Request for research assistance

Since our existing state religion has gone rabid in an insane holiness spiral, we are in the business of designing a Gnon compliant state religion.

We need to steal from the best. If all societies had the economic system of twentieth century Hong Kong, all societies would have the economic outcomes of Hong Kong. If all societies had the healthcare system of Singapore, all societies would have the health outcomes and healthcare costs of Singapore. And if all societies had the family law of Timor Leste, all societies would have the fertility of Timor Leste.

Well, then, we need to steal the state religion that Charles the second imposed, which gave us empire, science, and industrialization.

So how did his state religion handle courtship and marriage?

I hope to find a clue in the County microfilm records: Library of Virginia:  Available by interlibrary loan.

Lancaster County:

Reel 102 Marriage Bonds & Consents, 1706 – 1819

Reel 350 Marriage Bonds, 1701, 1715-1736

Northhampton County:

Reel 99 Marriage Bonds & Consents, 1706 – 1780

Reel 62 Marriage Register, 1706 – 1853 c, Unpaged (Stratton Nottingham Compilation)

The consents and bonds are the juicy part, since that is the parent or guardian contracting with the prospective son in law that he damn well will get married.

The bond is a promise to pay damages if the marriage is not carried out – so I assume the couple are having sex at the time of the bond, or immediately after. (Otherwise, there would be no need to pay damages)

Bonds go from 1660, When Charles the Second’s Anglicanism was imposed in England, to 1860, when marriage as it has been understood for the past couple of thousand years was legally abolished in England (though it continued to be socially enforced till about 1972. ) Virginia of course was not subject to English rule in 1860, but its state religion was still effectively the Church of England, much as the State Religion of Israel is not Judaism, but United States State Department progressivism.

I am not at present located where it is easy to get an interlibrary loan, so will someone please look at these, see what is juicy, and if there are any good parts, send me a scan, or a link in the comments to a scan.

44 Responses to “Request for research assistance”

  1. […] Request for research assistance […]

  2. Garr says:

    If there’s ever a big new dominant religion that people care about in the post-West it will have developed out of what’s going on now that people care about (just as Christianity developed out of that whole late-Hellenistic mystery/initiation/magical syncretic weirdness that you see in Apuleius), so it will probably develop out of the present virtualrealitygames/socialmedia weirdness.

    • jim says:

      If so, give it a go. See how you go as a prophet.

      I notice that there a plenty of scientists, such as Newton, who made great contributions to science while being Christian. There are many atheist and converso Jews who made great contributions to science

      There are no Orthodox Jews who made great contributions to science. Which tells me that getting religion right is subtle. Getting it wrong can poison thinking in unobvious ways.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        Isaac Newton was an occultist.
        Francis Bacon was an occultist.
        Roger Bagon was an occultist.

        The best afterlife you can get is torturing the enemies of God with your very own hands, for all eternity:

        https://oogenhand.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/hell-and-heaven-torture/

        Hell is eternal, hell is eternal, hell is eternal…

      • Garr says:

        It seems as though some early caliph was the only guy who ever intentionally created a religion. (That’s what I’ve learned over at GatesofVienna, anyway; apparently “Muhammed” just means “the Comforter” or something in the para-Christian Syrian texts from which the Koran was patched together.) I wonder how he accomplished that.

        Paul was probably just focused on growing his network of friends, like a — well, like a blogger. Rather than on starting up a big religion.

        Other people at other times, in other places, were just doing plumbing/electrical repairs on existing systems that people were already very into. Only a few people are really into Christianity now.

        People are very into social media, though. My “students” don’t even look at Youtube, let alone blogs — they’re looking at “Snapchat” and “Instagram” all the time. So I guess some new religion-like thing might come out of that.

        My son showed me a Youtube video in which an “atheist” contemptuously replies to a young Christian Youtuber who denounces Pokemon Go as Satanic. That Christian Youtuber saw the religious potential that something like Pokemon Go might have.

        This reminds me of a commenter at GatesofVienna who thinks that the whole internet is a Satanic project that will ultimately unleash/empower/satisfy unlimited hedonism through virtual satisfaction of all appetites, no matter how perverse. Another Christian seeing the internet as the source of the Next Religion.

        • Alrenous says:

          Starting a new religion is not difficult. Look up a list of ‘signs you’re in a cult’ and use it as a to-do list. Change it just enough so it’s not illegal, and don’t openly soak your cult members for money or sex until you hit critical mass. Pretend to be very prosocial; apparently spend all your time doing nice things for other cult members without asking for stuff in return.

          However, you’ll notice the to-do list is inherently opposed to any sort of clear view of reality.

          Christianity is good with science more or less because after Rome fell they accidentally became Aristotlean.

      • ilkarnal says:

        You’re not being biodeterminist enough. Since there are no Jewish scientific achievements before the Jews were introduced to science by Christians, we can safely say that there was some pathological equilibrium in the Jewish socio-religious system. But clearly some Jews said ‘fuck this!’ and some Jews didn’t and still haven’t, when the chance came. This likely boils down to differences in intelligence and openness, personality traits that are quite heritable.

        Not enough attention is paid to biological differences within groups, compared to biological differences between groups.

        Incidentally Newton, a highly intelligent and open person, was no typical christian. He was mixed up in the occult and in heresies that would have seen him suppressed in any strict theocratic regime.

        It’s not so much that Christianity is a multiplier of intellectual output compared to Judaism, as that Christianity is or has often been more airy-fairy, ambiguous, fractious, etc. Christianity often lets you be a ‘Christian’ while believing just about anything, while Judaism does not have that flexibility. But to then say that Christianity causes advancements is to get causality mixed up. Christianity can coexist with advances by not really taking a stance, while Judaism tends more brittle and just breaks outright, but this does not mean that either structure is terribly important *in and of itself.* They should be looked at instead as vehicles for the genetically conscientious to suppress the genetically open, both broken – in one case by a gentle tearing, in the other by a brittle way- by the failure to continue to suppress high openness people.

        This failure started, unsurprisingly, in the Christian population – unsurprising because the Christian population is much larger and had more diverse employment. This is consistent with everything from Christianity being a great boon for innovation, being neutral, and being a great harm relative to other religions.

        • Garr says:

          Even “open” people need gods if they’re to continue talking to each other and being interested in each other’s existence. I don’t know why this is so, but it seems to be so. Maybe because we can only see each other as personifications or instances of this or that god, so if we don’t have gods we just stop seeing each other. And then we stop seeing ourselves, and nothing’s left.

  3. Rollory says:

    See Frazer, _The Golden Bough_.

    Any new religion must take the Industrial Revolution into account, and its impact on human psychology and behavior. You can’t apply a medieval agricultural mindset to people who hang out at Starbucks.

    • jim says:

      Maybe.

      Let us hear you prophesy.

      • R7 Rocket says:

        Elon Musk has prophesied…
        Behold!
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo78R_yYFA

        • peppermint says:

          Ellen Musk starts companies with government subsidies and people think he’s the new Henry Ford. Steve Jobs used government subsidies too, not only selling Apples to schools well past the end of the platform’s viability, but also through pandering to Democrats in exchange for being allowed to hire competent people. Henry Ford is endlessly insulted, not just for speaking his mind, but for selling cars to proles. Liberals pretend to approve of his high wages and low prices when they occasionally feel the need to pander.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            Archbishop Musk solved the problem of the Flyback booster, a problem that the Airforce, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin tried and failed to do since the 1960’s. You can’t have a viable reusable orbital rocket without first developing a flyback first stage.

            Praise Be to Prophet Musk!

          • Mack says:

            Elon Musk started SpaceX with 100 million dollars of his own money and watched 75 million blow up before the last 25 million managed to make it off of the launchpad and into space before he could convince the government to give him a dime. Then on a shoestring budget he proceeded to whip the everlovingfuck out of the wrinkly-old-man-useless-bureaucrat-circlejerk that is NASA and the entire military-industrial complex, a complex so bumbling and ineffectual and inept that it, let us not forget, had lost the ability to make rockets entirely, just as it has lost the ability to make fighter jets.

            Then he invented the active landing tech to make lunar missions real.

            Now he’s literally in the design phase of a fully reusable rocket platform capable of literally landing on its launch platform without even needing legs, among other things like being tanked up and tanking up in orbit and literally traveling to Mars, and, oh yeah, functioning as a transport system so fast it makes the Concorde look slow, a system which also was decommissioned because of fading American greatness.

            Thank God for Elon Musk, for he is the American space program.

            P.S. If I were Donald Trump, I would take the EBT funds and just give it to the Eternal Elon and step back and see what insane technological feat he pulls off next. “Ermagerd, he took government funds to make insane new tech real. Muh free market.”

            • Mack says:

              *it makes the Concorde look like a snail by comparison.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              Indeed.

              Why genuflect before transexual midget nig nogs in wheelchairs when the prophesy of travel to the stars is before us!

              Blessed is the Prophet Elon Musk, who makes His Prophesy REAL!

            • Sam J. says:

              Agreed. I notice all the people who accuse Elon Musk of being a government jobs program never say a word about the United Space Alliance which has chewed up around $10 billion and have launched…nothing. Nothing at all. They say they need ten billion more.

              Also we need a reliable low cost space launch system for security reasons. That’s why we made subsidies for it. Same for electric cars. I’m not a ecogeek but I’m for electric cars because it makes me freer.

      • Rollory says:

        If I could, I’d be rich already. That said. Frazer’s basic argument is that

        1) primitive man believed he could control macroscopic phenomena as easily as his own body or immediate environment; thus we get magical thinking, guided by principles of contagion and similitude – things like tossing water drops in the air to make it rain. Or like in the present day “bulletproofing” rituals that Africans in the jungle still do. Bulletproofing is actually an excellent example because even though it doesn’t work on an individual level, the belief makes the whole village more likely to fight and thefore more likely to win, so peoples that have the belief see greater success than those that don’t. That’s how magic actually does “work”. But eventually people pay close attention and notice the consistent individual failures, which leads to

        2) semi-primitive man accepts that he can’t control macroscopic phenomena, therefore there must be something much bigger than him that DOES. Thus we move from the age of sorcery to the age of religion; praying to deities to get results that a sorceror would have claimed to be able to deliver directly. The form that religion takes ties into multiple patterns that are common to all human experience, and also are important to human existence. It has at its base the importance of agriculture, and the recurring death and new growth each year. Frazer argues fairly convincingly that the importance of this custom recurs in myths, stories, and customs in hundreds of examples from all over the planet. For example spilling blood on a fallow field to ensure a good crop, the concept of the king’s death being a way for the vitality of his spirit to infuse itself into the new king and the people in general, the ritual importance of the immune-to-winter mistletoe, the multitude of present-day celebrations both religious and secular that coincide exactly with ancient pagan rituals marking important turnings of the agricultural year. Such as May Day / prom, midsummer having always been a time for tremendous celebrations involving fire, various European peoples that had their year end right about the time of year our high schools celebrate Homecoming, Halloween and the Saturnalia – there’s a wealth of evidence I can’t do more than hint at here. As well as quite a bit of evidence regarding the specific story of Jesus and its roots in Hebrew traditions – traditions which were echoed in multiple other societies at the time, such that it becomes clear just why the story of Jesus actually did appeal to so many people so quickly once someone made the claim that he was, finally, the real thing.

        Anyway this is for Frazer to make the point that the Christian religion drew a great deal of its power from how it incorporated and exemplified things that were subconsciously part of everyone’s existence and had been for ages. Except of course that

        3) we’re not in the agricultural age anymore. We’re not in a society where the success of the village crops is absolutely critical to the existence of everyone you know. We’re not in a society where we fear our sins hanging around the village like malevolent ghosts, sucking the life out of the ground, and necessitating a real-true-belief Halloween pacification or some other mechanism – like perhaps a ritual scapegoat, which is the whole entire founding point of the Christian religion; JESUS DIED FOR YOUR SINS – of getting rid of them, so the crops will grow and we won’t starve this year. We KNOW we won’t starve this year. Or next, or the year after. Maybe we have to work a shitty job at Walmart and live in a roach-infested apartment and watch dumb crap on TV. This are not the concerns of the agricultural societies to whom death and resurrection, and the devastating unpredictability of the future, were a constant oppression. We’re in an age of science and engineering, in some ways a return to the sorceror’s mindset, except with a better understanding of the processes – and a poorer understanding of our own psychology.

        Frazer talks a fair amount about how many customs even in his day were mere empty holdovers from the past, when they actually meant something; that things people once held in deadly serious had become amusements for kids, who knew nothing about what it had once meant. Compare today’s prom queens to the Queens of the May that every village in Europe used to crown, and you’ll see what he’s getting at. The Industrial Revolution has changed us, and even with a century more of data since he wrote, we’re still only dimly perceiving the consequences.

        • peppermint says:

          tl;dr

        • peppermint says:

          the defining mistake of the 20c was dividing the world not as living branches of the tree of life but as gradations of caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid, and as primitive man, semi-civilized man, and civilized man, which is how Progressives rejected first Aryanism which they called Nordicism and then race entirely to fight the Class Struggle between Civilized Man and the Feudal Overlords.

          • peppermint says:

            MPC thinks the problem with cities is atomization, this is literally the ideology of atomization, as argued by early 20c cosmopolitans against rural boorish pagans who saw themselves not as Civilized Man, singular or mass noun, but civilized men with a particular history, present, and future, a living branch of the tree of life.

            Teddy Roosevelt tried to denounce hyphenated Americans because it hollows out the word American. Now the government sees itself as the government of the Proposition Nation of Civilized Man.

        • Garr says:

          We still need gods. This isn’t just a social need, it’s a personal need.

  4. Rollory says:

    Another possible approach in terms of societal structure and behavior would be that of the Valorian Society:

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/seven_points_of_agreement_between_individuals/

    In the real-world implementation the Valorians experimented with, they replaced the punishment of death with simple permanent exclusion from the group, and claimed that worked quite well.

    I have no particular changes to make to the comments I made at the time that was posted. I’ll note that point 2 is likeliest to raise objections here, and I criticized it at the time; James Bowery responded with

    “Correct, Rollory. The question is whether civilization can be made eugenic rather than dysgenic. Clearly the “woman’s choice” civilization that provides state protection of women invites all manner of subversion of healthy sexuality. In an individual sovereignty culture a woman’s choice has far reaching consequences for her without the state as sovereign.”

    This seems a rather hopeful attitude and I am not certain that evidence supports it, but certainly one would need to actually run the experiment to know.

    • jim says:

      The libertarian program proposed by the Valorian society abolishes marriage and the family.

      Mighty harsh.

  5. With the thoughts you'd be thinking says:

    Would the canon law of the Church of England of 1604 be useful? Marriage in England was determined by canon law until the Marriage act 1753.

    https://www.anglican.net/doctrines/1604-canon-law/

    Also found scanned bonds from Warren County Kentucky from 1797-1939
    https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com.au/&httpsredir=1&article=1586&context=dlsc_mss_fin_aid

    • jim says:

      The second link, the link to the bonds, does not work for me. Also, I want data that is as close to 1660 as possible.

      The Anglicanism of 1600 died, devoured by Puritanism. Puritanism was arguably good, but it rapidly mutated into a holiness spiral that developed suspicious resemblance to an unholiness spiral.

      The Anglicanism of Charles the Second purported to be a restoration of the Old Anglicanism, and in substantial part it was, but it is clear it was considerably healthier.

      Marriage in England was determined by canon law until the Marriage act 1753.

      Something important happened in 1660, and it is hard to find out what it was. 1660, and around 1860, is when marriage changed, not 1753

  6. Johan Schmidt says:

    http://www.ancestry.co.uk offers a 14-day free trial and purports to have hundreds of these. See for instance the collection “London and Surrey, England, Marriage Bonds and Allegations, 1597-1921”. Might be worth a look.

  7. Mike in Boston says:

    Perhaps not directly helpful, but the familysearch.org website has a descriptive page on marriage bonds at https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Marriage_Allegations,_Bonds_and_Licences_in_England_and_Wales , at the bottom of which are links to three individual collections. The majority of the early 1600s pages I viewed are entirely handwritten; by the late 1600s, the bulk of the text is pre-printed, and individual names, dates, places, etc., are written in by hand.

  8. Glenfilthie says:

    I think you’ll see Christianity re-assert itself the second that the free money for stupid people is cut off. The blacks will be the first to repent.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      >The blacks will be the first to repent.

      Oh, definitely. They’re such a wise and spiritual people. I know this from all the Hollywood movies I’ve seen.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        Errr… that was a stupid comment, wasn’t it? The blacks are far more likely to return to monkey gods…

  9. vxxc2014 says:

    Jim,

    We need to steal from American History.
    At most English History.
    Wiser yet Scot-Irish history esp here…

    But we can’t steal from Chinese or Singapore history-because we are none of them and neither of them.

    >this presumes we’d want to steal from Chinese history [NO]
    > also presumes we could function like a Chinese run it City State called Singapore [again no]. In fact Singapore will be lucky to keep running with Lew dead.

    • jim says:

      I plan to revive 1780 Anglican marriage, not 2008 Timor Leste Roman Catholic marriage. But we need to look at existing working systems in order to guide our revival of dead English working systems.

  10. Aldo says:

    Off-topic, here’s an amusing post on the Woman with a Nigger:

    https://ia801505.us.archive.org/16/items/WomenAndNiggers/Women%20And%20Niggers.png

  11. […] opens up the week with a request for research assistance. Specifically, information on how the state religion of Charles II handled courtship and […]

Leave a Reply