, worthless, beta faggot that he actually is. He is holier than Jim and knows better, but here he is, leeching his space like a loser. If he was of any worth, he wouldn’t be doing this. Winners don’t do this, winners create their own spaces, and prospective winners don’t act like they’ve won already.

                  In my opinion this is typical snake behavior. I’ve never met in my life a decent and honorable man who approached other men like this, never in my life, only backstabbing subhumans do it. Even between the internet degenerates the bare minimum to be considered a fellow man is to **lurk moar**. Who actually goes to Rome and tells Romans how to be Roman? This is 100% progressive behavior. It’s the same reason why he starts a million new comments instead of answering like everyone else, and deep down you know it.

                • alf says:

                  Well to be fair, I’ve read maybe like 5% of what Strannik writes. My opinion of him is pretty much based on what Tom writes ^_^.

                  Strannik, if you’re offending not just Tom but also Atavistic, you have some damage control to do! No need to agree with them 100%, but both outrank you in this here comment section…

                • Mike says:

                  Well, Atavistic, do you know what annoys me? Not allowing even the slightest deviation from the general conversation ever. Allowing Strannik in the comments and then criticizing his errors is actually a good thing because it allows everyone here to see what taking Christianity too far means/looks like. Strannik isn’t Carlyean Restorationist or Jack Boot, he’s not an obvious fed or Marxist, so how about stop freaking out like some spastic faggot.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Mike

                  Why are you defending Strannik?

                  And why is Cominator defending that cuck as well?

                • Mike says:

                  Maybe because we have free will

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Mike

                  But why only him?

                • Mike says:

                  Because he’s the only one of these types who deserves any respect or interest. Well, him and maybe Nikolai. They’re right on most shit, their flaw is that they’re spiritually autistic. With Strannik his flaw is that he believes the Church and State have no real interest in each other, which is manifestly wrong (reading Paul or looking at the history of the Church should make that obvious). With Nikolai, his flaw is that he believes the Church should be very pro-celibacy. That’s really it, show me the other things that they’re catastrophically wrong on please. Of course they should be called out for being wrong on those things, but I’m not going to spazz like Atavist did about how they’re evil. Hell, even Comintator disagrees on some things, namely on bastards. Should I spazz out about him as well?

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Mike

                  Nikolai refused to answer a RedPill on women question. And I believe you refused to answer a RedPill on women question on an earlier thread, unless that was a different “Mike” I was responding to.

                  Strannik has advocated ineffective strategy and has advocated cuckery. He is not a fed shill though (he correctly answered two RedPill on women questions already).

                • Mike says:

                  Well that’s what I mean with Strannik, he’s just overly spiritual. He takes the prophecy of the Last Judgement very seriously, to the point where he believes there’s no point in resisting the decline of the Church and morality (because Revelation basically says that the Church will be reduced to almost nothing by the end of days). I assume that’s the ineffective strategy you’re referring to. You could probably call him somewhat Gnostic-tainted, which admittedly is pretty bad, though not as bad as that Glosoli retard from previous threads.

                  In regards to the women question, my profile always pops up with this specific blue symbol. So if that account had this color I guess I was guilty.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Mike

                  Anyone with an anonymous handle who is unable to answer a RedPill on women question is a paid shill. And an enemy.

                  While those who advocate ineffective strategy or display serial incompetence are deserving of suspicion.

                  Do you like “spiritually autistic” people for a reason?

                • Mike says:

                  I don’t why you emphasize anonymous handle, we’re all anonymous here. And Strannik interested me when he first popped up because he was Orthodox and not from the West. Most of us aren’t those two things, so it was a new perspective to listen to.

                • Nikolai says:

                  @R7

                  When have I refused to answer a redpill on women question?

                  I’m the most sexist guy in all my friend groups. A couple different police departments and a domestic violence agency have files on me. Just last week a buddy of mines ex drunk texted me asking me to choke her.

                  By all means, ask me one

                • jim says:

                  > When have I refused to answer a redpill on women question?

                  You don’t refuse to answer, but you answer in a frame that is different from the frame of the question, which, even if you are not dodging the question, is what people do when they are dodging the question.

                  So I will ask you a question in your frame. Women in the workplace. What is going to happen when Eve’s boss is not her husband or lover, or answers to her husband or lover. We would generally ask or answer that from within the Evopsych frame, but the frame of 1 Timothy 2:15 and Genesis 2 should predict the same conduct.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Thanks alf, although I don’t think it’s my good side that anyone needs to stay on – I’m just a loud messenger/megaphone, and if I believed I was way out of step with Jim’s readership or Jim himself, I’d be the one taking my own advice (which, on some topics, I do).

                  If it’s not me, it’ll be someone else. Was shaman before me, probably someone else before him, almost certainly others after I fade away or wear a different hat. Maybe I take the “community policeman” role more seriously than I should, but experience has shown that if someone doesn’t do it, the place tends to get overrun, and blog.jim is one of the few remaining places we can discuss these topics openly that hasn’t already been overrun.

                • alf says:

                  Obviously I like some commenters better than others. I’ll trust R7 over Nikolai any day.

                  But there’s only so much filtering you can do. We keep out the complete retards, still bound to have a various bunch of commenters with various opinions. And that’s completely fine, in my opinion.

                • alf says:

                  Maybe I take the “community policeman” role more seriously than I should, but experience has shown that if someone doesn’t do it, the place tends to get overrun

                  Please take it as serious as you want. It helps a lot. All I hope is that you enjoy yourself and not burn out like Shaman :-p

                • Not Tom says:

                  Hell, even Comintator disagrees on some things, namely on bastards. Should I spazz out about him as well?

                  I argue lots (and don’t apologize for it), but only spaz when someone gets spammy – spam in both the literal sense of trying to sell us something we don’t really want, and also the figurative sense of being unsolicited and repetitious.

                  The difference between a passionate argument and an aggressive sales pitch can sometimes be very subtle, but there IS a difference. The 3 criteria (not mine) for a constructive post are:
                  1. Interesting/insightful
                  2. Funny/entertaining
                  3. Prosocial/identity-reinforcing (“asabiyyah”)

                  Any of those three provide value. If all three are consistently missing, then the account is subtracting value.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  There’s a big difference between difference in opinion and what this guy is doing.

                  There’s plenty of difference in opinion here and I myself have argued about my personal take on the subtleties of the WQ that others see differently. For example, Cominator has his own thing for helicoptering with which both Jim and Not Tom clearly disagree and no one is censoring him, and just before we had clear difference in opinions about China, didn’t we? But like I said back in that post and I repeat again, there’s a big difference between having an actual honest opinion and feeding enemy propaganda.

                  Strannik is an enemy, and he comes here to feed enemy propaganda. He sounds like the enemy because he is the enemy. And the worst part is that he isn’t even hiding it, but apparently this trick works on you and some others better than a more “fed” approach. When someone joins a space he doesn’t belong to and has an honest intention to join, he doesn’t lecture the boss, he doesn’t lecture the veterans, he doesn’t lecture anyone. And he doesn’t set up his megaphone 30 times louder than everyone else’s because his message is more important (starting every time his own comment line, giga ego). Well, maybe it’s the warrior in me who believes this, but I assure you, you don’t pull a stunt like that when you join a corp, you’re getting your legs broken.

                  He comes here to lecture us, like progressives come to lecture us and wignats come to lecture us. Though it’s redundant, because all of them are progressives because their principles are the same, it doesn’t matter the dress with which they interpret their insanity. And actually he believes that communism is good, just, “not functional”. Which means, he actually is a communist and communism is good, so he is going to snake-oil communist principles into everything.

                  You think I get spastic, I’m just the kind of guy that gladly becomes executioner for the inquisitor. Eliminate heresy, swift and brutally, and I smell a progressive trying to corrupt our orthodoxy with progressive dogma very subtly. And the worst part is that he is not being shut down unlike the others who are quickly dismissed, instead there’s half of the html in this thread literally written by him, obnoxious as hell, I haven’t had to use the wheel mouse so much in this place until him, because of course I’m not reading half of what he writes which is pompous sophistry to tell you how communist principles applied here and there are good. I didn’t say anything until now because Jim is allowing it, so whatever, but if Not Tom is going to go into it, then I’m throwing my two cents as well. That’s also why I prefaced it saying I don’t understand why they are entertaining him, because I expect they have their own reasons which I’m sure are valid.

                  Ask this faggot what would be more effective to conquer a woman, to get on your knees and give her a diamond ring or to beat her.

                  You also seem to be confused about him, he is not Eastern European. He is an American that just like progressives turn to “muh Nordics”, he turned to “muh Russians”, because he is a communist American that hates America and agrees with the anti-American empire. He might not be a fed, but he is an enemy all the same, and the only reason why he isn’t telling you straight out that communism is the greatest thing ever is because he knows that snake-oil can’t be sold like that anymore, so he repacks it and sells it.

                  You get communist principles mixed here and there, like you know, priests having families BAD, priests fiddle little boys GOOD. Communist can’t help themselves, they hate families, because families are the cornerstone of civilization.

                • alf says:

                  lol.

                  Nah man I completely get you. That’s the fire that accomplishes things.

                  But I think I am trying to make a slightly different point. To figure out people, takes time. For instance, for me, one, I am not as smart as some commenters here. I don’t get all the subtleties. Still don’t know what Tom referred to with the ‘Latinx’ thing. Also, two, don’t have the time or motivation to read all comments. So I don’t know everything that’s going on. Sooo, I don’t judge too quick. And no one does, really. It always takes a bit of time for people to form opinions on new commenters — some are quicker than others. But they tend to snowball at some point. So I wouldn’t worry about Strannik – if you are correct about him, people will be on the look-out, and in time you will be proven right.

                • Not Tom says:

                  [alf] Still don’t know what Tom referred to with the ‘Latinx’ thing.

                  Oh, that one’s easy: https://www.unz.com/isteve/latinx/

                  No one uses the term “Latinx” except hardcore shitlibs. The actual people to whom the label refers occasionally use the term “Latin@”, but mostly just “Latino”.

                  “Latinx” superimposes gender theory over race politics, foists it on a people that don’t care about it, and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the difference between linguistic gender and the fake “gender” construct that resembles biological sex but somehow isn’t. It’s the kind of word that only a Harvard progressive could ever come up with, and makes literally no sense to anyone else, including Latinos themselves.

                  Using that word as anything other than a joke is like holding up a 50 ft wide flashing LED sign with the letters “WOKE”.

                  [AM] That’s also why I prefaced it saying I don’t understand why they are entertaining him, because I expect they have their own reasons which I’m sure are valid.

                  I assume the “you” means Mike and “they” are me and… alf? Or Jim?

                  This blog has a lot of readers, and even if we assume that 19 out of 20 never read the comments, that’s still probably several hundred who do read them at some point. Therefore there’s some value in refuting enemy propaganda and quasi-friendly cuckery openly, rather than immediately suppressing it.

                  Everyone recognizes the rhetoric of Marx and Lenin by now, but a lot of people still don’t recognize the sneakier rhetoric of Trotsky or Foucault, much less know how to defend against it. Seeing it successfully shot down gives them a fighting change when they encounter it “out there”, which they surely will.

                  But as I’ve pointed out, that value dwindles as the rhetoric becomes more repetitious and boring, when the average reader is likely to see it and go “yeah I’ve seen this a dozen times before”. At that point I do advocate nuking from orbit. As long as it’s novel, can be more valuable to put it through the crucible. When it ceases to be novel or interesting, I say trash it.

                  As for shillness, I just know a lot of tradcucks personally who are like this. They LOVE gatekeeping. They really are opposed to the modern excesses of the left, but as Jim explains, what they really want (and don’t realize they want) is to protect old progressivism against new progressivism, to halt the holiness spiral while maintaining the status quo. They’re irritating little shits when they start yammering at people who actually know what they’re talking about, and the internet magnifies their worst tendencies by taking away the physical consequences of mounting an unsuccessful challenge against the alpha, but they aren’t paid shills.

                  You say you’re military of some sort, right? Ever made (or seen made) the decision to subject an uppity new recruit to pain and humiliation, rather than just kicking him out? And if he still refuses to learn, then he gets kicked out. I’ve been told that happens often; if so, seems like a wise policy.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  My bad, I forgot to be explicit because I’m used to being able to directly reply to all posts in other media I use.

                  Yes, my last post was an answer to Mike. And “them” was you and alf, yes, Not Tom you got it right.

                  Reading your (Not Tom) last post it makes sense why we see it differently, seems to be a cultural issue. You guys are Americans, so your perspective leans towards the Harvard prog/commie in your politics, however here in Europe we are very, very accustomed to the old guard commies. In fact, for all purposes, our version of progs here are widely considered masquerading commies or just socialists. Strannik sounds completely like an old guard commie, including the low key constant fellatio for all things Russian and how he turns away from good old Soviet Marxism-Leninism because “old communism is not functional”, not because it’s insane and its principles wrong.

                  Perhaps Mike sees his LARPing about the Orthodox Church as something spiritual because normal logic would dictate that Church and communism don’t mix, but the catch is that it’s not unheard of in Europe, communist/socialists priests have been somewhat notorious and are indeed a thing. Well, that’s what commies do, subversion is their trade.

                  You’d expect from someone like him here to be affiliated to some leftist party, his egotistical demeanor, his condescending tone, what he says, it all fits, so from my perspective there’s no trial to be made, only execution. But you both (Not Tom and alf) make a good point, perhaps he is just a variable of American I’m not really used to and it’s somewhat different. But if he is a tradcuck defending old progressivism, well, it’s still progressivism. If you guys get him to somehow change his mind, well, my complete respect. Personally I’d bet good money this guy votes for Breadline Bernie.

                • alf says:

                  Atavistic says:

                  You guys are Americans

                  I’m from Europa.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  You are? Continental Europe? I don’t think UK has a commie party.

                  You compare him to your typical commie and I swear it’s the same. Some posts down also “lap-dogs of the State”, it’s the fucking entire ancomm meme smoking hashish in my local park.

                • Not Tom says:

                  We have old guard commies in America too. Some former Bolsheviks, and many many Mensheviks who fled when Stalin came to power.

                  What I think you do not really have in your corner of Europe is the “conservative”, or trad-con/trad-cuck. Perhaps because Communism killed them all, or perhaps you never had them. Tradcucks are America’s natural immunity to the Khmer Rouge variant of communism; they have no traceable origin outside of America itself, and they help to slow and moderate the spread of leftism so that it does not immediately kill the host. They oppose the excesses – whatever the excesses happen to be that day – but are always wildly enthusiastic about the new normal.

                  Trad-cucks sometimes become reactionaries or alt-right. Not often, but sometimes. I am used to seeing the gradations between progressive/communist and trad-cuck, I am used to seeing trad-cucks oppose the left even when it is against their interests, but using ineffective strategy and leftist framing. It’s not a mystery to me how one could genuinely believe they are right-wing while in reality being the left’s best friend, because I see it all the time.

                  So I tend to believe that they can be housebroken – sometimes. You may not have a very good analogue of this archetype in Europe; it evolved as a sort of weak immune response to American progressivism.

                  Perhaps another way to think of this species is as reactionaries domesticated generations ago by progressives. We are the wild ones, they are the house pets; generally very docile, but do still possess some of the original predatory instincts and may turn on their masters if sufficiently provoked.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  I’ve lived in other 3 countries and I haven’t seen them, so I’m thinking it’s a more European thing.

                  But well, Spaniards had the rare pleasure of enjoying a somewhat real reactionary rule in the 20th century, 40 years ago… so old people tend to be actual reactionaries.

            • Nikolai says:

              “We need to be included in Orthodoxy, but I suspect that conservacucked orthodox would not be willing to include us”

              >blasphemes the Church Fathers

              >constantly espouses the Jovinian heresy

              >shows flagrant contempt for millennia of doctrine and Tradition

              “Gee whiz, why won’t traditional Christians include me?”

              • jim says:

                The Bible according to Saint Jerome casts out rather important sections of the Saint Paul, and his holiness spiraled account of the the doings of the major characters of the New Testament is morally repugnant and contrary to the commands of Saint Paul.

                You still refuse to discuss Saint Paul’s words. Answer the questions that I asked about Saint Paul. I allowed through some of your evasive non answers, wherein you loudly blustered you had answered plainly and clearly, but you did not answer. You fear you might burst into flames were you to directly quote the relevant words of Saint Paul that fail to fit your pious holiness spiraled interpretation.

                If you include Saint Paul, cannot include Saint Jerome.

                The social justice warriors expurgate 1 Timothy 2, Ephesians 5, and Peter 3, and but they are following in your footsteps. You expurgated 1 Corinthians 7, for much the same reasons as the social justice warriors continue to expurgate it, and expurgated 1 Timothy 3.

                The priesthood should be recruited from married men with demonstrated success at patriarchy, in order to give us a Church successful at patriarchy.

                4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

                5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

                At which task our current churches are spectacularly unsuccessful, and Roman Catholicism has been failing since the tenth or eleventh century.

                You give us interpretations of Saint Paul that are glaringly incompatible with his words, and refuse to discuss those words. Your refusal to discuss those words reveals the contradiction.

                “ruleth well” makes the meaning that you give “husband of one wife” nonsensical. Paul gave us this instruction, and then gave his main reason for that instruction, which reason today remains as relevant as ever it did. The priest is supposed to perform the social role of father, or a social role akin to that of a father. Therefore, recruit from people with demonstrated capability to perform that role.

                Titus 1:
                6. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

                You interpret this as “zero or one wives” and “no unfaithful children” rather than “having faithful children”

                Which is a mighty far stretch.

                But Paul gives his reasons for this command:

                1 Timothy3:
                4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
                5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

                How does your interpretation work with zero children?

                5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

                Paul is demanding experience and demonstrated prior competence, as any employer does.

                > Now if you would answer a few of my questions: Why the particular hate for St. Jerome?

                Jerome is a liar and a son of the father of lies He made up bunch of stories about the apostles that are clearly untrue. He uses dishonest and manipulative debating methods. If someone lies to you, he intends you harm, or has already committed harm against you. His words are as filled with dangerous rage and hatred as the words of every social justice warrior.

                > If a married priesthood would have prevented the gay mafia, why is every western church with a married priesthood 100x gayer than even the worst Jesuit? And why do you think the progressive wing of the Church so desperately wants to ordain married men?

                Before the Lavender Mafia started physically attacking heterosexual priests faithful to Christian teachings on men lying with men in 1989, the sex scandals of the protestants were whores, not boys. The Catholic Church succumbed to entryism by the Lavender Mafia. The protestant Churches successfully resisted entryism, until physical violence was applied to back entryism.

                • Allah says:

                  You still refuse to discuss Saint Paul’s words. Paul says ”if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain.”.

                  Jim says:

                  I, who believe the apostles got the guards drunk and faked the resurrection

                  You constantly berate others for doing things you yourself do all the time. Paul, and virtually all pre-moderns believed in literal gods, literal life after death, literal magic, and so on. You cannot LARP forever, you have to come to terms with this. The “it’s a metaphor!!” excuse is a lie.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The “it’s a metaphor!!” excuse is a lie.

                  We don’t claim it to be a metaphor. You don’t understand the difference (or pretend not to understand the difference) between a metaphor and a mechanism.

                • Nikolai says:

                  I’m not really interested in having this discussion, I’ve answered you like 8 or 9 times at this point and all you do is accuse me of not answering. But hey, maybe the tenth time is the charm.

                  If one takes the verses you cite and divorces them from the rest of the New Testament, perhaps your interpretation would be plausible. But if one actually read the rest of the NT, including the words of Paul himself, one would readily observe that your interpretation blatantly contradicts the Bible.

                  Paul tells us that celibacy is holier than marriage, John’s revelation tells us that male virgins have a special place in heaven, Jesus says that in heaven everyone will be celibate and that he that is able to receive celibacy, let him receive it.

                  The verses you cite are guidelines given a specific time, place and circumstance. They are not universal requirements. If they were, that would mean various NT and OT figures would be ineligible for the priesthood, including Jesus Christ Himself.

                  At the time of the letters to Timothy and Titus, Christianity was still a start-up. Rapidly expanding and desperate for personnel. Paul would’ve preferred celibate priests to married priests, but if he sent Timothy and Titus to look for celibates, they likely would’ve come back empty handed. Now Christianity is an institution and the Church can afford to be a more selective employer.

                  Of course celibates don’t have children. Paul is saying if a married man wants to be a priest he must meet requirements x y z. He is not saying that all priests must be married men with x y z. (If I really wanted to prooftext, I could bring up that Samuel was a great priest and his children were notoriously misbehaved).

                  You’re really suggesting that St. Paul didn’t want celibate priests? St. Paul was a celibate, who worshiped a celibate Lord, Jesus Christ, who was born of the *Virgin* Mary. It’s such a laughable interpretation. You seem to be suggesting that the celibacy of Jesus sets a bad example that priests should be encouraged not to follow. The Bible tells us the exact opposite, that Christians, especially priests, should imitate Christ to the best of their ability.

                  This debate was already had 1600 years ago and your side lost spectacularly. Consider that perhaps you may be mistaken rather than the greatest theologians of the Church that Christ Himself founded.

                  Now if you would answer a few of my questions: Why the particular hate for St. Jerome?
                  [At this point I must interject. Jerome is a liar and a son of the father of lies He made up bunch of stories about the apostles that are clearly untrue. He uses dishonest and manipulative debating methods. If someone lies to you, he intends you harm, or has already committed harm against you. He words are as filled with dangerous rage and hatred as the words of every social justice warrior.]
                  Every Church Father was of the opinion that celibacy is holier than marriage. Why condemn Jerome but not Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Leo, Cyprian, Gregory of Nyssa etc.?

                  If a married priesthood would have prevented the gay mafia, why is every western church with a married priesthood 100x gayer than even the worst Jesuit? And why do you think the progressive wing of the Church so desperately wants to ordain married men?

                • jim says:

                  > I’ve answered you like 8 or 9 times at this point

                  No you have not. You have not answered me once. You have replied to me on the requirement that new recruits to the priesthood be married, but have remained conspicuously silent on the requirement that they be fertile, that they be married with children.

                  You are still unable to discuss “having faithful children”, perhaps out of fear that quoting the verse would cause you to catch fire.

                  You never actually quote what Paul said, instead telling us he said stuff that contradicts his direct words.

                  To actually answer you would have to engage Paul’s actual words, instead of telling us about the apostles as re-imagined by Jerome and the bible as re-invented by you.

                  > Paul tells us that celibacy is holier than marriage, John’s revelation tells us that male virgins have a special place in heaven, Jesus says that in heaven everyone will be celibate and that he that is able to receive celibacy, let him receive it.

                  A priesthood selected from the supposedly holiest people fails catastrophically, and Christianity was in substantial part a reaction against this disastrous failure mode of Judaism, which resulted in the Jews being exiled from Israel.

                  If you are in the business of recruiting, it is hard to tell the difference between someone who is celibate because God has called them to celibacy, someone who is celibate because their sexual desires can only be fulfilled in a monstrous manner, and they are successfully keeping the monsters inside, and someone who is “celibate” because he is in the closet and is trying to get at those choirboys. It is clear that the latter substantially outnumber those that God has called to celibacy. If you recruit on the basis of holiness you are going to get what Jesus called “whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.” Instead of holy people, you get holier than thou people. Which is what had happened to the Jews.

                  You don’t need holy people as much as you need those that can actually do the job. And a lot of very holy people do great in hermitages on a remote island, not so great in leading the congregation and managing Church affairs. Since the Bishop and the Deacon are performing patriarchal roles, you need people who have demonstrated competence at patriarchy.

                  You are still unable to discuss “having faithful children”, just as a social justice warrior is unable to discuss 1 Timothy 2.

                  Your silence is revealing.

                  > At the time of the letters to Timothy and Titus, Christianity was still a start-up. Rapidly expanding and desperate for personnel.

                  If desperate for personel, why “having faithful children”? Surely there must have been many single or childless potential recruits.

                  Paul said “having faithful children”. He did not say “not having unfaithful children”

                  Well, Paul tells us why “having faithful children” is a requirement. And his reasoning is not compatible with the conjecture that they were recruiting from single or childless men, nor compatible with “desperate for personnel”.

                  You hire people who have demonstrated competence at the job. And the Roman Catholic Church’s response to the Romance movement shows that it was not competent at the job – it demonstrated a failure to understand the nature of women and the nature of marriage, which massive failure of basic competence demonstrates the failure mode of celibate priests in roles teaching married men and boys who should grow up to get married.

                • JanMartense says:

                  If a married priesthood would have prevented the gay mafia, why is every western church with a married priesthood 100x gayer than even the worst Jesuit?

                  This is a really good point Nikolai and I think it goes to show that the celibate priesthood issue is not as hugely important as some jim is making it out to be. I guess the main difference is: jim thinks requiring priestly celibacy makes celibacy seem holier for EVERYONE, which would indeed be disastrous, but that doesn’t seem to be the case historically.

                  But as a counterpoint, it could be that Protestants are way more pozzed for OTHER reasons, unrelated to celibacy, and would be even worse off if they were celibate. For example, the lack of a formal hierarchy. People can whine about the Pope all they want, but even a literal Satanist Pope would probably do less theological damage than the abomination known as “democracy,” which is precisely how many protestant churches are run. So in this case, it could be that celibacy is still bad, but just not AS bad as bottom-up church governance.

                • ten says:

                  If all will be celibate in the next world, that is because that world will not be fallen, not subject to death and corruption, and thus having no use of reproduction.

                  In this fallen world, we have infinite need for reproduction, and a man who cannot perform it, for whatever reason, asexuality, perversion, dysfunction, is a broken man.

                  You, Nikolai, push on us the idea that this non reproductive, self annihilating loop is holy, and you have good historical company in doing so.

                  But things that do not reproduce go away and leave this world to things that do. Does this holiness reproduce itself in other ways? Is it a psychic contagion killing its host? Does it benefit those close to it somehow? How? Are we supposed to ignore such questions, trust it to the revealed light of God that these things are beneficial, or to be followed in spite of adverse effects for greater holiness? Such mysticism is not the Christianity that rose Europe and with it the world into abundance, which promises that we may understand the world with our minds made in Gods image, however imperfect and partial this understanding at any given time is. Perhaps celibacy is holy and should be pursued, but why and how?

                  It seems to make sense that these things are clearly and obviously detrimental for clear and obvious reasons. The biblical and traditional case presented by jim stands against your handwaving “the rest of the bible”. How and where and why does the rest of the bible advocate priestly or even general celibacy?

                  Gluttony is a sin for understandable reasons. So is lustfulness. Starving yourself to death is not freedom from gluttony, it is self annihilating insanity. Why is celibacy not analogous to this?

                  If it is holy to be so at one with God that you are, already in this fallen world, disconnected from the cybernetics that sustain it, which is what i read into the celibacy of Christ and other actually holy men, then this holiness is clearly and obviously not for everyone, and incredibly rare. If it is holy, it should be appreciated where found, and these holy men would prove their holiness by their capacity to instruct and lead in patriarchy as well as any established patriarch. This would be the good fruit to prove their holiness, which is completely absent. Instead, this fake holiness actually in the real world acts as a veil behind which dysfunction, death and the gay mafia creeps into the church body.

                  This tree bears extremely rotten fruit.

                  Is there some possibility in your mind that the seed of the idea may be true, that the most holy state is one where the constraints put on us by the fall of the world are not present or are suppressed, but that the tradition to which you subscribe got the implications of this seed catastrophically wrong?

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Agree completely that the problem is insufficient control over female sexuality but male defection from the cooperation needed to control women is also driven by sexual instincts.

            Female sexual instinct is to sow division and chaos in men and see who wins or just to stir up her man and see if he can control her. Men will naturally want to their women in line and will do so… unless other men interfere. Other men will interfere if there are no consequences and the slimmest hope for sex exists so as much as we want to allow men to enforce monogamy on women, we also need to have strong rules against men white knighting.

            Female sexuality isn’t going away but needs to be dealt with by the men in her life; white knighting is a social problem.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              @Steve Johnson

              Whiteknights really need to be buried alive.

            • A says:

              This. White knighting kills cooperation between men. We need to be able to beat white knights to death in the town square and leave their mangled corpses on display as a warning to others.

              • alf says:

                I don’t feel we need to go overboard on this one. White knights are low status by the nature of their behavior. Openly mocking them goes a long way.

                • The Cominator says:

                  While not all white knighting behaviour can be a crime as its not always easily defined male feminism needs to be ruthlessly wiped out. Remember that it was low status until it wasn’t. The 19th amendment was not voted for by low status men… Belief in female equality/male feminism will need to be every bit the capital crime belief in Marx will be.

                • alf says:

                  Of course, end emancipation. Just sayin’ that if I had to kill every man who at some point in their life white knighted, wouldn’t be many men left.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Agreed if you have an overly broad definition of white knighting and its hard to define white knighting.

                  Male feminism otoh is rather easily defined and those who believe in it really should be treated the same as hardcore commies and (ironically because Islam is mostly right about women) wahhabist muslims.

                • A says:

                  alf says:

                  I don’t feel we need to go overboard on this one. White knights are low status by the nature of their behavior. Openly mocking them goes a long way.

                  It is true that white knights are low staus. Yet there is nothing lower status than a rotting corpse in the town square. Solemani’s grilled torso, sitting on an Iraqi runway for all the world to see, comes to mind.

                  The Cominator says:

                  Remember that it was low status until it wasn’t.

                  Exactly. White knighting is encouraged by society. Yesterday, I saw an ad on a bus stop telling men to speak up about “domestic violence.” I would be preaching to the choir if I were to identify the lies that were inherent in that ad.

                  My point is that we are losing this war, still, and though certain leaders may be protected, the man in the street is not, and is, still, vulnerable to the predations of the Cathedral and its agents. We may be the cavalry.

                  alf says:

                  Of course, end emancipation. Just sayin’ that if I had to kill every man who at some point in their life white knighted, wouldn’t be many men left.

                  I have answered this concern in my reply to Not Tom below.

                • Allah says:

                  My point is that we are losing this war

                  This one is interesting, even though the West has been getting much more nationalistic recently, the WQ getting further and further out of reach. Graphic videos featuring non-whites are extremely good shock treatment, but there does not seem to be an equivalent for the WQ, something so simple as to be universal you can show to your audience to evoke a primal feeling to sway them to your side. No matter how many men are fleeced by the state or metaphorically lynched in public, has barely any affect on feminist sentiment.

                  Simply accusing white knights of not being manly enough does not work. They have state backing.

                • jim says:

                  The big reveal is videos of female behavior towards the alpha male of the group.

              • Not Tom says:

                White knighting is in substantial part a learned behavior – much more so than alpha/beta or even left/right.

                It should be punishable, but at roughly the same level as petty theft. As alf says, if we just go around killing all the white knights, there wouldn’t be many men left.

                And it’s a potential vector for holiness spiraling. What is white knighting? Identifying as a feminist and wearing a “The Future Is Female” shirt? Sure. Defending the female vote? Probably. Referring to one’s wife as their “better half”? Ehh, maybe. General mate guarding? Contentious. Defending your female neighbor against a violent black criminal or muslim jihadist? …..

                It’s too hard for all men to police all other men at the same time. The numbers don’t work. Much easier to take away the opportunity for white-knighting by taking away the feral women cruising for cock.

                • A says:

                  And it’s a potential vector for holiness spiraling. What is white knighting?

                  White knighting is behavior that interferes with the property rights in a woman of another man. Its root is transgression of the tenth commandment. If you are worried about holiness spiraling then the King alone shall decide exactly what constitutes white knighting. The King would not deprive his kingdom of productive workers, would he?

                  As alf says, if we just go around killing all the white knights, there wouldn’t be many men left.

                  You kill the worst one and leave his decaying carcass as an example. If anyone continues to engage in such behavior then he is next. Eventually we will be left with a population of men that is intelligent enough to see that they should not interfere with another man’s property.

                  It’s too hard for all men to police all other men at the same time. The numbers don’t work. Much easier to take away the opportunity for white-knighting by taking away the feral women cruising for cock.

                  See above. You only need to make a few examples and the rest will get into line. Any that do not get into line after seeing the examples made are not intelligent enough to be of benefit to the kingdom.

                  Neither am I proposing a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Women need to be controlled. But the single greatest impediment to my ability to control my women is other men. How can I properly control a woman when there are 99 thirsty faggots, hovering like flies over shit, that are waiting to take my place?

                  White knighting is in substantial part a learned behavior – much more so than alpha/beta or even left/right.

                  Yes and no. For the last two hundred years they have faced no consequences for their actions. This creates a behavioral effect, but also a genetic effect. Low birthrates, two world wars, and low mortality have weakened our people severely. I am proposing to fix both the behavioral problem and the genetic problem.

                • Not Tom says:

                  How can I properly control a woman when there are 99 thirsty faggots, hovering like flies over shit, that are waiting to take my place?

                  Very, very easily. Every alpha does this instinctively, but even betas can learn, especially when society allows them to pass shit tests.

                  White knights are a nuisance, but the vicious hate directed at them (and often away from the actual whores) carries a whiff of incel. White knights appear generally desperate, so it’s not hard at all to keep women away from them – they’re already repulsed.

                • A says:

                  Very, very easily. Every alpha does this instinctively

                  Yes, that is correct. My instinctive reaction to someone trying this on me is to break his face.

                  , but even betas can learn, especially when society allows them to pass shit tests.

                  But society does not allow me to pass shit tests, nor break people who prevent me from passing shit tests.

                  White knights are a nuisance, but the vicious hate directed at them (and often away from the actual whores) carries a whiff of incel. White knights appear generally desperate, so it’s not hard at all to keep women away from them – they’re already repulsed.

                  You speak of white knighting as though it were disorganized. It is not. When I am the center of attention in a club, which I generally am, bands of men will get in my way and try to interfere, and some men will physically attack me. It is ridiculous and it is not getting better.

                  I see the same tactics used at street level that you see the Cathedral practice at a state level. I see white knighting as an extension of the Cathedral.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I see white knighting as an extension of the Cathedral.

                  If so, then this sort of “institutional white knighting” would disappear immediately upon a successful coup. Therefore, on a successful coup, there is no need to impose harsh penalties for white knighting. If individual white knighting occurs, it can be resolved by either allowing the white knight to get beaten up (does not require state punishment) or by imposing a fairly minor punishment comparable to petty theft.

                  I think you are confusing white knighting as a beta behavior with feminism as an institution. They are different but related phenomena, as with covetousness (an individual sin) and Marxism (an ideology/institution built upon that sin). Marxism as an institution must be put to death, but imposing the death penalty for every individual act of covetousness would leave us with some very scorched earth. Feminism will be put to the sword, but individual men prone to white-knighting need not necessarily be.

                • A says:

                  If so, then this sort of “institutional white knighting” would disappear immediately upon a successful coup. Therefore, on a successful coup, there is no need to impose harsh penalties for white knighting.

                  Which may come tomorrow or may come never. We may need interim solutions to some of these problems.

                  If individual white knighting occurs, it can be resolved by either allowing the white knight to get beaten up (does not require state punishment) or by imposing a fairly minor punishment comparable to petty theft.

                  Yes, I may not have been explicit enough with my words. I am not asking for the state to beat up white knights. I am asking that the state look away while male private citizens do so. I am aware of the problem of Kings playing favorites.

                  I think you are confusing white knighting as a beta behavior with feminism as an institution. They are different but related phenomena, as with covetousness (an individual sin) and Marxism (an ideology/institution built upon that sin). Marxism as an institution must be put to death, but imposing the death penalty for every individual act of covetousness would leave us with some very scorched earth. Feminism will be put to the sword, but individual men prone to white-knighting need not necessarily be.

                  None of these things will matter very much in the end.

                • alf says:

                  A says:

                  When I am the center of attention in a club, which I generally am, bands of men will get in my way and try to interfere, and some men will physically attack me. It is ridiculous and it is not getting better.

                  You want to kill white knights because they harass you in the club? Lol. Go into degenerate environment, get degenerate treatment. If anything, I salute club incels that take matters into their own hands.

                  More generally, I’m not against stricter exemplary punishment. Hammurabi built one of the first civilizations, dude was surely on to something. Public humiliation works.

                  At the same time, I’m just not really big into aggressive mass scale pro-eugenic policies like Cominator proposes. I don’t oppose it per se, Com has some good arguments, it’s just not really my style. But so far I file such business under ‘no enemies to the right’, so it’s all good.

                • A says:

                  You want to kill white knights because they harass you in the club? Lol.

                  They do it everywhere. The club is just the best environment to see it in its most raw and unedited form. And, again, it was a minor point that I was making, and was in response to Steve Johnson’s two posts above. Perhaps you would like to refute my argument here that Deuteronomy 22:23-27 implies NAWALT, and, hence, we need to, in certain circumstances, address male behavior as well.

                  Go into degenerate environment, get degenerate treatment.

                  Men perform and women choose. Again, there is no better environment, outside of darkest Africa perhaps, to observe this. What kind of anthropologist would I be if I were to leave this very interesting simulation of hominid mating, as it stood 100,000 years ago, out of my studies?

                  If anything, I salute club incels that take matters into their own hands.

                  As you say, no enemies to the right.

              • Atavistic Morality says:

                I think white knights are just misguided betas following progressive dogma because they’ve been taught all their lives that’s how you get women and to begin with they are discouraged from being men, told to hate themselves, and so on.

                I very much agree with your instinct to send them quickly to the closest hospital A, and you should if you can get away with it, but I don’t think they’re the real problem.

                If you are as alpha as you are implying, I’m sure you’d have no problem getting rid of the white knights if the police wouldn’t come for you. So ultimately it’s a political problem, it’s a progressive problem, because the police are more likely to agree with you than not, they’re just mercenaries trying to make a warrior living in a society that hates them and has left them with few choices.

                If masculinity not virtually outlawed and warriors not socially ostracized, problem solved. So if you remove the source of that, progressivism, problem solved, I’d say.

                In Greece, most of the police force vote for Golden Dawn even though they’re kinda enforcing progressive rule. It’s very ironic, isn’t? But the bureaucratic state has an inertia and can’t be easily stopped, so everyone is like a cog, trapped and following along the movement.

                Well, my point is that focusing on the white knights is like focusing on the red dot of the laser, instead of the machine that creates it, and ultimately ineffective and pointless.

                • A says:

                  This is ultimately true. We are trying to answer questions of universal and spiritual importance. We seek everlasting life. Just as the human body devotes only the resources it needs to fight off infection, so must we devote only what is required to heal the illness of our world, and, once healed, we must engage once again in our spiritual quest.

                • Mr.P says:

                  Speaking only for myself, as a decidedly not-alpha, as soon as another man, a friend, showed me and elaborated in detail the white knight tact I was taking, unsuccessfully, with women, the behavior in me stopped immediately. This may be one of the only areas where a little education can make all the difference. In short, once I saw it, I never did it again (because it’s weak and disgusting), and my life improved greatly.

                • Not Tom says:

                  A, you seem to be suggesting that we could solve the white knight problem before solving the progressive problem and the woman problem. What exactly makes you think that’s possible?

                  I see no reason to believe that it is anything other than a coup-complete problem. Maybe even jihad-complete. It’s been around forever – longer than the Cathedral, longer even than the Enlightenment. It’s just generally been considered a low-status behavior.

                  There is not going to be a reality where white knights are banished, but women are still voting, outnumbering men in college, and instawhoring. On the other hand it is quite likely there will still be some white knights after society is conquered (peacefully or otherwise) by patriarchs. Their behavior will be seen as low status and duly corrected by peers, first politely, then violently if necessary.

                  Contra feminists, we can’t “teach men not to rape”, but we can teach them not to white-knight.

                • A says:

                  Again I have been unclear. I would not unduly separate the white knight problem from the progressive problem and the woman problem. They all appear, to me, to have similar roots, as do the Jew problem, the black problem, and the Muslim problem, inasmuch as a nation that can better resist one of these problems can better resist all of these problems.

                  I do not wish to denigrate the efforts that you have made towards solving the woman problem. I have not felt the need to comment on the woman problem too much because you have covered it so thoroughly.

                  I do believe that if you focus too much on the behavior of women then you can let the enablers go unpunished. Deuteronomy 22:23-27 implies that some women are capable of good behavior at least some of the time, as does the story of Penelope in the previous post, as does a recent story of a Chinese woman who called for help upon an attempted rape by a black man whom her helpers then bashed. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 gives a specific case where only the man would be punished.

                  Not everything is about women. We must strive to achieve balance.

                  Deuteronomy 22

                  23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
                  24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

                  25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
                  26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
                  27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

                • The Cominator says:

                  > I do believe that if you focus too much on the behavior of women then you can let the enablers go unpunished.

                  As I’ve said those identified as male feminists should in the event of victory get absolutely no mercy. They should be treated as hardcore commies, democratic officeholders, left wing academics, and wahabbi muslims. I’ve controversially argued here that sparing such people is bad idea (well I think most of the site agrees on Democrats who hold office).

                  The biggest problem right now is the social democracy problem which creates the woman problem and the woman problem makes the social democracy problem impossible to solve (because single women vote so incredibly badly) except via an unlikely right wing revolution or via a coup.

                  All the other problems you mention stem from the link between the social democracy problem and the woman problem or as I like to call it feminist social democracy. The Cathedral is just the both hidden and not hidden controller of social democracy primarily via manipulation of single female voters as they’ve gradually been losing their ability over men.

                  Are women capable of better behavior in better circumstances, yes I believe so. But they are fundamentally conformist herd creatures and the herd is evil and mad and what they must conform to is evil and mad. Among younger women true NAWALTs exist particulary those who isolate themselves from other women but they all fall into some degree of evil and insanity in the end.

  6. Strannik says:

    The Cominator, you said in comment that;

    ”I believe as we’ve discussed on another form…

    I like the Orthodox Church for the most part and Jim for the most part likes the Orthodox Church, but St. Jerome will always represent a potential problem down the road. Its not a big one right now but even the Orthodox Church is somewhat subject to being changed for the worse…”

    That which changes is not Orthodox Christian any longer, it’s as simple as that, and thus the Orthodoxy gets smaller, as prophesy suggests that it will. St. Jerome is not a real problem, for celibacy is indeed a higher calling, for those who are called to it and can bear it with God’s help. The rest of us need not fear a St. Jerome.

    ”You are an “Old Believer” and while to me the Old Believer’s complaints (being mostly about forms and ritual) seem rather strange you as an old believer must keenly feel that the Orthodox Church is not totally immune to being corrupted in some way.”

    I’m not an ”Old Believer” yet, although I probably will be before it’s all said and done. Again, it’s a case of a very long war against Orthodoxy, and it will likely be that the true Christian faith will be very small before His Return.

    ”Thus do me and Jim worry that the Orthodox Church’s current position on celibacy which is harmless enough could spiral into the homosexual problem the papist church has.”

    Homosexuality is at the very core of the Papal Church’s identity from the very beginning in 1054 AD, and at some point I’d love to elucidate my opinions on how it’s heresies have shaped the ”Cathedral” into what it is today…

    • The Cominator says:

      “That which changes is not Orthodox Christian any longer”

      This risks going into the kind of bizzare logical contortions that the Sedevacantist Papists make. The Pope is the Pope and infallible and in charge but ONLY WHEN he is the pope and not being fallible and making heresy.

      Outsiders understandably find this kind of logic to be madness…

      • Strannik says:

        Not really the case here, as the belief of Orthodox Christians is pretty well set and any deviation/innovation that might result simply results in yet another new Heterodox group instead of a totally taken over Orthodoxy. This has always been the reality of the situation, even if the results are an ever-dwindling Remnant in the world’s eyes.

        • Not Tom says:

          That’s what they said about Christianity before Calvinism, and about Calvinism before Puritanism, and about Puritanism before Progressivism.

          No True Scotsman is tautological, irrelevant, and childish. Face the facts; in order for your tribe to be successful, you must both accumulate believers and resist accumulating heresies. If you use NTS to define away the heresies but the numbers show you losing believers, then your tribe is not worthy and will never rule.

          • jim says:

            > If you use No True Scotsman to define away the heresies but the numbers show you losing believers, then your tribe is not worthy and will never rule.

            Observed failure mode of Churches: They are losing believers to the very holy heresy. So they say “well we had better moderate our position and move closer to these very holy heretics”, and reinterpret orthodox doctrine to make it more heresy friendly, so that they stop losing people to the heresy. But the heretic church empties out, and eventually simply disappears. The congregation just stops turning up. The congregationalists simply disappeared long ago, and the Anglican congregation has one foot in the grave. Vatican II.

            The reason that Orthodoxy loses to heretics, is that Orthodoxy contains past sellouts to heresy, and the new heretics are holiness spiralling on the old heresies. The gay mafia is behind a whole lot of this.

            Saint Jerome was holier than thou, heresy against Saint Paul, and the great schism of 1054 was the Donatist heresy. The Church wanted what was rightly Caesar’s and insisted the priests who played ball with Caesar were insufficiently holy.

            Today deep concern for the chastity of the priesthood seems to be in practice closely associated with sodomizing small boys, and deep concern for Priests who excessive cooperative with Caesar and chosen in substantial part by Caesar to be in practice associated with efforts to grab Caesar’s right authority, as in 1054, as in China today, and as in Russia today. The first Donatists, Anno Domini 343, deeply concerned by Bishops who had made concessions in the persecution of Christians, predictably turned into strikingly twenty first century communists, abolishing both marriage and private property.

            The Church’s earthly mission of peace on earth and cooperate/cooperate equilibrium within the elite requires that Caesar routinely influences, and sometimes decides, who makes it to Bishop, because Caesar is supreme over the Church in earthly matters. For example the Chinese government has entirely and proper legitimate concerns about subversion of China by Catholics introducing the doctrines of Harvard with the intent of overthrowing the Chinese regime in collaboration with State Department ngos, and needs to appoint a Chinese Pope who will put a stop to it.

            Similarly Putin has entirely legitimate and well founded concerns about Harvard using their pawns in the Vatican and in Constantinople to overthrow the Russian government, and should be appointing Orthodox Bishops and firing “Orthodox” Bishops right left and sideways.

            The gay mafia promotes hostility to husbands and undermines their authority, and the Roman Catholic Church today, like the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, coveted the earthly power of the Chinese Communist party, all in the name of being holier than thou. Rejection of the sacraments of priests chosen by the Chinese authorities is the donatist heresy, unholiness sold as superior holiness.

            New heresies are resulting in Churches disappearing, and are closely linked and in practice derived from old heresies. The sodomites oppose married men being given holy orders, and those trying to knock over Caesar’s applecart and grab his apples are deeply concerned about Caesaropapism.

            Caesar should not ordinarily appoint Bishops when everything is fine and normal. King Solomon killed on high priest and appointed another, but this was a rare and extraordinary act. But Caesar gets to decide the exception, and in China and Russia today it is mighty obvious that the exception is fully justified. Russia and China are under attack from Harvard through puppets in Rome and Constantinople and those agents in the Ukraine helped knock over Caesar’s applecart, and were rewarded with some of his apples.

            Similarly Charles the Hammer was right to appoint Bishops willing to fight the Saracen, and fire Bishops unwilling to fight the Saracen. Such issues are properly the domain of Caesar.

            Such actions should be the exception and not the rule, but religion today, increasingly owned by Harvard, which wants the earthly thrones of men of everywhere, is everywhere in an exceptional state, as was Christianity in the time of Charles the Hammer.

            • Polifugue says:

              I know a little about how Orthodoxy views the papacy, so let me interject.

              Originally, the papacy in Rome was considered “first among equals” among the various main cities of the early Christian world (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and so forth). What caused the great schism in 1054 was the pope declaring himself infallible above all the other bishops due to a holiness spiral, which included various heresies such as the filioque, among others.

              However, if the pope were to reject Vatican I and return to Orthodoxy, he would regain his status as first among equals.

            • JanMartense says:

              Russia and China are under attack from Harvard through puppets in Rome and Constantinople and those agents in the Ukraine helped knock over Caesar’s applecart, and were rewarded with some of his apples.

              On this subject, I’ll note that secular monarchs enjoyed the right to appoint (or in some cases veto the appointment of) Catholic bishops throughout the entirety of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and for some countries even into the 20th century. And I think similar secular oversight also applied in parts of Orthodoxy although I’m not as familiar with East European history as Western.

              So mainstream Christianity was fine in this regard until very recently.

            • Not Tom says:

              Yes, absolutely.

              A church’s mission is to expand believers and preserve beliefs. Expanding (or rather, “reinterpreting”) beliefs in order to expand believers is death. But losing believers to heretics is also death. If either one of those things is happening, then your beliefs are likely on shaky ground.

              And Russian Orthodox beliefs are on shaky ground. They are not outright evil, like modern protestantism or papism, but they are still on shaky ground, and as a consequence, the herd is thinning.

              It would be far easier to salvage Orthodoxy than it would be to salvage protestantism/progressivism; the former contains a few dangerous heresies while the latter is rotten to the core. But the former must acknowledge and retract those heresies, otherwise no amount of “that’s not really Orthodox” is going to save it.

    • JanMartense says:

      That which changes is not Orthodox Christian any longer, it’s as simple as that, and thus the Orthodoxy gets smaller, as prophesy suggests that it will.

      This attitude is fine from a spiritual perspective but practically speaking it is catastrophic. The focus of neoreaction is political stability, not Christian theory (I say that as a dedicated Christian) and heresies are the foremost source of social collapse and instability. Calvinist theology directly led to the disastrous conditions of present society. When it is pointed out that Orthodoxy is susceptible to heresy, and you reply “sure but then it is no longer Orthodoxy,” well yes that is true in the tautological sense but doesn’t at all help us reach any kind of political goal.

      Speaking of which, the EP-Moscow Schism (on top of the 1996 schism, and the Montenegro fiasco) is casting serious doubt on Orthodoxy’s supposed resistance to progressivism. The fact that the EP bent to will of Western liberals, DESPITE not even being located in an ideologically allied country, is a huge red flag when it comes to cultural sovereignty. I would even say the more decentralized structure of Orthodoxy makes it more vulnerable to poz than Catholicism, especially considering the latter IS based in a liberal country. The Russian church is only spared because of Putin’s policy choices tending towards autarchy.

      • Strannik says:

        Jan, you said;

        ”This attitude is fine from a spiritual perspective but practically speaking it is catastrophic. The focus of neoreaction is political stability, not Christian theory (I say that as a dedicated Christian) and heresies are the foremost source of social collapse and instability. Calvinist theology directly led to the disastrous conditions of present society. When it is pointed out that Orthodoxy is susceptible to heresy, and you reply “sure but then it is no longer Orthodoxy,” well yes that is true in the tautological sense but doesn’t at all help us reach any kind of political goal.”

        I’m humble enough I guess to suggest at least to myself that while the spiritual situation is bad, it could get better, and that’s as true in an Eschatological sense as in the worldly political one as well. Who knows what strange trials the Christian faith will endure until the very end, when her Redeemer returns in glory?

        ”Speaking of which, the EP-Moscow Schism (on top of the 1996 schism, and the Montenegro fiasco) is casting serious doubt on Orthodoxy’s supposed resistance to progressivism. The fact that the EP bent to will of Western liberals, DESPITE not even being located in an ideologically allied country, is a huge red flag when it comes to cultural sovereignty.”

        That’s a question of concern in one sense, only if one identifies ”Nikonians” with Orthodox Christianity.

        ”I would even say the more decentralized structure of Orthodoxy makes it more vulnerable to poz than Catholicism, especially considering the latter IS based in a liberal country.”

        Not really. There’s always some Orthodox Bishop somewhere who defends the Right Belief and sets the plans of Old Rome awry, like St. Mark of Ephesus, who was the lone resistor against the Vatican at the Pseudo-Council of Florence. De-Centralization in the Ecclesial structure but definite centrality of Doctrine makes absolute capture supernaturally and naturally impossible.

        ”The Russian church is only spared because of Putin’s policy choices tending towards autarchy.”

        I believe that the Nikonians will fold and surrender to the Vatican eventually, unless they return to the Old Belief, that’s my ‘black pill’ if I can be said to have one. Moscow Patriarch Kyrill was Metropolitan Nikodim’s secretary back in the day, and both men were secretly made Roman Cardinals by then-Pope Paul VI, according to my sources on the matter. Putin’s a better defender of Orthodoxy than they are, as is often the case with the laity historically.

        The Russian church is only spared because of Putin’s policy choices tending towards autarchy.

        • Mike says:

          Strannik, the Russian Orthodox don’t hold to the “Old Belief” any more than the Greeks do. Your church had the Raskol and the Old Belivers lost and became the minority. Patriarch Kirill, along with most of the Russian Orthodx Church, aren’t Old Believers.

          • Strannik says:

            I think you’re missing my point. Not everybody that calls themselves ”Orthodox” is such, even the Papists call themselves that on occasion. This is a very long war, and it still goes on, it isn’t over yet. And ”lost” is a matter of perspective…

            Russia has fatefully turned from the toxic West, perhaps for good, and while I have my ”black pill” moments, I’m aware of how providential a Right-Believing Tsar or other King and Princes can turn things around for their Nations and for Christ’s Church. The war is seen as well as unseen.

            • Mike says:

              And you have every right to be hopeful, your country only just emerged from darkness under the USSR. We however, are only digging ourselves deeper at the present moment.

              • Strannik says:

                I suppose you might say that I have two countries, America and Russia, so I am constantly in prayer for both Nations all the time. I think the answers for both are similar if not identical too.

                • Karl says:

                  Your phrase of “both nations” implies that there is only a single US nation and only a single Russian nation. This implies that in your opnion common ancestors and common culture are not what defines a “nation”. What do you think defines a “nation”? Is a common passport enough?

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Strannik

                  “That which changes is not Orthodox Christian any longer, it’s as simple as that, and thus the Orthodoxy gets smaller, as prophesy suggests that it will.”

                  If you’re wondering why people here are suspicious of you and why I asked you a RedPill on women question (which you passed). It is the red flags we see in your posts. One of those is the advocacy of ineffective strategy.

                  Did the early Christians content themselves with a shrinking church and heresy in the clerical ranks… even while being persecuted? The answer would be no. They did everything possible to grow the church and they stamped out heresy in their clerical ranks even while they were persecuted from time to time by pre-Christian Rome.

  7. Thales says:

    Oligarchs vs. Newligarchs

  8. Strannik says:

    Jim you said;

    ”I see the same thing, a lot of cross pollination between the Indian right, rooted in Hinduism, and the alarmingly rootless Western right (we need to rediscover our roots in first millennium Christianity, but that is another topic.)”

    I’d be interested of course to read your thoughts on this very subject. Because ”rootless” is exactly what I’d call so many of the western right i’m coming across, especially with ”white” as a generic entity one can fill with all sorts of nonsense about the human condition.

    • The Cominator says:

      The nihilism of the modern western right is generally because we are angry cynical men with our only common faith being a deep black hearted hate for the enemy. Its one reason why i say we should be fairly open among ourselves about having an eventual goal of Suhartoing all leftists… When hatred of the enemy is our main point of unity we need to embrace it.

      • Mike says:

        All the interest in India is due to a couple of things:1. A bunch of philosophers or theorists who are typically thought of as right-wing wrote about or at least referenced India, including Nietzsche, Evola, Guenon, Eliade and Moldbug.2. The theory of the Indo-Aryan race, which involves India.

        This does not refute the truth of Jim’s statement that it is regrettable that the Right often looks to other civilizations for inspiration. However, the only reason this is the case is because our homeland has lost most of its own traditions and inspirations. If the West really has became a spiritual and moral vacuum, then I can’t really blame the above people for analyzing others in order to find out what’s wrong with us. You can’t really study the notion of religion, myth, traditions, or natural aristocracy in a land of bugmen.

        • Strannik says:

          My take on the matter is that the West was once right in it’s collective mind until shortly after 800 to 1054 AD, and lost the Unity of Orthodoxy and thus Christ’s grace, slowly getting worse with each generation. I do not see that as being fixed anytime soon, if ever, but I know what side I for one have chosen, to be as we once were.

          • jim says:

            Orthodoxy is indeed Orthodox, and Rome was schismatic, hungry for the power of Kings, wanting what was rightly Caesar’s.

            But Orthodoxy is not quite Orthodox enough. Modern Orthodoxy has made concessions on marriage and female consent which undermines the Church in its role of the bride of Christ. If you subvert marriage, you are sawing off the branch on which you sit. Churches seem to die about a century or so after they adopt a formalization of the mating dance unsuited to heterogamous organisms.

            It also went heretical on holiness spiralling celibacy, though not as far as Roman Catholicism did. Should recruit priests primarily from men who are married, with children, and successful at patriarchy, as Saint Paul commanded, twice and at length, rather than from monasteries.

            Would Orthodoxy accept as Orthodox a church that expected successful patriarchy of recruits to the priesthood, and made female consent to marriage optional under some circumstances?

            Christianity went off the rails with the holiness spiralling pole sitters, but that was relatively harmless. Holiness spiraling celibacy, not so harmless.

            • Oog en Hand says:

              What is your position on the Patriotic Church in China? They already condone bastardicide…

            • Strannik says:

              Jim, you said thusly;

              ”Orthodoxy is indeed Orthodox, and Rome was schismatic, hungry for the power of Kings, wanting what was rightly Caesar’s.”

              Not only Schismatic, but heretical as well.

              ”But Orthodoxy is not quite Orthodox enough. Modern Orthodoxy has made concessions on marriage and female consent which undermines the Church in its role of the bride of Christ. If you subvert marriage, you are sawing off the branch on which you sit. Churches seem to die about a century or so after they adopt a formalization of the mating dance unsuited to heterogamous organisms.”

              I for one am not ”modern” in my Orthodoxy, and by marital ties and theological sympathy I am with the so-called ”Old Believers” who still have Priests and Bishops. Men and women who are to be married are instructed throughout their lives of their specific traditional proper roles within marriage, and are reminded of it when they do wed.

              ”It also went heretical on holiness spiralling celibacy, though not as far as Roman Catholicism did. Should recruit priests primarily from men who are married, with children, and successful at patriarchy, as Saint Paul commanded, twice and at length, rather than from monasteries.”

              In Orthodoxy, it is actually a requirement that if one is to be married it is in fact prior to the taking on of Holy Orders in the Priesthood, usually before one is made a Deacon even. Bishops are usually but not always widowers themselves (or their wives became nuns while they became monks) but always come from the monasteries, for solid theological reasons having to do with the vision of the Uncreated Light of God.

              So no, no heresy.

              ”Would Orthodoxy accept as Orthodox a church that expected successful patriarchy of recruits to the priesthood, and made female consent to marriage optional under some circumstances?”

              I have not read all the ancient canons of the Church of course, but I do know that obedience is what is required above any consent, in any case.

              ”Christianity went off the rails with the holiness spiralling pole sitters, but that was relatively harmless. Holiness spiraling celibacy, not so harmless.”

              ”Christianity” that is schismatic and heretical, not following the teachings carried down from the Apostolic and Orthodox Fathers, is not Christianity. This is why in some liturgies the heretics are also called ‘Atheists’, because they don’t have the gift of Faith in God. Celibacy within Canonical bounds is right and even holy, but so too is marital sex to a lesser degree than celibacy, and to say that sex (which is how new citizens of Heaven come into the world after all) is an evil, is actually a sin and a heresy, a true error.

              And as to this;

              ”The pope is a heretic. National Churches are the solution.”

              The Papacy has become heretical since 1054 AD, ”National Churches” as such are not an answer, but in Orthodoxy, churches are organized on the Diocesan level with individual Bishops all being equal, and a Holy Synod of Bishops is actually organized on an National and/or Provincial level. ”Ethnos”/Nation is not bad at all, a definite and sublime good, but the message of the Church is for all men at all times and places.

              • jim says:

                > I for one am not ”modern” in my Orthodoxy, and by marital ties and theological sympathy I am with the so-called ”Old Believers” who still have Priests and Bishops. Men and women who are to be married are instructed throughout their lives of their specific traditional proper roles within marriage, and are reminded of it when they do wed.

                My marriage ceremony was the pre 1928 Anglican ceremony (I could not find an Anglican who would do it) which includes “honor and obey”, and includes Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 5:22-33 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife”.and the first epistle of Peter 3:1-7 “ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands;”

                The pastor also covered the obligation to engage in sex. A 100% Jimian ceremony, with the bride given away and the ring, rather than “I do”, central.

                How do your Orthodox Priests do it?

                • Mike says:

                  Did you just bless the marriage yourself? What priest in the era you got married during (the 70s I would assume) would have done that for you?

                • jim says:

                  I remarried last year after my late wife died. Got in a pastor with a hole in the wall Church, chief priest of his own little religion. He was pretty cool with the pre 1928 Anglican ceremony. Guests did not seem to notice anything unusual or surprising. The priest was fine. He extemporized a sermon which covered some related material, albeit in a more evasive fashion, but nothing that would tick off Dalrock. I hit some resistance from the wedding organizers, and had to get mighty stern with them.

                  I had previously attended his Church, just another guy in the audience, to check him out, and he had in his sermon covered the duty of wives to obey husbands.

                • Strannik says:

                  In an Orthodox wedding there is an emphasis on the vows as being made to God, a marriage being a means to help the couple find eternal salvation in the Lord. Ephesians 5:20-33 is included, as well as the Gospel reading of John 2 1-11. In a traditional Orthodox wedding both are crowned as King and Queen of the new family, a miniature of the ”Kingdom of God”, with the Groom as Christ in purest White and the Bride as the Church, and in the most traditional service i’ve seen, I saw the woman prostrated bowing down before the man…

                • Strannik says:

                  Jim, here’s an example of an traditional Orthodox wedding, complete with the woman bowing down entirely before the man;

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxxOGGHY1_s

                • jim says:

                  Good stuff.

                  Women want a top alpha who will provide them with husband and family, rather than a “season of singleness”, even though they do not know it and think that they want to party, and think that they want a Church that endorses them partying. They think that, but it is merely a fitness test, a fitness test that the Church, the family, and society is massively failing.

                  Men want a top alpha that endorses their ownership of wife or wives, children, and household. I think this is the reason that Churches hollow out when they head off in another direction, and the reason you need a priesthood that is personally successful at individual patriarchy. Also the reason single fertile age white women are today converting to Islam, and that Roman women converted from dead paganism to live Christianity.

                  God is dad written large.

                  If you are looking for a God who whispers in men’s ears and very occasionally works not-very-dramatic miracles, he is a very small God. To be big enough to give men hope, he has to be a God who works primarily through material and effective causation, through cause and effect, chance and necessity, as for example, the very high death rate among gays, and the self destruction of immoral nations. The little God who whispers in men’s ears is the Holy Spirit, and the big God who made the universe is God the father. And the Universe is what it is, therefore God is Gnon, and therefore you should not holiness spiral on either celibacy or the Good Samaritan. Two cheeks are sufficient and you need to pass women’s endless fitness tests. Red pill is true, natural selection is true, yet we reject the black pill, even though the red pill and natural selection are mighty grim.

                  Saint Jerome is a problem, a time bomb ticking in Orthodoxy. You are not going to fix the problem of Orthodoxy mutating into New Orthodoxy, until old Orthodoxy embraces Gnon, the God who works in the world primarily through cause and effect, chance and necessity, and therefore necessarily rejects Saint Jerome.

                  Christianity has a place for those unfortunate men that God calls to celibacy, but that place is seldom directly standing in front of a congregation composed of families.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I believe as we’ve discussed on another form…

                  I like the Orthodox Church for the most part and Jim for the most part likes the Orthodox Church, but St. Jerome will always represent a potential problem down the road. Its not a big one right now but even the Orthodox Church is somewhat subject to being changed for the worse…

                  You are an “Old Believer” and while to me the Old Believer’s complaints (being mostly about forms and ritual) seem rather strange you as an old believer must keenly feel that the Orthodox Church is not totally immune to being corrupted in some way.

                  Thus do me and Jim worry that the Orthodox Church’s current position on celibacy which is harmless enough could spiral into the homosexual problem the papist church has.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          All the interest in India is due to a couple of things:1. A bunch of philosophers or theorists who are typically thought of as right-wing wrote about or at least referenced India, including Nietzsche, Evola, Guenon, Eliade and Moldbug.2. The theory of the Indo-Aryan race, which involves India.

          One of the things that Moldbug discussed was that the prog pets aren’t problems – the progs are the problem and Singapore and the UAE demonstrate the wisdom of that but India really demonstrates the risks.

          You can end up with a genetically isolated high IQ castes and a society drowning in sewage because the baseline level of IQ and cooperativeness is too low to make anything but isolating in walled compounds a reasonable alternative.

          India isn’t a bad place to look at as a cautionary tale against the “techno-optimism” NR school of thought fully winning over the nationalist school.

      • Strannik says:

        I’m neither cynical nor am I a hater. We won’t win with that, and we can never kill enough of the Moderns to begin with anyway. They will exterminate themselves for the most part

      • Not Tom says:

        we are angry cynical men with our only common faith being a deep black hearted hate for the enemy

        You’ve made it abundantly clear that this describes you, but it does not describe the rest of us, and isn’t going to describe the rest of us no matter how many times you repeat it.

        Whatever you want to call our philosophy, religion, ideology… it makes positive claims, and positive claims are required for a positive identity, and positive identities are required for cohesion. What’s more, you yourself acknowledge and accept most of the positive claims, but still fall back on the assertion that the only common thread is exclusively negative.

        Lots of people hate communists. CNN hates communists. That doesn’t make them our clan, and doesn’t even make them friends of the clan.

        We aren’t an angry mob.

        • The Cominator says:

          The right is bigger than neoreaction we are influential but not strong enough on our own, look at /pol if you doubt my belief on what the common thread is.

          • jim says:

            The alt right generally believes that democracy will continue indefinitely. They are wrong. It is dead already. So it doesn’t matter that they disagree with us on that empirical issue. We don’t need to persuade them. Events will run their course irrespective of their beliefs.

          • PUA says:

            [*deleted*]

          • Not Tom says:

            Strong enough for what? What do I care what some tradcucks, poltards and blue-pilled race determinists think?

            Trying to find a common thread between different and mutually hostile tribes and ideologies is foolish. It’s precisely the reason why the Overton window is as far left as it is today.

          • Atavistic Morality says:

            What you’re saying about /pol/ is not accurate, it’s the appearance built by the NGO Indians, federal glowers and NEET wignats spewing a lot of bullshit no one with a functional brain actually believes.

            HWNDU was a good example of what /pol/ truly stands for, and there wasn’t any wignatism there. Everyone supported Trump fully knowing what Trump was, precisely because of what Trump was.

            There’s isn’t a race issue, there is a progressivism issue. But it becomes a race issue with visceral emotion when you tell people you are going to destroy their lives if they notice black violence and black incompetence, that instead they must let themselves be murdered and hire worthless ningineers. That they cannot treat black criminals as criminals, because they are black, so instead they have to take it up the ass. If people could actually treat black criminals as criminals and refuse to hire ningineers, the issue would be solved pretty fast, maybe America even gets a widespread Black Harlem. There isn’t a deep issue between races, there is an issue with progressivisim. There is an issue between different people not being allowed to notice the differences and reach agreement or consensus somehow to have a cooperative relationship. It’s the same with women, there isn’t an issue with women, there an issue with not being able to be a man and treat women accordingly. There is an issue with a social institution that is trying to twist and perverse natural law, resulting in disaster.

            Everyone that tries to distract attention from the real measurable issue of progressivism is a paid agent, a retard or a crypto-leftist.

            • The Cominator says:

              I’m well aware of HWNDU and that there are a lot of glownaggers and shills on /pol and that most of real /pol aren’t wignats or really any consistent identity (well other than Brittany Venti they were all male) that is my point… What they all agree on and have in common is they really really fucking hate the left progressives and hardcore commies both.

              • Atavistic Morality says:

                They hate left progressives and hardcore commies for a reason, because they are an active obstacle to the positives they want in their lives.

                Most of /pol/ would agree with Jim in most issues, perhaps they’d feel kinda iffy on the whole Christianity thing but you can hardly blame them, and most certainly they are Trump voters.

                And if you are well aware of HWNDU you damn well know that this is hardly a group of genocidal people united by their blood-thirst. The Arab dude Baneposting IRL was hardly helicopter pilot material.

                They hate the progressives and commies for the same reason all of us do, it doesn’t mean they want to murder people or that’s what unites them.

              • Not Tom says:

                /pol/ is, literally, politically incorrect. That’s all it is. They aren’t our allies; they aren’t our enemies either, they just are what they are, guys who like to push boundaries, make and share memes, dabble in online and IRL trolling, and just generally have fun at the expense of the prevailing orthodoxy.

                It’s an agent of chaos, which normally benefits the left, but has recently inverted because the left isn’t transgressive or funny anymore. But you have to understand that if “our guys” were in power, /pol/ would be doing the same things to us. They don’t all want to kill commies, and they don’t want to restore sacramental marriage, they just want to prank and have fun.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think you greatly underestimate how much the average right winger who finds their way to /pol hates the left. St. Brevik is unironically very popular with real (not shills or feds) /polacks for good reason. When we say he did literally nothing wrong except that his score should have been higher most of us aren’t fucking joking.

                  Yuri Bezmenov is also a very popular figure among real /polacks and Yuri says that in most cases leftist brainwashing cannot be cured except via having them live under a hardcore communist regime. Ergo the logical solution for them is in nearly all cases exile or death.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Yuri Bezmenov is tradcuckery, the idea that communism is a foreign invader rather than the root of the tree or an inevitable failure mode of divided or insecure power.

                  And you say “unironically”, but I don’t believe it. I think it takes quite a sperg to believe it’s all serious. Maybe some are, but most aren’t.

  9. Strannik says:

    Bob, you asked me;

    ”Not to be disrespectful, but it sounds like you might suggest the first link in the chain is a group of men with small hats and large noses.”

    No, you’re not ‘disrespectful’, but no I’m not one of these people that lays everything evil at the feet of the Jews.

    ”Who does your worldview tell you must be funding Cenk, if it’s so effectively kept under wraps that we don’t have any more leaks to go on?”

    I know someone is using Cenk and he’s therefore someone else’s subordinate, for the simple fact that Cenk is a pussy and isn’t half as smart as he thinks he is. Therefore, the supply chain doesn’t end with him as the supplier, of money or ideas or anything else.

    • Bob says:

      Cenk certainly isn’t very bright or alpha, but I don’t see why the video’s story is implausible. It’s a long video, so I’m not going to assume anyone has watched it.

      The youtuber, who is a little obnoxious, I know, made phone calls, talked to members of the organization, and watched interviews the Justice Democrats gave. They were unhappy with the Democratic party pushing Bernie out of the presidential race, so they switched strategies and tried to get their people in on a more local level.

      Some of Bernie’s former campaigners looked at congressional districts that had a long-time incumbent up for re-election. Many of the incumbents don’t bother with the primary, because they’re a shoe-in with party support, so the JD set up campaigns for their people to run in the primary. Some were un-opposed by the incumbent, won the primary, and had a minority name with “D” after, so they won the general election.

      And “their people” were just puppets like AOC who were cast as Congressmen, but handed lines to say and given staffers/handlers to run things. The ideas came from Bernie’s people, the modest amount of money from Cenk, and the candidates from casting calls. Cenk parted ways with them, and who knows if they’ll try again in 2020.

      All that leaked, like all conspiracies leak, and none required lots of intelligence or money. If the Cathedral weren’t so powerful, we could do it for our side.

      Do you think it’s plausible that some far-leftists were disheartened by the Dems stealing the 2016 primary from Bernie and tried to put their people in, betting on some Dems to be lazy and voters to be dumb?

      • Strannik says:

        It might be somewhat plausible, except that I think this is coming from a right-wing faction in origin. AOC’s campaign manager has Hindutva connections, being East Indian and all, and likes to wear shirts with Subhas Chandra Bose’s image on them… For one thing. These actors only have ever helped the Right, honestly. Wouldn’t you agree?

        • Bob says:

          I don’t see how any right-wing faction from India would care about us in the US and if they did, why they would bother helping us anymore than the Czar would help Robert E. Lee. Have any of this faction’s leaders said anything about us or about the US? Do you have any reason to think that an Indian right-wing faction is trying to help the Reaction besides that one guy’s t-shirt?

          I wouldn’t agree that AOC and the squad have helped us. She’s helped Ben Shapiro’s twitter content and her socialism has scared boomercons. How many people has she convinced to disenfranchise women or deport 3rd gen minorities? How do you see that she’s helped us?

          • Strannik says:

            Regarding Indian Nationalists, it’s very important to them geopolitically (as witness the reception Trump received in India recently) to support the US superpower’s Nationalists as well. They do look worldwide for mutual support, this is a known thing. And the Bose shirt story had a brief shelf life among liberal journalists;

            https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/aoc-chief-of-staff-criticized-for-wearing-shirt-touting-nazi-collaborator

            AOC and some others have been a help, a real recruitment tool as she continuously picks fights with other democratic politicians and energizes the Right.

            • Bob says:

              We in the Reaction are not just nationalists. Do you have any evidence indian right-wingers are aware we exist beyond that we smell like nationalists? Paki muslims like Hitler, too, but they are not our friends. I thought you implied AOC was a puppet to help the FBI rustle up white perpetrators. Is she a puppet for our friends or a puppet for our enemies?

              I’m not following how AOC has helped us. AOC has picked fights to bring the Dems further leftward. How has that helped us? How do you know she’s recruiting for us and not for conservatives or moderates or recruiting anyone at all? I haven’t seen it, so I’m curious how you’ve seen it.

              • Strannik says:

                Indian right wingers have always been aware of the reactionary right in the west because the west is where they draw their ideological intellectual strength, and vice versa. Reaction in the West talks of Caste, while they live it openly.

                AOC is a puppet of the Right and drives the American ”Left” further into insanity, driving the sane and not-so-mad further to the Right for political salvation.

                • Bob says:

                  Driving the Left further left leads to famine and genocide. That’s not good.

                  You don’t have any reason to think AOC is driving people to the right?

                  Saying “it is known” or “they always have been” about indian right wing factions isn’t convincing evidence to me.

                  Reaction doesn’t talk about caste as far as I know, or about India or indian intellectuals. You’re beginning to sound like that stereotypical indian fbi employee Jim talks about. Anybody care to correct me? Is R7 still doing his red pill questions?

                • jim says:

                  > You don’t have any reason to think AOC is driving people to the right?

                  AOC normalizes the left edge of the Overton window. How could this drive anyone to the right? It makes normies less likely to support the Democrats, but more likely to support the rinos, as the lesser evil, allowing rinos to get away with stuff that a few years earlier would be viewed as left wing madness and a parody of left wing policies, thus moving the right edge of the Overton window further left.

                  AOC energizes the right, but makes them more likely to support “electable” people who are not AOC – because they are instead advocating policies indistinguishable from yesterday’s equivalent of AOC. So you see a lot of people on the right saying Yang is OK, Bloomberg is OK, because they are likely being insincere when they say they are down with genociding whites.

                  > Saying “it is known” or “they always have been” about indian right wing factions isn’t convincing evidence to me.

                  I see the same thing, a lot of cross pollination between the Indian right, rooted in Hinduism, and the alarmingly rootless Western right (we need to rediscover our roots in first millennium Christianity, but that is another topic.)

                  > Reaction doesn’t talk about caste as far as I know, or about India or indian intellectuals.

                  Moldbug talked about caste a great deal.

                • Bob says:

                  I stand corrected.

                • Not Tom says:

                  It makes normies less likely to support the Democrats, but more likely to support the rinos

                  Indeed. I think I’ve mentioned him before, but Tim Pool is a great example to watch for this mentality. Couple of days ago he said something like “Democrats have gotten so bad, I might actually vote for Trump if he put Andrew Yang in charge of this thing and Tulsi Gabbard in charge of this other thing”.

                  That’s who is being “pushed to the right” – people who want to drag the rest of us to the left. I don’t mind meeting them in the middle in debate, I’m willing to talk to them, but AOC is not really making them want to join our tribe, and even if they do eventually want that, they’ll eventually just work to destroy the tribe from within like Californian refugees destroy the flyover states they move to.

                  To get sincere converts, you need good missionaries from your side, not bad missionaries from the other side.

                • info says:

                  Problem with their caste system is disallowing talented from crossing to where their talents should take them.

              • Anonymous says:

                I’m a hindutva Indian nationalist who is fervently pro-Trump and pro-alt right and neoreaction. I know for a fact that plenty of my Hindu friends who live in the West share these opinions. My sixty-year-old uncle in Texas is a committed Trump supporter who nevertheless isn’t vocal about it at family gatherings because there’s still an expectation that the standard Hindu in America should support Democrats.

                However, hatred for the Democrats is surging in Indian right wing circles, even among those who live in India, people who would have never cared about American politics to begin with. Chiefly because Democrats, liked Labour in the UK, are taking consistently pro-Pakistani pro-Muslim anti-India stances.

                And the sad part, from our perspective, is that many of the leading anti Hindu Democrats are themselves of hindu origin, like pramila jayapal.

                Nothing new in this alignment, as others have observed. Julius Evola and many of his right wing forebears loved Hinduism and militaristic variants of Buddhism.

                The only thing that stands in the way of a full embrace between the right wing in India and the West is your insistence on the missionary propagation of Christianity. Embrace your pagan polytheistic nature worshipping Germanic, Celtic, Roman, Greek roots.. There’s no such thing as a book that some foreign man in the sky wrote all the cosmic truths in..

                • Strannik says:

                  Good thing your last nonsensical comment is something Monotheists don’t believe either. Consider another tack to take, lest you show your basic ignorance once more.

                • ten says:

                  Europagan cult = transcendent invokee deity + communal spirit and an array of temporal demigod incarnates, sons of the god (the reason early christian historians always had a bunch of stories seemingly referring to historical people as gods)

                  This was deployed into the judaic tradition with Christ, creating the basis for europagan acceptance of the crossgod, the master of death and lord of eternal life, and the cure for intracultic strife and war, the fulfillment of the pagan king-of-gods attempt at generating a higher cooperate-cooperate equilibrium

                  Saint cult is retrofitted avatar cult

                  Judaic biblical tradition pushed away pagan corresponding oral traditions and even though greek, roman and norse mythologies survive intact enough, together with the 40k year old corpus of fairy tales, who should be considered to have equal significance as the earliest biblical stories, much was sadly lost during christianization. Forced destruction and holiness spiraling was a part, but some was probably necessary to install the new drivers. The renaissance did not do enough for pagan revival, but they were fully wise to the fact paganism lives in christianity, and is the living base structure on which it operates

                  Protestantism fucked up big time by cutting these roots attempting a “pure” christianity, even though the schism against the papacy was natural and good

                • Aldon says:

                  Michael Allen Gillespie wrote a book talking about how the roots of our grief today trace back to an internal conflict within Christianity between its “pagan” side and its Abrahamic side. The Abrahamic side being the source of “reformers” and rabbke rousers like Martin Luther.

                  Taking this to be the case, it would mean Christianity isn’t the problem so much as the failure to excise any remnants of Abraham. The failure to prevent Martin Luthers. And perhaps, the Catholic Church maintaining its doctrine of “Two Swords.”

                • jim says:

                  Aldon:

                  > the roots of our grief today trace back to an internal conflict within Christianity between its “pagan” side and its Abrahamic side.

                  Lots of good social technology in the 100% Abrahamic Old Testament.

                  Then the Jews screwed it up by holiness spiralling it. As I have frequently mentioned, they got expelled from Israel because they came to feel that attending sabbath and avoiding walking on ground contaminated with chicken blood mattered, and the commandment on theft, murder, and coveting did not matter. They lawyered God in the stereotypically Jewish manner, violating the spirit of the law by adhering to the creatively and elaborately re-interpreted letter of the law.

                  The resulting restored Abrahamic religion institutionalized by Saint Paul repaired serious problems at the heart of decadent Roman civilization by recovering some Abrahamic social technology, while integrating with and restoring old Roman Social technology. And then Saint Jerome and the pole sitters did some more holiness spiralling.

                  The solution is “by your fruits you will know them”. The fruits of Saint Jerome being the gay mafia. Or as Deng Xiaoping said “It does not matter whether a cat is black or white so long as it catches mice”.

                  The capitalism of restoration England had been substantially preserved in Hong Kong, even as it was attacked the west in social decline. Deng proceeded to import that social technology. And we could do with the social technology of the children of Israel.

                • info says:

                  @Anonymous

                  The dalits after conversion often had better hygiene habits and live more virtuous lives. I think that’s an improvement.

                  Previously people like them lived inferior lives and they seem not able to improve themselves until Christianity came along.

  10. Strannik says:

    Ten, you wrote in regards to my comment about ”Tsar and Soviets”;

    ”So a king and village elders and their networks.

    There is nothing democratic or sovietic about it, democracy is the abolishment of those things. And remember that the communist party quickly grew to dislike the soviets, conquered them and repurposed them as top down tentacles rather than bottom up harnesses of workers’ will. There can not be cohesion and action in unison from masses of bottom up organizations, thus they cannot form national governing bodies, which the soviets quickly learned, after which the name of their union was joke, openly displaying the immediate nature of every communist and democratic attempt at governance.”

    Actually, the system of the Soviets survived the collapse of the USSR until Yeltsin sent out the tanks after being impeached by the Supreme Soviet, so no it actually outlasted Communism as such in Russia.

    You need a Dictator at the top to take care of problems of accountability and to be the sovereign above constitutional legal sovereignty, but you also need subsidarity and an ability to solve problems at a local level that involves People Power, elected representatives of every sector of society from local to regional to nationwide, greater and greater Councils . Both elements of ”Tsar” and ”Soviet” need each other, and in harmony.

    • ten says:

      We typically answer to the last available parent post unless the max depth threads sprawl beyond overview.

      The theoretical point of the soviets was to organize the workers’ power, will and resources, and according to their will delegate it up the hierarchy. This was immediately undone because the soviets didnt want to do insane communism with their stuff. Did not say they disappeared, i said they were conquered and repurposed, in the shape that they only had whatever local problem solving capacity and rights to their own stuff their superiors granted them, the exact opposite flow of power of the idea of soviets.

      Of course you can’t organize a robbers dictatorship on the basis of voluntary bottom up delegation, so yes, in that case you need a dictator, and thus, the state, the biggest bandit around, can not operate on such a basis, making the soviet union a joke.

      Replace worker’s soviets with Freeholds, and dictatorial apple cart flipping communism with reactionary apple cart building and taxing normal society, and you get the correct bottom up vs top down.

  11. Halion says:

    Off topic

    Now that I think about it Jim, I think I never heard you talk about Gaulle and his economy by mixed command (dirigisme) what do you think of the man and his work?

    • Mike says:

      This is also off-topic, and truly disgusting, but I want you guys to see it, or at least have the ability to look at if you want/dare. Behold, the true depravity and decadence of the sodomite lifestyle in all its glory:
      https://josephsciambra.com/surviving-gaybarely/

      I will say this though, as long and as disgusting and as heart-wrenching the read may be, it has real value. The guy ends up repenting, and drops redpills about gays throughout the entire story.

      • Allah says:

        Heart-wrenching? His sad face in that picture is hilarious. Him becoming a born again Christian after he’s old and incontinent is even funnier.

        • Mike says:

          I mostly posted the link for the lurid details and the post-sodmite lifestyle realization of how empty it all was. But for me at least, I can’t help but be disheartened by his story. Even if all his repentance and regret is total bullshit, and even though it obviously came pathetically late, I still am shocked and saddened at how much of his life was destroyed by homosexuality. Unsurprisingly, I think this is partly due to me having had no idea of just how far homosexual subcultures indulge in various depravites. In other words, I was naive about how bad it really is.

          Also, I wouldn’t quite call him born-again, he grew up a cradle Catholic, he basically was just coming back to what he once was.

        • Strannik says:

          Seems like your mask has really slipped lately Turk (I will not call any mere man ”Allah”, I refuse) by your mockery of a repentant man’s motivations. Of course, Turks have their own proclivities concerning this vice, which Vlad Tepes for one had a cure for albeit a fatal and painful one.

          • Allah says:

            What mask?

            • jim says:

              Allah here to sow conflict and discord. To this end, he tells Christians that they are not holy (which every good Christian should know already), the darkly enlightened that they are not enlightened, and reactionaries that they are insufficiently reactionary.

              • Allah says:

                I’m curious how you justify your inconsistencies.

                • jim says:

                  Standard escape clause. Passeth human understanding. Trying too hard to be consistent about religion is bound to get you into serious and dangerous corners. It is like doing maths about infinity.

                  That is how Christians got into no end of terrible trouble on the Trinity, which we solved by cheerfully declaring God to be three and God to be one.

                  But I am rather pleased with my apologetics on theodicity, which I am sure that even Nikolai would find orthodox and plausible. If he does not find it orthodox, I am sure he will let us know. I suspect that you don’t like it.

                • Allah says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Your discussions of Christian theology have become similar to Marxist discussions of mainstream economics. If you are going to contribute, need to read some Saint Augustine on literalism.

                • Allah says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  You are attempting to mind read someone from a background alien to you. It is like a Marxist explaining economics to me.

                • Allah says:

                  Tell me about it. This one guy keeps saying I’m an American prog Harvard NGO FBI shill.

                  Why the bold deleted text? Refusing to analyze your own weak spots is no way to be, is there a reason you refuse to self criticize? I have my guesses, but I don’t want you to have another stroke.

                • jim says:

                  Your analysis of my weak spots reveals a profound incomprehension of Christianity, Western Culture and Western history, rendering talking with you about them unlikely to be enlightening or informative to anyone, least of all myself.

                • Nikolai says:

                  Well I obviously cannot endorse the abomination that is the episcopal church and I would change a few sentences here and there. But otherwise that is an excellent post.

                  Which makes it all the more mind-boggling to me that you are able to write such an erudite and edifying piece on Christianity and Islam and then you turn around and give me this lunacy on St. Jerome and celibacy.

                  In that post you write “Retain the good bits of Christianity, the trinity, the attitude to logic, reason and law, the Orthodox communion of the saints, where the final authority on faith, doctrine, interpretation of the bible, and morals, is ancient Christians.” I wholly agree.

                  The obvious question is, why do you want to retain the Orthodox communion of saints while constantly blaspheming St. Jerome? You keep asserting to me how bad Jerome is, but you never give me any evidence or quotes from him or mention what works of his are so detestable.

                  I assume you’re referring to his treatise against jovinianus, since that’s his principle work on celibacy. I’ve read it, he goes a little far at times, but he’s right in spirit. Are you not referring to this work? I can’t tell. You’re criticisms of Jerome are simply assertions of how monstrously evil he was without citing any of his writings.

                  You also seem to suggest that Jerome is the one who started the practice of clerical celibacy. That’s simply untrue. The council of Elvira mandated clerical celibacy in Spain decades before St. Jerome was even born. And other saints, such as St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Epiphianius, espoused clerical celibacy far before Jerome did.

                  St. Augustine also wrote a treatise against the jovinian heresy, his wasn’t quite as polemic as Jerome, but he nonetheless said celibacy was holier than matrimony and Augustine gives the same interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7 that I give. (Forgive me if the following is an inordinately long quote).

                  http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1309.htm

                  “on this account it is good to marry, because it is good to beget children, to be a mother of a family: but it is better not to marry, because it is better not to stand in need of this work, in order to human fellowship itself. For such is the state of the human race now, that (others, who contain not, not only being taken up with marriage, but many also waxing wanton through unlawful concubinages, the Good Creator working what is good out of their evils) there fails not numerous progeny, and abundant succession, out of which to procure holy friendships.

                  Whence we gather, that, in the first times of the human race, chiefly for the propagation of the People of God, through whom the Prince and Saviour of all people should both be prophesied of, and be born, it was the duty of the Saints to use this good of marriage, not as to be sought for its own sake, but necessary for the sake of something else: but now, whereas, in order to enter upon holy and pure fellowship, there is on all sides from out all nations an overflowing fullness of spiritual kindred, even they who wish to contract marriage only for the sake of children, are to be admonished, that they use rather the larger good of continence.

                  10. But I am aware of some that murmur: What, say they, if all men should abstain from all sexual intercourse, whence will the human race exist? Would that all would this, only in charity out of a pure heart, and good conscience, and faith unfeigned; much more speedily would the City of God be filled, and the end of the world hastened. For what else does the Apostle, as is manifest, exhort to, when he says, speaking on this head, I would that all were as myself;

                  or in that passage, But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remains that both they who have wives, be as though not having: and they who weep, as though not weeping: and they who rejoice, as though not rejoicing: and they who buy, as though not buying: and they who use this world as though they use it not. For the form of this world passes by. I would have you without care. Then he adds, Whoever is without a wife thinks of the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord: but whoever is joined in marriage, thinks of the things of the world, how to please his wife: and a woman that is unmarried and a virgin is different: she that is unmarried is anxious about the things of the Lord, to be holy both in body and spirit: but she that is married, is anxious about the things of the world, how to please her husband.

                  Whence it seems to me, that at this time, those only, who contain not, ought to marry, according to that sentence of the same Apostle, But if they contain not, let them be married: for it is better to be married than to burn.”

                  St. Augustine or St. Paul choose! /s [I hope you’re starting to see how ridiculous this sounds].

                  How can you justify ditching Jerome and not Augustine? Shaman tells me that all the Church Fathers were satanic. This is an evil and insane proposition, but it is at least consistent. You tell me that we should respect the Communion of the Saints and that they have the final word on interpreting the Bible and then tell me that St. Jerome misinterpreted the Bible *when every other saint interpreted it similarly*.

                  If you’re ditching Jerome, why not Augustine? If you ditch Augustine, the most celebrated saint outside of the Bible, what’s stopping you from ditching all the Church Fathers? You say we should respect the opinions of ancient Christians, they all (including Augustine) thought very highly of Jerome. Were they all just brainwashed? Are you, Jim, simply the only one capable of seeing the supposed evil in his words?

                • jim says:

                  > Which makes it all the more mind-boggling to me that you are able to write such an erudite and edifying piece on Christianity and Islam and then you turn around and give me this lunacy on St. Jerome and celibacy

                  Read the guy. He makes up obviously false stories about the characters and conduct of the people featured in the New Testament which transform the New Testament into something anti human, contrary to logos, obviously demonic, and throws the Old Testament overboard. Even if you don’t agree that the meaning is anti human and obviously demonic, you have to agree that they are obviously false and transform the meaning. Christ had brothers, therefore Joseph and Mary performed the proper duty of husband and wife, therefore Saint Jerome is a liar. Someone who lies to you intends you harm, or is concealing harm he has already done.

                  He uses deceptive and manipulative methods of debate. Someone who uses those methods knows he is arguing for untruth.

                  > How can you justify ditching Jerome and not Augustine?

                  Saint Augustine does not knowingly lie, does not use manipulative and deceptive methods of argument. People might disagree with him on this or that, but nothing obviously demonic.

                  I don’t see Augustine in the material you quoted saying that priests should be recruited exclusively from single childless men. And if he was arguing that, which he was not, he would not use lies, manipulation, and deception for his argument. Not only are Saint Jerome’s conclusions false, but his methods for supporting his conclusions are evil. His arguments, irrespective of their truth or falsity, are made in bad faith.

                  Saint Augustine presents arguments that can be used to justify priestly celibacy, arguments sympathetic to the holiness spiraled stuff of Saint Jerome, but he does not tell us any of the lies that Saint Jerome proposed, nor reach the deadly conclusions that Jerome concluded. His arguments can be used to support and defend mandatory clerical celibacy, but he does not go as far as you would like him to go.

                  People whom God has called to celibacy are of great value to the Church, but they should not be in teaching roles standing up in front of married laity and boys who should get married. Patriarchal roles should be performed by actual patriarchs. Otherwise the Church will be ineffectual at maintaining cooperate/cooperate equilibrium between men and women, and also in violation of Saint Paul’s command to recruit deacons and bishops from men who have demonstrated success at patriarchy.

                  Saint Augustine tells us that celibates are of great value to the Church and this is a good thing, but that teaching to the married laity should be performed by celibates is a jump that you, not Saint Augustine, performed.

                  The superior holiness of the celibate should be honored by giving them hermitages and monasteries far from Caesar’s applecart and all Caesar’s shiny apples.

                  If we throw sodomites off tall buildings, and the celibates don’t get within nudge distance of knocking over Caesar’s applecart, we might get celibates who are actually called by God to celibacy.

                • info says:

                  The Donay Rheims bible exclude the prophecy of psalm 69 which says that Jesus will be alienated from his brothers. Sons of his mother.

                  And zeal for his fathers house will consume him which is a prophecy of him driving out the money changers.

                • Nikolai says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  You Nikolia, are arguing like a troofer. One lie being refuted, you move on to ten new lies without acknowledging the old lie.

                  I am not going to discuss the ten new lies. Let us stick to the original point at issue instead of moving right along to ten new issues. Having thrown Saint Paul in the ditch, you now want to throw Saint Augustine in the ditch. Let us settle the issue of Saint Paul before we move on to all the others.

                  Let us discuss, not Saint Paul’s command that the church recruit priests from married men, but Saint Paul’s command that the Church recruit priests from fertile men.

                  You are still unable to discuss “having faithful children”, perhaps out of fear that quoting the verse would cause you to catch fire.

                  You never actually quote what Paul said, instead telling us he said stuff that contradicts his direct words.

                  To actually answer you would have to engage Paul’s actual words, instead of telling us about the apostles as re-imagined by Jerome and the bible as re-invented by you.

                  You are still unable to discuss “having faithful children”, just as a social justice warrior is unable to discuss 1 Timothy 2.

                  Your silence is revealing.

                  Answer the questions that I asked about Saint Paul. I allowed through some of your evasive non answers, wherein you loudly blustered you had answered plainly and clearly, but you did not answer. You fear you might burst into flames were you to directly quote the relevant words of Saint Paul that fail to fit your pious holiness spiraled interpretation.

                  If you include Saint Paul, cannot include Saint Jerome.

                  The social justice warriors expurgate 1 Timothy 2, Ephesians 5, and Peter 3, and but they are following in your footsteps. You expurgated 1 Corinthians 7, for much the same reasons as the social justice warriors continue to expurgate it, and expurgated 1 Timothy 3.

                  The priesthood should be recruited from married men with demonstrated success at patriarchy, in order to give us a Church successful at patriarchy.

                  4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

                  5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

                  At which task our current churches are spectacularly unsuccessful, and Roman Catholicism has been failing since the tenth or eleventh century.

                  You give us interpretations of Saint Paul that are glaringly incompatible with his words, and refuse to discuss those words. Your refusal to discuss those words reveals the contradiction.

                  “ruleth well” makes the meaning that you give “husband of one wife” nonsensical. Paul gave us this instruction, and then gave his main reason for that instruction, which reason today remains as relevant as ever it did. The priest is supposed to perform the social role of father, or a social role akin to that of a father. Therefore, recruit from people with demonstrated capability to perform that role.

                  Titus 1:
                  6. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

                  Paul gives his reasons for this command:

                  1 Timothy3:
                  4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
                  5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

                  How does your interpretation work with zero children?

                  5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

                  Paul is demanding experience and demonstrated prior competence, as any employer does. “One that ruleth well” How does your explanation of having one wife apply with “having faithful children”. What experience does a celibate childless man have in ruling well?

                  And indeed, the Catholic Church’s response to the Romance movement was a spectacular display of not ruling well. They did not understand marriage and women. They failed in their earthly job of maintaining cooperate/cooperate equilibrium between men and women, and have been failing worse and worse ever since. The Orthodox priesthood, on the other hand, despite failing to actively and preferentially recruit married fertile men, nonetheless had enough married and fertile priests that they did not fall for the Romance movement.

                • Nikolai says:

                  I have answered your questions a dozen times at this point. And you’re only reply is to claim I’m not answering and repeat the question. I can only assume you just don’t read my comments.

                  I wrote “The verses you cite are guidelines given a specific time, place and circumstance. They are not universal requirements. If they were, that would mean various NT and OT figures would be ineligible for the priesthood, including Jesus Christ Himself.

                  At the time of the letters to Timothy and Titus, Christianity was still a start-up. Rapidly expanding and desperate for personnel. Paul would’ve preferred celibate priests to married priests, but if he sent Timothy and Titus to look for celibates, they likely would’ve come back empty handed. Now Christianity is an institution and the Church can afford to be a more selective employer.

                  Of course celibates don’t have children. Paul is saying if a married man wants to be a priest he must meet requirements x y z. He is not saying that all priests must be married men with x y z.” How does this not qualify as an answer? How is this not discussing the text?

                  “You expurgated 1 Corinthians 7”

                  This is the exact opposite of the truth. I cited 1 Corinthians 7 countless times because it’s the main Scriptural basis that Paul prefers Christians be celibate and that celibacy is holier than marriage. For some reason you appear to be unable to communicate with me. If you won’t listen to me, perhaps you’ll listen to Chrysostom. Here’s some quotes from his homily on 1 Timothy 3

                  http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230610.htm

                  “A Bishop then, he says, must be blameless, the husband of one wife. This he does not lay down as a rule, as if he must not be without one, but as prohibiting his having more than one.”

                  “Not greedy of filthy lucre, but patient: not a brawler, not covetous; one that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. If then he who is married cares for the things of the world 1 Corinthians 7:33, and a Bishop ought not to care for the things of the world, why does he say the husband of one wife? Some indeed think that he says this with reference to one who remains free from a wife.

                  But if otherwise, he that has a wife may be as though he had none. 1 Corinthians 7:29 For that liberty was then properly granted, as suited to the nature of the circumstances then existing. And it is very possible, if a man will, so to regulate his conduct. For as riches make it difficult to enter into the kingdom of Heaven, yet rich men have often entered in, so it is with marriage.”

                  Which is more or less exactly what I’ve been saying. The key sentence being ” For that *liberty* was then properly granted, as suited to the nature of the circumstances then existing.”

                  Married fertile priests are a liberty, an indulgence, a concession Paul granted given a particular time, place and circumstance. Claiming St. Paul commanded married priests directly contradicts Paul’s own words. When he talks about marriage he says “I say this not by commandment, but by concession”, and now you tell me he commands the priesthood to be married and that I’m the one contradicting him. Absolutely bonkers. You re-imagine St. Paul as running some sort of epicurean fertility cult because you can’t stand the thought of someone not dedicating their life to coom.

                • jim says:

                  > I have answered your questions a dozen times at this point. And you’re only reply is to claim I’m not answering and repeat the question. I can only assume you just don’t read my comments.

                  I am allowing this evasive repetitious space wasting non answer through, so that everyone can see that I keep asking and you keep evasively not answering

                  And this is the last time I am allowing you to change the subject and not answer, 911 troofer style, because it is a repetitious waste of space.

                  It is useful to reveal that tradcucks have no answer to Saint Paul, but umpteen reveals are sufficient.

                  I repeatedly asked you: How is a childless celibate “one that ruleth well in his own house”? I don’t see those words, or any direct references to those words, in any of your replies. You are pretending I asked some different question which I do not recognize. You pretend that Paul did not say what he said and you pretend that I did not ask what I asked.

                  Over and over and over again you explain that one wife actually means “and preferably zero wives”. I have read your explanation far too many times and I am tired of reading it. It stupid and dishonest reasoning, lies resting on lies, but I refused to be side tracked: Instead I asked, and you do did not answer: What about the children? Does it means preferably zero children? If so, how do you reconcile this with Saint Paul’s wise reasons for his command, which reasons history has amply demonstrated to be well founded.

                  Saint Paul is not around to complain that he is being ignored, but I am around to complain that I am being ignored. I never asked about Paul’s command that new recruits be married, because he never issued such a command. He commanded that they be married with children. I asked about the command he actually gave, not the command that you keep making up for him.

                  You endlessly and repetitiously answer a question I did not ask, and repeatedly ignore the question I did ask.

                  Paul explains that the task of being a priest has something in common to the task of being a literal father, and requires that new recruits have demonstrated prior experience and competence.

                  You will not address his words on the reasons that he gave for requiring that new recruits to the priesthood be married and fertile. You just throw him in the ditch and ignore his words.

                  Respond to my questions. Respond to the words of Paul, rather than throwing him in the ditch and telling us he said something flatly inconsistent with his plain words.

                  Among other things, I asked you:

                  1 Timothy3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

                  How does your interpretation work with zero children?

                  Well, how does your interpretation of those specific words work with zero children?

                  You tell us that is not what he meant. Well then, how do you reconcile what he actually said with what you tell us he really meant?

                  You tell he actually meant celibate, but he flatly and directly tell us that new recruits should be chosen from those that have well behaved children, and then gives reasons for needing recruits that have well behaved children.

                  What do you have to say about his reasons if he did not mean what he said?

                • Nikolai says:

                  “I repeatedly asked you: How is a childless celibate “one that ruleth well in his own house”? I don’t see those words, or any direct references to those words, in any of your replies.”

                  You are either lying, illiterate or senile. I have directly answered that question multiple times. Again I write “Of course celibates don’t have children. Paul is saying if a married man wants to be a priest he must meet requirements x y z. He is not saying that all priests must be married men with x y z”

                  “What about the children? Does it means preferably zero children? If so, how do you reconcile this with Saint Paul’s wise reasons for his command, which reasons history has amply demonstrated to be well founded.”

                  Yes of course it means preferably zero children. Jesus and Paul had zero children and Scripture commands Christians, especially priests, to follow them. You interpret Paul as forbidding priests to imitate Christ, which is obvious lunacy. You take 2 sections of Scripture out of context and toss out the rest of it and then accuse me of ditching St. Paul.

                  A married man can indeed make a good priest for exactly the reasons you describe, but all other things equal, a celibate would be better for the reasons Paul outlined in 1 Corinthians 7. Namely, “[32]But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. [33] But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.”

                  “I never asked about Paul’s command that new recruits be married, because he never issued such a command. He commanded that they be married with children. I asked about the command he actually gave, not the command that you keep making up for him.”

                  What kind of insane logic is this? Those who are married with children are obviously a subset of those who are married. St. Paul says he commands no one to be married, therefore of course he commands no one to be married and fertile. Therefore the verses you keep endlessly citing are not to be understood as universal commands, but are to be understood as liberties and concessions given a specific set of circumstances.

                  “Well, how does your interpretation of those specific words work with zero children?”

                  For the umpteenth time, of course celibates do not have children. Paul is describing the type of married man that is fit for priesthood, not commanding that all priests fit this precise mold. You keep citing what amount to general circumstantial guidelines as though they were immovable commandments. St. Paul did not command anyone to marry, least of all priests.

                • jim says:

                  > You are either lying, illiterate or senile. I have directly answered that question multiple times. Again I write “Of course celibates don’t have children. Paul is saying if a married man wants to be a priest he must meet requirements x y z. He is not saying that all priests must be married men with x y z”

                  You evade instead of answering the question. You endlessly and repetitiously explain away Saint Paul’s command that priests be recruited from married men, and I have not responded to your explanation, because that was never what Saint Paul commanded, and never what I asked. I asked you to explain Saint Paul’s command that priests be recruited, not from married men but, from men who have prior experience demonstrating success at patriarchy. Married with faithful children.

                  You say “x, y, and z””, but you cannot use the words “faithful children”, for fear that you might catch on fire.

                  It is not a miscellaneous requirement, it is not x, y, and z. It is the reason for the command, the explanation of the command.

                  Address Paul’s explanation for his command that priests be recruited from men with prior successful experience in patriarchy. I keep asking, and you keep spitting abuse, much like the sodomite saint Jerome spits hatred, lies and abuse instead of argument and evidence.

                  You make up reasons for Saint Paul’s command, but Saint Paul gave us his reasons. Anything that gives some other explanation, without acknowledging and replying to the explanation that Saint Paul gave for his own command is a lie, is tossing the New Testament overboard.

                  It is also stubborn and persistent refusal to answer the question that I have asked a hundred times in a hundred different ways.

                  You have given us your explanation of Saint Paul’s command a hundred times, without ever once acknowledging Saint Paul’s explanation of his command, let alone responding to it, or attempting to explain it away.

                  I demanded that you acknowledge and attempt to explain away the reasons Saint Paul gave for his command, instead of ignoring what he said and giving us another explanation for his command.

                  You repetitiously give us your explanation, but will not respond to Saint Paul’s explanation, nor my questions. You come up with your reasons for his command, but will not acknowledge his reasons, which reasons history has amply confirmed.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Man, that is nuts. He is literally incapable of even repeating the plain language of the Bible. More holy than Saint Paul.

                • alf says:

                  I will give Nikolai one point. Paul basically said:

                  do as I say, not as I do.

                  So Nikolai goes:

                  if Paul didn’t do it, why should I?

                  Which has some truth to it. If a doctor tells you to lose weight by dropping carbs while he is eating chips, would you not be inclined to think that eating chips is OK?

                  I mean, Jim is still correct, of course. Paul’s words are clear. But such a disconnect between words and action is exactly the kind of weakness that opens doors for holiness spirals.

                • ten says:

                  Nikolai, you did not answer my previous entry on this topic so i guess you will not answer this one either, which is perfectly fine, you are busy with our host and me butting into your dialect is a little spammy anyhow –

                  But when you are asked to answer, you are not asked to repeat your position, yet you mostly just repeat your position. We all see Pauls words, and he expressly commands succesful fathers as priests, and in the description of a succesful father lies the reason for this command, as jim has said.

                  To this you reply “yes but there are other reasons, fx the holiest of men being celibate and by implication, only those of such holiness should be priests”. This is merely restating your position. To answer, not evade, you have to supply the reason for WHY this implication is there, and WHY Pauls words should be read as only applying to a specific time in a specific place, a lackluster second best, not just restate that the implication is there, and that Pauls words were contextual.

                  Finding a mere single point of discussion on how those with no earthly ties are free to focus on God is really piss poor. The discussion is not on whether the holiest of men are free from wives and children. Your representation of Pauls words blatantly contradicts Pauls words, and if you are to be believed, you need to explain why this is.

                  An answer can not take the form of “celibacy is more holy” and “there was context”, but must take the form of “here is hard, solid evidence (scriptural, logical, traditional, whatever) for the context i have repeatedly restated with no evidence” and “here is the reason why the correct baseline level of holiness for priests include celibacy”.

                  AFTER that, which would be an actual answer, we are left with the apparent suicidal illogic of your position, the rotten fruits of the tree, the catastrophic destruction it brings, and the complete contradiction of all previous revelations of God in this world.

                  Go forth and multiply is not a primitive state to be annulled by a later holier revelation, but a base building block on which everything must stand, and your position stands atop a lofty tower, certain it will breach the final veil before God if only the tower’s foundation stones are swept away.

                  As is clearly stated by Paul.

                • BC says:

                  I mean, Jim is still correct, of course. Paul’s words are clear. But such a disconnect between words and action is exactly the kind of weakness that opens doors for holiness spirals.

                  Paul’s mostly been thought to be a widower, not a life long celibate. An older person with no children devoting themselves to the church isn’t a bad thing.

                • RedBible says:

                  Alf Said:

                  Which has some truth to it. If a doctor tells you to lose weight by dropping carbs while he is eating chips, would you not be inclined to think that eating chips is OK?

                  BC has already mentioned Paul’s widower status, but I’ll give the argument based on even if that wasn’t true.

                  The scriptures state that Bishops and Deacons should have a wife to prove they can manage their own family which then proves they can manage the fold of god. Paul is in fact, not a bishop or deacon, since he is not over a congregation (if I understand what Paul meant by bishop and deacon correctly) rather he is simply one helps make sure that things are running on the right track before heading off to the next place.

                • Nikolai says:

                  [*deleted for old type Christian Holiness spiraling*]

                • jim says:

                  There is plenty of stuff in the New Testament that can be plausibly and convincingly holiness spiraled – if you throw the rest of it in a ditch and piss on it.

                  Lets talk about all the stuff that you are throwing into a ditch and pissing on.

                  Conservacucks conserve ten year old radical leftism.

                  Tradcucks conserve thousand year old radical leftist tradition.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Alf Paul is generally considered to be a widower not a celibate.

                  Nikolai is a good example on why a post restoration world power needs to force the Catholic Church into the Orthodox Church as soon as possible. Ideally given the opportunity by forcing the Pope into making a so called Ex Cathedra statement declaring the post Dictatus Papae papacy heretical and repudiating all bulls of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “You interpret Paul as forbidding priests to imitate Christ, which is obvious lunacy.”

                  Why is it obvious lunancy, Christ was divine not a mere mortal.

                  What is right for the divine may very well be bad for mere mortals.

                • jim says:

                  Paul does not forbid priests to be celibate. He forbids recruitment of priests without prior experience in successful patriarchy. If a priests wife then dies and his children then move away, which is probably what happened to Saint Paul, not a problem. It is a recruitment policy, not a moral requirement.

                  Interpreting it as a holiness requirement accepts the frame that we want the holiest possible priests. No, we want priests that can do the job. Selecting the holiest possible is asking for a holiness spiral, and Jesus and Saint Paul had a few words about the holiness spiral.

                  If priests are going to maintain cooperate/cooperate equilibrium in the congregation, start with men who have demonstrated ability to maintain cooperate/cooperate equilibrium in their families.

                  Similarly, if you are looking for a new software engineer, and he has not previously had a job as software engineer, you ask him what programs he has written. You ask an applicant for the priesthood how his kids are turning out. Organization 101.’

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Nikolai

                  “ Those who are married with children are obviously a subset of those who are married.”

                  TradCUCK.

                  You tradcucks enabled:

                  Goddamned Feminism.
                  Goddamned family courts.
                  Goddamned cuckery.
                  Goddamned sodomite lavender mafia…

                  And…

                  Goddamned white knighting.

                • Not Tom says:

                  As I understand it, Paul makes many references to [in]celibacy being very nice and holy, but doesn’t actually say that priests should be celibate; by contrast, seems to suggest that priests should have families, even though individual celibate Christians are wonderful additions to the cause.

                  Christianity is a religion by alphas, for betas. There had to be some answer for incels, some incentive for them to join. Islam offers them largely-imaginary pussy through conquest, Christianity offers them higher status. But you don’t put the incels (or worse, homos) in charge, you put them in monasteries and tell them sweet lies about the nobility of their calling.

                • Nikolai says:

                  “Tradcucks conserve thousand year old radical leftist tradition.”

                  Lies. Mandatory clerical celibacy dates back to the mid 4th century with the council of Elvira. The religion of Christianity was founded by the celibate cleric Jesus, spread to the world by the celibate cleric Paul and even in the Old Testament we see celibate prophets.

                  Your position, Jim, that 1 Timothy 3 means that bishops must be recruited from married men with well behaved children since if you want to be a father in the Church, you must show success at being a normal father (this is me acknowledging your argument) is 16th century radical leftism. Nobody of any authority ever interpreted the verse that way until the anabaptists. And they were so insane that even Martin Luther sided against them.

                  How do you square your position with the Communion of the Saints? All the Church’s greatest theologians have been celibate clerics. Augustine interprets 1 Corinthians 7 much the same way I do, Chrysostom gives an almost identical interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7 and 1 Timothy 3 and you surely know what St. Jerome had to say on the matter.

                  I have three of the most celebrated theologians in the history of Christianity supporting my position. What saint or Church Father interprets 1 Timothy 3 the way you do? As far as I can tell the only people who interpret that verse as a universal positive requirement are you, your sycophants and room temperature iq fundies like Jack Chick

                • jim says:

                  You holiness spiral selected fragments of the New Testament – which very holy interpretations are entirely plausible, reasonable, and convincing if you take that fragment in isolation, throw the rest of the New Testament into a ditch, set it on fire, and piss on it.

                  Which you proceed to do.

                  If, however one proceeds to read the bits of the New Testament that got dumped into the ditch, one notices that the bits that can be holiness spiraled nonetheless also have plausible and reasonable interpretations that are not holiness spiraled, and that are, unlike the holiness spiraled interpretations, consistent with the rest of the New Testament.

                  Your treatment of the “most celebrated theologians” is for the most part similar to your treatment of the New Testament. They all get transmogrified into Saint Jerome. Anything that can be interpreted as consistent with Jerome is so interpreted, anything inconsistent with Jerome gets thrown into the ditch with the New Testament and set on fire.

                  Yes, clerical celibacy, never universally observed except in the Roman Catholic clergy after the Pope heretically claimed supremacy over Kings, dates back all the back to the fourth century. Probably because a bunch of fourth century priests got together naked in a great big pile, had sex with each other, and then said to each other “what holier-than-thou doctrines can we come up with that will stick it to those disgusting breeders?”

                  OK, it is not thousand year old radical leftism. It is sixteen hundred year old radical leftism, but it never entirely ruled the roost until Papal supremacy, which heresy is only a thousand years old.

                  Now let us discuss those parts of the New Testament that you dumped in the ditch, and then ask what the appropriate interpretations are of the parts that can be given holiness spiraled interpretations.

                  After we have rescued the New Testament from the ditch, then we can argue about what those theologians said and what they meant.

                • @jim

                  Besides, all reasonable churches have always maintained we need the Old Testament as well, not only the New, and I think gnostic heretics tended to discard the OT. The OT has some brakes against holiness spiralling, because it is more “worldly”. Paul’s somewhat, um, asexual-ish attitudes are counter-balanced by Solomon’s love songs.

                  I think things like this were the reason all reasonable churches maintained that the NT does not make the OT unnecessary. NT alone might lead to a monkish, world-rejecting attitude. Saying Jesus came to fulfull OT law, not to erase it helps putting a brake on such spirals.

                  It is important to realize the nature of holiness spirals. They are always about rejecting the world, that is, rejecting biological normality. For example, as sex tends to lead to pregnancy, and kids need parents, biological normality is that sex should happen between married couples. All spiralling gnostics and heretics and puritans tend to miss that. They either praise non-reproductive sex, or want to refrain even from reproductive sex and stay chaste.

                  One big reason we need the OT is Genesis, that God saw the world he created and saw that it is *good*. The way the world works, biology and all that, is good. Thus it should not be rejected or denounced. With NT only, one easily fall into the “His Kingdom is not of this world” thinking and reject the world. With the OT included, God saw the world He created is good (why would He create a bad world?) so man should also see it as good.

                • The apparent contradiction between OT “the world is good” and NT “His Kingdom is not of this world” is IMHO mirrored in reasonable secular thinking about human biology. We must dance a very fine line, I think. We cannot reject our biology, cannot insist to act in ways inconsistent with it. But we cannot fully embrace it either as that would make us Conan-ish barbarians, and we want a civilization that can build spaceships.

                  So it is a very careful balancing act. Inherent in the nature of a rational animal, where the rational and the animal parts often want different things, and need to be reconciled.

        • Is there a single turk alive who hasn’t had his ass stretched out by his dad, his uncles, his cousins, his older brother, and the family dog by the age of twelve?

          My only question is, were you cruising for it, or did you only learn to love it after getting reamed out by your mullah and the rest of your child anal rape cult?

          • Strannik says:

            Oh my, I haven’t had such a good healthy laugh over something someone has said in quite a while, thank you! Lol…

          • Allah says:

            Child anal rape? That’s not very neoreactionary of you. It’s called pederasty, stop using gender neutral language where it isn’t warranted.

          • info says:

            The ottomans and their pederasty merits the fate of sodom.

            Also the armenian massacre by the young turks.

            May god avenge himself on them.

  12. Strannik says:

    Modernity is something of an illusion-as it is in most things-in regards to the Oligarchs. Obviously Aristocracy, the rule of the best group of naturally and heirarchically superior men, is best for the whole and stemming from the original patriarchy of mankind from the beginning. But what we always have is a continuum between Aristocracy and Oligarchy, which could almost always be more aptly called an Kakistocracy. Why? Democracy and Money (the love of which is the root of all evil as the Apostle says). What we always have even behind the screen of popular sovereignty is rule by a few, and ultimately, one man among those few. So the key is to replace the Oligarchs with better men who will yet not change the reality of the power of a few. When the time comes, either way, my time of ”deciding” as an individual private citizen among many is over, if in fact it ever really began. That is, unless i’m one of the few, or close to them.

    • Not Tom says:

      Democracy, however, never replaces the oligarchs, only their puppets and mouthpieces. That’s what makes it successful as a political formula.

      • Strannik says:

        So, what it really amounts to is a Synarchy, in which secretive true Elites place a technocratic managerial screen between themselves and the democratic puppets in formal government, and the people. We see the managerial screen of the men like Soros and David Rockfeller at best, and truly don’t see those even higher than they.

        • jim says:

          You attribute too much cohesion to our elite. The reason the Democrats pursue stupid strategies is because too many of them have a slice of power, and they cannot get their act together. Expect more Clintonesue “suicides”, ever more clumsily committed, and with ever less effort and competence going into the cover up.

          • Not Tom says:

            Yes, the fact that democracy works this way is not an indicator of shrewd planning, it’s more like the inevitable evolutionary outcome of a society in which the people are supposed to rule (but clearly cannot).

            • Strannik says:

              Cannot, or is it a case of not being permitted to do so because people have been put to sleep by the promises of democracy without it’s substance? Mind you, I believe that even genuine representative Democracy requires strong one man leadership..

              • jim says:

                That was the design of the founders, a strong elected president capable carrying out the will of those who voted him in. But as the presidency has grown ever more powerful and intrusive, the president has grown ever weaker, resulting in anarcho tyranny. It is not just that the president cannot get his way, but that far too many in government and quasi governmental institutions can get their way.

                • Strannik says:

                  That’s why I think you have to have a ”Tsar” and ”Soviets”, in my opinion, top down and also bottom upwards.

                • ten says:

                  So a king and village elders and their networks.

                  There is nothing democratic or sovietic about it, democracy is the abolishment of those things. And remember that the communist party quickly grew to dislike the soviets, conquered them and repurposed them as top down tentacles rather than bottom up harnesses of workers’ will. There can not be cohesion and action in unison from masses of bottom up organizations, thus they cannot form national governing bodies, which the soviets quickly learned, after which the name of their union was joke, openly displaying the immediate nature of every communist and democratic attempt at governance.

              • Cloudswrest says:

                Democracy can’t work in a multi-ethnic/multi-cultural society. It requires a uniform population with common purpose/goals/values, in which case voting becomes a knowledge market, like the “lifeline” “ask the audience” in the game show “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire”. The voting majority/plurality of the audience was almost always right because the audience had a common goal of helping out. Voters in a multiculti society all have selfish, self interested goals that don’t align because they have different cultures/tastes/values.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Democracy can’t work, period. It just fails faster in multi-ethnic or multi-religious environments.

                  The claim that democracy would work with just whites is clearly false, because it’s clearly failed in countries that are over 90% white. The claim is similar to the claim that socialism would work with just whites. It wouldn’t, because its fundamental problem is that the incentives are wrong. The problem is that people do respond to incentives, not that they don’t.

                  Democracy would be even more unstable if everyone were perfectly rational in an economic sense. It only seems to work for a while because people aren’t totally rational. Blacks and browns actually vote much more rationally than whites – they don’t think long term, but they also aren’t very clouded by ideological bullshit, they vote for whatever they think benefits them and theirs. That’s what real democracy looks like – not a public trust, but a public trough.

                • ten says:

                  Not Tom already said it, but anyway.

                  There has been plenty of democratic purely 99+% white states. It doesn’t work. First of all, democracy is mechanically bound to generate its problems. NRx 101.

                  Second, democracy is from the start a socialist ploy. Liberals are easily pulled along, but the push comes from socialists aiming to flip the apple cart, and even liberals often loudly warned against the process at the time. Because of this, there is no common purpose/goals/values, there are those trying to flip the cart vs those trying to keep it upright.

                  In a perfect place where unison purpose etc already exists, democracy WILL destroy it. Step by step, more and more people will join the apple thief party, voting themselves to apples, while the apple farmer and carter party will have less and less reason to farm and cart apples, because they get voted out of their apples without compensation.

                  Democracy itself is a tool of the enemy and is the cause of niggers, niggers don’t ruin democracy. In fact, they cause whites to coalesce against democracy, because colour coded and barely capable of speech apple thiefs make for a less subtle apple thief party, less capable of blending in.

                • Aldon says:

                  Blaming multiculturalism for democracyic dysfunction is like when cuckservatives/lolbergs blame muh government for disasters from multiculturalism.

                  None of the most stable societies larger than isolated tribes across history are democracies. Democracy on the mass scale depends on things like no shortage of outside threats to keep the population in a state of hostility (I imagine Russiagate in part was an attempt at this).

                  Lands like China are really the only notable ones who show no affinity for mass migration. They’re also the ones who have no indigenous history of liberalism.

                • jack boot says:

                  everyone here hates on democracy as they suck the dick of “free market capitalism” (not a thing but whatev)

                  guess what fuxxx. a dollar is a vote. a free market (i.e. customer choice) is democracy.

                  guess what fuxxxxxxx. stock is a vote. joint stock corporations are democracy. lolzzzz

                  the bull prepped. time to swallow the black pill with a thick rope of jack boot ****.

                  you don’t hate democracy. even in theory. you just want to rearrange the constituency to which the state power responds. you’re a downwardly mobile revolutionsry. you just like to dress it up in something else and prance in something more moral.

                  gulp it down slut. p.s marx was a radical muh free merkin lolberg.

                  L
                  O
                  L

                • jim says:

                  Two people with money cannot use it to take the third person’s money. Big difference from voting, where every politician runs on giving away someone else’s stuff.

                  Thus capitalism creates order, and is in accord with the then commandments: Thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not covet. Democracy in practice is always stealing and coveting, and inexorably creates the disorder that eventually destroys it. The time comes when there is too much up for grabs, and the most recent grabbers set the ballot box on fire.

                • Not Tom says:

                  …suck the dick of “free market capitalism”

                  Wrong. Capitalism is ancient, the “free market” is an Enlightenment invention. Nobody here uses the term “free market capitalism”. You continue to confuse us with whatever random crap you hear from mainstream conservatives, indicating you don’t read or understand what we write; your contributions therefore have negative value.

                  If Jim’s commentariat were a “free market”, you’d be up to your smooth brained, crosseyed le 56% face in debt.

                  stock is a vote. joint stock corporations are democracy.

                  Correct premise, retarded conclusion. “One share one vote” is not the same as “one person one vote”. Proof of stake, or skin in the game, is an essential material difference.

                  you don’t hate democracy. even in theory.

                  Thanks for telling us what we think. I can see now why Jim silently deletes most of your posts.

          • Strannik says:

            I agree that that’s how it is ending, I really don’t attribute much cohesion to them now, but I’m looking at how it began. It could never have worked, but I understand I think the reasons why they did what they did.

  13. Anonymous Fake says:

    I’ve considered “anti-oligarchy” as a Cathedral hypothesis as well. Runaway foundations and endowments that aren’t truly owned by anyone are a major funding source for the poz, which somehow manages to milk them without looting them. They are true managerial institutions, in other words, unless someone figures out how to shut them down.

    For what it’s worth, there were “white only scholarship” foundations that were in fact shut down, although any rogue hoard of money earning compound interest for generations just by existing and warping the market is dubious in itself, I say.

    Entailed estates that lose their bloodline should be handed out by lottery if they can’t be profitably liquidated. Oligarchs at least have blood and agency. Old money is preferable to new money, certainly, but dead money is another thing entirely.

    Educated priestly caste managers seem to turn into “bad priests” in this environment. They belong to corporations that actually live, and what seems to animate authentic corporations is the presence of warriors. The merchants are rootless random noise and don’t matter.

    • Anonymous Fake says:

      And I’m going to add that this is entirely a function of my “lustful capitalist” model. Capitalists who put in 80+ hours a week and fail to have appropriately fruitful families, due to those 80+ hour weeks, do not leave behind legitimate biological legacies to give their estate to. The money doesn’t gradually trickle down into society, but instead gets infected by managers who should have been corporate salary earners, not rent seekers. These managers are either pozzed or pay off the poz to keep the warriors from looting what ought to be looted, although it shouldn’t have existed in the first place.

      Autistic capitalists or even normie capitalists who lived in the perfect era to produce absurd quantities of wealth can leave behind a plethora of money too, but their relative conservatism keeps corruption away. Until it doesn’t, that is. The 1950’s leads to the 1960’s, and all it took was a technological advance, synthetic contraception, to destroy the old capitalist archetype.

      It’s an ancient problem, that of the rich who don’t breed, but it’s now the most rooted sociology of our economic system. Playing whac-a-mole with the inevitable parasites that are attracted to socially liberal wealth hoards is hopeless if it misses the point, that vice and its worldly profits eventually die. Hopefully by the sword, and early enough for it not to snowball too much compound interest.

    • info says:

      Any way said foundations and edowments be given to warriors if bloodline of estate dies out?

  14. Mike says:

    For Aristotle Oligarchy basically just meant a corrupted or debased form of Aristocracy, in that both governments consisted of rule by an elite few, but Aristocracy was composed of virtuous elites, while Oligarchy was formed of corrupt elites. According to him, the USA of today probably is a mix of degenerative democracy and oligarchy, descended from what it was originally founded as, which would be a Constitution.

  15. Pooch says:

    I do believe Bernie also represents the anti-white faction of the Left. AOC and The shit squad back him. I notice he calls Trump a racist, bigot, sexist, etc with more vitriol then the other candidates. He seems to have combined the racial/gender “equality” into his traditional communism.

    • BC says:

      Bernie learned from his mistake in 2016 and picked up the Racial Socialists along with the economic ones.

    • Anon says:

      AOC commands the FBI, or speaks for someone who commands the FBI. She lectured the FBI director on his lack of action on neo nazis and white nationalists, and lo and behold, the FBI upgraded the threat level of neo nazis and white nationalists to that of ISIS, other interior ministry organizations in other cuckosphere nations did the same, and arrests of evil white terrorist groups and searches for evil white infiltrators began.

      • Not Tom says:

        Seems more likely to me that she just gave flimsy cover for the FBI to do what the FBI already wanted to do anyway.

        Remember, this mandate of finding white perpetrators at any cost goes at least as far back as ’01, maybe earlier.

        • Anon says:

          Then why choose her to do it? Why choose anyone to do it? Why not just give the order from behind closed doors?

          • jim says:

            The order had already been given from behind closed doors. They just pinned her face to it.

          • Not Tom says:

            Democracy exists to legitimize government via the appearance of public consent. It is always better to pin a decision on an elected official, should the opportunity present itself.

            They will make the same decision regardless, and find someone or something to pin it on, which is why democracy is fake and gay. But living in a democracy means the preferred sanitization method, when available, is through elected officials. They take the blame, while oligarchs continue to actually rule. It’s largely opportunistic, planned in the sense of being stage-managed but not adhering to any grand strategy.

        • Strannik says:

          Yes, AOC is an Actress who literally answered an ad in the paper to run for office and pretend to be a politician. She’s got more tits than brains and it shows, but somebody’s got their hand up her telling her what to say and do.

          • The Cominator says:

            Yep same as Greta Fetal Alcoholberg except AOC looks in certain poses more fuckable than Greta Alcoholberg.

            • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

              AoC has an upper body of the kind that many women pay to create with plastic surgery, but an unfortunate face. If presented correctly she can look like a reasonably attractive woman fit for childbearing. Left to her own devices she dresses as a Woked Witch, which explains the resemblance to Greta.

            • jack boot says:

              greta is peasant class swede. probably with hormone disorder.

              alexandria is maybe admixed sephardic latinx jewess. hereditary latin communist elite. probably the same clade as the one who pasted those lines on the statue of liberty. now it’s the statue of libertine.

              you can see a persons whole history in her face.

              • ten says:

                Greta is upper class since several generations. Her designer chair set costs more than i make in a year.

                She looks more like fetal alcohol syndrome than hormonal disorder.

              • Not Tom says:

                alexandria is maybe admixed sephardic latinx jewess

                You are such a fucking idiot. I’m starting to wonder if you even understand the things you pull right out of your ass, or if your spam is just random neural firings.

                Also, by using the term “latinx” you reveal who your paymasters are. Good job.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  jack boot can’t get off script, won’t answer RedPill on women questions…

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Also, by using the term “latinx” you reveal who your paymasters are. Good job.

                  you can see a persons whole history in her face.

                  His pronoun use also reveals it – permitted: using “she” as the generic pronoun, using “they”; forbidden: using “he”

          • Bob says:

            Those somebody’s are some former members of Bernie’s 2016 campaign and Cenk from The Young Turks, the “Justice Democrats”.

            • Strannik says:

              Cut-outs who also themselves need money men to operate, men like George Soros, who himself takes orders from someone higher up than him.

              • Bob says:

                Cenk was the money man.
                Of course, he made his money from someone higher than him, but as Jim says, conspiracies leak. All that’s leaked is some Bernie Bros had an idea and Cenk liked it enough to fund it.

                • Strannik says:

                  Yeah, Cenk was the ”purse” in that deal, holding the money, so that the curious would only get as far back as to him on the chain and no further.

                • Bob says:

                  Not to be disrespectful, but it sounds like you might suggest the first link in the chain is a group of men with small hats and large noses.

                  Who does your worldview tell you must be funding Cenk, if it’s so effectively kept under wraps that we don’t have any more leaks to go on?

                • Not Tom says:

                  Who does your worldview tell you must be funding Cenk, if it’s so effectively kept under wraps that we don’t have any more leaks to go on?

                  NGOs.

                  The phenomenon is known to the mainstream as “dark money”, and the Democratic party has been awash in it since 2017-2018. To the informed or perceptive, it’s the morass of NGOs that no one has ever heard of, yet are the recipients of billions of dollars worth of corporate and “philanthropist” donations.

                  But none of the donors really understand what the money is for, and the NGOs themselves answer to Soros types – maybe Soros himself (who, yes, happens to be a hooknose), maybe others like him (who may or may not have large noses). But even they often only have a vague understanding of what’s happening on the ground, much like corporate CEOs often don’t know what low level employees are doing.

                  No one’s in charge, everyone’s in charge, the oligarchs are in charge. It all depends on your frame of reference. The Cathedral wouldn’t be the Cathedral if its essence could be so easily distilled.

                • jack boot says:

                  sure you can distill its essence. it’s easy. you look at the structure of visible institutions and their story of origin.

                  the structure indicates compartmentalization. if it looks like nobody knows what’s going on it’s because you don’t have the information sources.

                  and if you look at the origins of domestic policy you see the strings all go inside cia. and cia has parents. and in the beginning you see kuhn loeb people hanging out in oss admin positions.

                  you’ll never guess first act of the libyan revolutionaries. it stunned everyone you get three guesses.

                • jim says:

                  > you’ll never guess first act of the libyan revolutionaries. it stunned everyone you get three guesses.

                  It is easy to guess the first act of the Libyan revolutionaries. The same, in effect, as that of every other revolutionary regime. Issue vast amounts of worthless money, and announce a new age of abundance. As, for example, the French Revolution.

                  After that first act of the Libyan revolutionaries, the the merchants soon discovered that the money issued by the Libyan revolutionaries was worthless, and refused to exchange it for goods, and people started illegally using gold and US dollars to buy stuff, so the second, or perhaps the third, act of the Libyan revolutionaries was to launch surprise raids on shops and market places, search them for gold and US dollars, and if they found them, which they usually did, take them, kill people, and set stuff on fire.

                  The details of the first act of the Libyan revolutionaries are boring, repetitious, and forgettable, and I have entirely forgotten them, despite a thousand excited reminders from people like yourself. Same old same old, superficially dressed in some new costume, because the last thousand times it was tried in a hundred new costumes, it failed so catastrophically. Much like your endless and repetitious comments.

                  What is interesting, newsworthy, noteworthy, memorable, and unusual, and what I do remember is that their response to the usual socialist failure of the usual socialist first move resembled pirate raids rather than the Bolshevik command and control. It was a more lethal and destructive response, in which the fundamental character of socialism (kill, loot, and burn) was more apparent than usual.

                  The fundamental character of socialism is also salient in Venezuela. Socialism has been losing the tattered costumes with which it conceals what it is up to.

                  He who covets, will steal. He who steals, will murder. Hence you guys murdered well over a hundred million in the twentieth century, and are hoping for an even bigger do-over in the twenty first. You have murdered so many of the people whom you told that you were on their side, that you are not really trying to hide your intentions any more.

  16. Contaminated NEET says:

    Batten down the hatches, because it’s going to be Bernie. What specifically do you think he will do to turn America into Venezuela?

    • jim says:

      In the unlikely event that Bernie is elected president, he will walk a well trodden path, trodden by Allende and Hugo Chávez among others.

      Lots of free goodies. He becomes tremendously popular. But after a while, inflation starts to bite. Price and wage controls ensue. Shortages ensue. That is not just a third world thing: under the Carter oil and gas controls we had rationing, long queues at gas stations, and cars just stopping in the street and being abandoned. It was spectacularly disastrous and economically ruinous, and yet scarcely anyone blamed Carter, thinking the controls were a response to the mysterious crisis, rather than the cause of the crisis. The utterly catastrophic results of the controls were deemed to justify the controls by every pious and respectable academic and every lamestream media. Same thing happens everywhere they do price controls. Price and wage controls are very popular, and the more ruinous the results, the more popular they become.

      In response to the shortages, we then get “spontaneous” takeovers of the means of production, as in Chile and Venezuela, which takeovers were as spontaneous as Obama’s Ferguson riot and Soros’s antifa.

      The businessman attempts to shut his doors because he is not allowed to command his workers, nor sell his goods at a price that will pay his bills, nor, because of rationing, purchase the inputs he need produce anything. His doors are forcibly reopened by the “spontaneous” outrage of the oppressed masses, but strangely no useful production ensues.

      If Bernie gets nominated Democratic presidential candidate, a more likely outcome than him being elected is that the oligarchs desert the Democratic Party for Trump, and the Trump train rolls over the emptied out shell. Another possible outcome that they stage a coup against Trump. If successful, Bernie finds himself in a prison cell adjacent to Trump. But the sudden stall in sending the impeachment articles to the Senate, after conducting impeachment in a hell of a hurry, indicates the praetorians are in Trump’s pocket. Similarly, the sudden, and probably indefinite, stall in the extremely urgent Judges Association emergency meeting. Someone told them that some Hawaiian magistrate ordering the arrest of Barr for perverting the course of justice might not be a good idea.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        Pricing controls are a good thing when they prevent runaway speculation in fertility crushing markets like education and real estate that can be bid up to absurd levels. Market manipulation, a way for merchants to tyrannize warriors, is also a perversion. Even when price controls fail, it’s still sometimes necessary to seize a broken market from vulgar speculators and hand it to salaried professionals. Moving capital from the lustful capitalists to autistic capitalists is the ideal, but solid warrior/priest mediators is a serviceable temporary solution to corruption, preferable to anarchy or panic. How do you think warriors make a living in between wars?

        In our time, merchants are far more likely to rig the market than warriors, and that’s a degradation of the nobility’s purpose.

        • jim says:

          > Pricing controls are a good thing when they prevent runaway speculation in fertility crushing markets like education and real estate that can be bid up to absurd levels.

          Nuts.

          Observe how rent control worked out. Would have been better to have nuked the city than to have rent controlled it. Compare twenty years of rent control with Hiroshima twenty years after it was nuked.

          Markets are never rigged by capitalists, and when they are rigged, as for example higher education, the people rigging them are not capitalists – they are oligarchs in the old sense of the word, but never in the new sense.

          Merchants inherently cannot rig markets, for the same reason that they inherently cannot rule. They inherently lack the necessary cohesion. Even oligarchs in the new sense find it just too hard.

          Warrior merchants, like Venice in the days of its greatness, the people who founded Hong Kong, and the East India company in the days of its greatness, can and routinely do rig markets, but that is because of their warrior character, not their merchant character.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            *Unresponsive*

            • jim says:

              You attribute to our evil Jewish capitalist overlords all the inconvenient hate facts about urban decay and blight. Not only does rent control supposedly have nothing to do with it, race supposedly has nothing to do with it, black crime and violence supposedly has nothing to do with it.

              Not allowing you to just brush all the hate facts off the table. If you want to talk about an issue where no end of hate facts are salient, you have to acknowledge those hate facts, even if to say you disagree. Even if you don’t believe those hate facts and are arguing against them, you have to acknowledge that we believe them.

              If you are going to argue that X is false, you have to state X as a position that we and most normies in fact believe. Even progressives secretly believe, though they piously talk about “good schools”.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          It’s not like the universities are not comfortably nested in the arms of government already. Education is expensive because of government-provided loans and certain terrible outcomes to legal cases, such which made getting a degree a requirement for white collar work.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          @Anonymous FBI

          “Pricing controls are a good thing when they prevent runaway speculation in fertility crushing markets like education and real estate that can be bid up to absurd levels.”

          Still getting women off the hook and putting them on a pedestal…

        • If a coalition of merchants rigs a market, all it takes is for one merchant to defect, sell things at their “real price”, and every merchant rigging the market goes out of business.

          The healthcare market is rigged, but rigged by the FDA, preventing capitalism from happening, preventing a startup pharmaceutical from selling drugs on narrower profit margins. When a doctor prescribes me antibiotics, I do not get to pick between competing antibiotics manufacturers that advertise their costs, bidding each other down for my dollar, and the reason for this is not evil merchants but evil regulators in the state.

          Rent control is half of the reason it is too expensive to raise a family in the city. To pay the absurd amount of money he owes to the commie city government, a landlord has to raise your rent to $2000/mo for a studio to compensate for the old black woman who has lived there since the 60’s and pays $200/mo. If God snapped His fingers and made every rent controlled tenant in a big city evaporate in a puff of blood and viscera, the massive supply entering the market, not to mention the fact that everywhere in the city is now safe and liveable, would bring rents back down to reasonable levels.

          • jack boot says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

              It is far from plausible that when leftists deploy measures to smash businesses, they are doing it at the behest of those businesses.

              I am silently deleting all your numerous posts pointing out that there is someone with more money than the reader. I doubt this information would cause great surprise among my readership.

              • jack boot says:

                i don’t know what your promise to delete comments pointing out more money than reader means. it doesn’t make any sense. granted i don’t really expect it to make sense because i don’t really expect you to make any sense.

                but i can tell you when the bolsheviks took over russia and supposedly wiped out and nationalized all the businesses certain businesses were mysteriously immune. they continued and even expanded operation. like standard oil. or pnc bank. weird huh?

                almost like communism from the very beginning was a conspiracy by some private interests against all the other private interests

                but that would be too simple and straightforward. much more likely to be a convoluted morality play about PURITANS and PURITY and how unitarians are secretly running everything behind the scenes … but … you know, in the land of the urals. and with atheist jews instead of puritans but we blame the puritans anyway.

                or whatever, heck i know.

                • jim says:

                  > but i can tell you when the bolsheviks took over russia and supposedly wiped out and nationalized all the businesses certain businesses were mysteriously immune. they continued and even expanded operation. like standard oil. or pnc bank. weird huh?

                  Not weird at all. See Neet’s question, and my reply.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  >i don’t really expect it to make sense because i don’t really expect you to make any sense.

                  Yes, yes, you have utter contempt for Jim and his readers… And yet, you still make comment after comment, even in the face of aggressive moderation. Why? What’s it to you what nonsense some random, powerless idiot writes?

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        “Someone told them that some Hawaiian magistrate ordering the arrest of Barr for perverting the course of justice might not be a good idea.”

        That might have been Gorsuch.

        https://pjmedia.com/trending/neil-gorsuch-issues-savage-rebuke-to-activist-judges-and-nationwide-injunctions/

        • Karl says:

          No, at most Gorsuch might simply overrule a lower court. Lower court judges don’t like successful appeals, but don’t fear them.

          Successful appeals are no big deal, common as dirt. Judges fear that their decisions are ignored.

      • Bilge_Pump says:

        ” It was spectacularly disastrous and economically ruinous, and yet scarcely anyone blamed Carter, thinking the controls were a response to the mysterious crisis, rather than the cause of the crisis. ”

        Wasn’t the crisis caused by OPEC having near unilateral control over world oil prices? Or do you think this wasn’t important / didn’t happen?

        • BC says:

          Wasn’t the crisis caused by OPEC having near unilateral control over world oil prices? Or do you think this wasn’t important / didn’t happen?

          Rural gas stations had plenty of gas. Only city ones were empty. Typically the sort thing that happens when you institute controls. Free market would have increased the price for gas and shipped it to where it was most needed at a price people were willing to pay.

        • jim says:

          > Wasn’t the crisis caused by OPEC having near unilateral control over world oil prices?

          When Reagan removed the controls, the crisis rapidly evaporated.

          Opec does not have a monopoly, and they are always at each other’s throats. With great regularity they agree between themselves to withhold oil supplies to jack the price up, and with great regularity they cheat on the deal. They have been doing this for a very long time. What made one such agreement, of innumerable such agreements, a big deal was Carter’s decision to use it as a justification for smashing capitalism.

          And if they did have unilateral control of oil prices, what good would it do for Carter to set prices?

          The point and purpose of price control was to punish American oil producers and destroy their wealth, which had the entirely unsurprising result that they produced less oil. What a big surprise.🙃

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        This is a good prediction, Jim. Now, how can I get stinking rich off of it? What investments can I make that will pay off when Bernie destroys American and let me NEET for the rest of my days?

        • The Cominator says:

          Bernie won’t win but you would want to keep buying puts on the stock market and rolling them over… but from Hong Kong or somewhere where you could play the US market and not pay the now 90% US taxes + wealth taxes.

        • jim says:

          You cannot profit directly from the confiscation and destruction of value. Though if you are fracking, it is profitable that the Venezuelan government destroyed one of the large oil producers: Venezuela.

          However a lot of big businesses did profit from the Bolshevik Revolution. Lenin famously said “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them”, but after he had destroyed the Russian capitalist class, found himself short of rope. So had to buy expertise from American corporations. This did not work very well, because sometimes the expert has to be the boss, not just hired, as Nasa discovered, but it was not a total failure, whereas Mao’s great leap forward was a total failure, because he did not want anyone to profit from it, and nobody did. Similarly, no one is profiting from Venezuela, though as the country collapses into total ruin, now Maduro is showing signs he will let big foreign corporations profit from fixing up some of the ruin.

          But until Lenin did a U turn, no one profited from the Bolshevik revolution, and no one is (yet) profiting from Venezuela.

          You will notice that all Soviet consumer products are second rate clones of what an American corporation hired by the communists was producing previous to the time they were hired – they sold the Soviets the expertise to build the lines that they were abandoning. But hired expertise seldom works as well as expertise in authority, and the hired expertise infamously did not work very well.

          So American big business profited from replacing the value that the Bolsheviks had destroyed – but they could not create value to replace the value the Bolsheviks had destroyed until the Bolsheviks wised up and let them replace it and let them profit from replacing it.

          • jack boot says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Not what I said. Not remotely recognizable as what I or Neet said.

              Now if you proceeded to explain how you deduced your conclusion, by some strange and convoluted stream of Marxist logic, as an implication of what I or Neet said, I might have responded, but simply asserting that any random thing that someone says implies some Marxist point of doctrine presupposes that we all share unstated Marxist premises, which we do not. Because we don’t share Marxist premises, what we “are really saying” is not Marxism, and we are unlikely to recognize what we “are really saying”.

            • jim says:

              Not what I said. Not remotely recognizable as what I or Neet said.

              Now if you proceeded to explain how, by some strange and convoluted stream of Marxist logic, you deduced your conclusion as an implication of what I or Neet said, I might have responded, but simply asserting that any random thing that someone says implies some Marxist point of doctrine presupposes that we all share unstated Marxist premises, which rather obviously we do not. Because we don’t share Marxist premises, what we “are really saying” is not Marxism.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            Hmmm… Get hired as an expert to advise or run a failing socialist factory? That takes a lot of hustling, credential-grubbing, “networking,” and plain old-fashioned work. I’m looking to get rich on nothing more than a good prediction and a calculated gamble of the little I have. Cominator’s extreme out-of-the-money option play is more the kind of thing I have in mind. It’s a little obvious, but it could pay off big.

            • Atavistic Morality says:

              If the financial sector was really that simple, everyone would profit from it easily.

              There’s a lot of hustling, expertise and knowledge behind this kind of thing. It’s like the people who made millions with crypto, they weren’t unrelated normies to the field, they were more or less insiders.

              I’m just saying it out of concern for you, I respect the spirit and the willingness to play it, but do it wisely and realize there’s more to it than “magic” or “luck”. Magic and luck are socialism, which is why it always ends up like Venezuela.

  17. BC says:

    There’s really no way Mini Mike could get elected. He’s too short for one thing, and the Dems would descend into civil war resulting a Trump victory. Bloomberg’s the kind of guy who could get in charge via Stalin’s bureaucratic coup, not an election.

    • BC says:

      There’s really no way Mini Mike could get elected. He’s too short for one thing, and the Dems would descend into civil war resulting a Trump victory. Bloomberg’s the kind of guy who could get in charge via Stalin’s bureaucratic coup, not an election.

      • jim says:

        Why did you ask me to delete your true and informative comment?

        • BC says:

          Hmm, I meant to reply to the first poster but I did embed it properly. I posted it a second time in reply to him and asked for this one to be deleted. I guess the second post was eaten by the duplicate filter. Could you move the post?

          Thanks.

  18. Mike in Boston says:

    Jim,

    Thank you for having the balls to make specific predictions and the honesty — rare among prognosticators– to revisit and reassess them once they become testable.

    If Bernie Sanders loses the candidacy, Democratic Party / Permanent Government chaos and internal conflict will continue.

    Should I understand from this prediction that you don’t think that, if Bloomberg wins the nomination and the presidency, he might become the Stalin who halts the holiness spiral? Or do you consider a Trump second term so likely as to make any discussion of the chance of that happening moot?

    I mean, Bloomberg once was sufficiently in touch with reality to realize “Ninety-five percent of your murders — murderers and murder victims … are male, minorities, 16 to 25.” It’s at least possible he would govern on that basis.

    It’s also possible, of course, he’s become a true convert to Wokeness and would govern with the convert’s usual zeal. In which case, I imagine the holiness spiral would continue, leaving the eventual Stalin (or, one might hope, Pinochet) still further in the future.

    • jim says:

      > Should I understand from this prediction that you don’t think that, if Bloomberg wins the nomination and the presidency, he might become the Stalin who halts the holiness spiral?

      Stalin and Cromwell were warrior priests. Bloomberg is just a sleazebag who wants graft as normal to continue.

      He certainly wants to end the holiness spiral, but lacks the massive testicles to required. If elected, he would reluctantly go along with it until it devoured him.

    • Bloomberg would run into the same problems as Trump, (imagine some judge vetoing nationwide stop and frisk) and he is weaker than Trump and politically stupider. His naked attempts to buy the election look weak and pathetic, because we all intuit deep down that money =/= power, while Trump’s massive rallies are a threat of violence that makes a leftist imagine “Deliverance” on a mass scale.

      If he actually believed in reality, he would be donating to Trump, not running against him. Biden was also once sane, but no reason to think he has it in him to stop the holiness spiral either.

      • Not Tom says:

        Are we sure he’s running against Trump? Obviously on paper he is, but I still have yet to figure out what would be any different if he were intentionally trying to weaken the Democrats before election.

        He was a Republican mayor; granted, Trump was a registered Democrat until recently. He’s spending money in ways that are flagrant and obvious and makes half the party look bought, when he could easily make use of the well-oiled dark money machine. His past statements indicate an ideology to the right of most Republicans, his ad campaign seems almost too cringeworthy to be sincere, and he is competing for the same constituency as Buttigieg and Biden (not Sanders).

        The whole campaign comes across to me as a deliberate attempt to enrage the Bernie Bros and incite a civil war in the party. If he wins the nomination, Democrats may quite literally be split down the middle, with half the progressives refusing to vote for the biggest big-money candidate ever, and half the moderates refusing to vote for a senile old Bolshevik.

        Not lacking in self-awareness, I realize that similar things were said about Trump; however, Trump was always a popular candidate with the voters themselves, and spent less money on his entire campaign than Bloomberg has spent on the primary – so although there are parallels, I don’t think it’s the same. The vast amount of cash Bloomberg is spending is the only reason I’m not actually sure of this possibility – but it also wouldn’t be the first time someone has paid a lot of money to merely disrupt politics without a serious intent to enter them.

        • The Cominator says:

          Bloomsperg may just have more money than sense, he has too much money to ever be a Bolshevik modern Democrat but he is too much of a big government control freak to ever be a Trump style Republican.

          He is spending a lot for someone who doesn’t think he can be president… every ad sequence on every channel practically in Florida has a Bloomsperg ad.

        • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

          I don’t think the motivations are mysterious. Bloomberg is paying for an option with massive possible upsides and no major downside beyond the financial cost. Unless the USA becomes a Trumpist kingdom, his efforts will sooner or later be repaid in money, power, and status for himself, his offspring and his business.

          Bloomberg has volunteered to serve the interests of the DNC as long as they advance his own. Depending on how 2020 plays out that could mean winning the Presidency, or becoming DNC sugar daddy, or the hammer of DNC’s enemies (Trump and Sanders/AoC), or running as an independent if told to do so. Bloomberg will benefit under any of these scenarios, and like Trump is probably thinking about how to bring his children and grandchildren into it over the long term.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        Bloomberg’s bid is not as dumb as people here are saying. He can’t buy the national election for the same reason Hilary couldn’t. He can, however, buy the position of Schelling Point for the not-avowedly-socialist Democrats, which is what the media were (before the debate) feverishly trying to sell him as. This is also why he is kneecapping the other campaigns by hiring their workers. As soon as there is a single candidate to coalesce the Democrats scared of the Sanders-AOC faction that candidate becomes competitive with Bernie and favored by the DNC. Likewise Bloomberg will also try to be the Schelling Point for the anything-but-Trump voters of both parties, another position that may be purchasable and that he fits better than the other candidates — on paper. The debate performance may be fatal, but there’s quite a lot of fawning media coverage to be had for a billion dollars especially if they see Mike as the only hope against Trump.

        • The Cominator says:

          Bloomberg actually saved Sanders though, without him people would have rallied to mayor butt pirate (who covertly is a more sinister communist than Sanders, Sanders wants to be Castro Buttigieg wants to be Lenin look at his father and the rest of his background).

    • Anon says:

      Minorities talk big until a straight white male fight back. If he fights back within the workplace, he is fired. If he fights back in the street, the police become involved. If he has neutralized the police, the politicians become involved. This is what we are seeing here.

      To maintain the support of the Cathedral, the politician must take an ever leftwards series of positions. The only way he can stop this is if he catches the Cathedral off balance, most likely with a horrifying shedding of blood, which temporarily pleases and satiates the minorities, and gives him time to kill the leftmost academics, journalists and judges and form a new aristocracy of his sane supporters.

      Gays who rioted at stonewall; blacks who assassinate police; Muslims screaming for infidel blood; hoards of screeching cat ladies; genocidal and insane Jews: a mere politician is not going to stop all of these. Only a warrior can.

Leave a Reply for A