Science and Christianity

You always have a state religion. If your state religion is easily falsified by the empirical facts of this world, then your state religion is going to be inherently hostile to science, technology, and industry.

So, if your state religion proclaims

“all men are created equal”,

you have a problem.

And not long after that, your state religion is proclaiming all sorts of remarkable things, most recently Global Anthropogenic Catastrophic Warming. Regardless of whether this doctrine is true or false it is not a scientific doctrine for to doubt is sin, to be in favor of higher CO2 or warmer temperatures, even if you live in Alaska, is sin.

You should not confuse real science, the science of the Royal society from 1660 to 1945, with the post 1945 peer review “science” of Harvard, which has murdered science, gutted its corpse, and wears its gutted corpse as a skin suit.

The key lights of the early Royal Society were deeply Christian and opposed to the enlightenment. Science rested on a commitment to truth that was rooted in aristocratic and elitist Christianity, a value system whose elitism and aristocracy ran fundamentally contrary to the enlightenment, and whose Christianity ran fundamentally contrary to the enlightenment.

Science was possible because a gentleman and a nobleman should speak the truth, and because truth speaking was a sign of being a gentleman or a noble.

Compare and contrast with the Harvard self esteem culture, where speaking the truth shows you are a deplorable and an oppresser of the holy masses.

Judaism is inimical to science. Orthodox Jews don’t do science or technology. Judeo Christianity did not do science and technology. Christianity did science and technology. Not the enlightenment, and not Jews.

Progressivism and progressive Judaism is not inimical to science on an individual level. Individual progressives and individual progressive Jews individually do lots of good science, but their collective behavior is inimical and hostile to science and the scientific method, rewarding unscientific and antiscientific behavior, because progressivism rejects truth speaking. Atheist Jews do lots of good science, a quite disproportionate amount, and usually support the scientific method (not counting progressives as atheists, because they believe in “the arc of history), but the trouble with their atheism is that they don’t have a moral basis to defend the behavior on which the scientific method depends, and so their defenses of the scientific method address the individual, rather than the scientific community. They are disarmed before progressives, who do have a moral basis for attacking science and the scientific method, who attack it as hurtful to oppressed holy victim groups and damaging to the earth.

The proposition that our society is not religious is obviously false. The solution is to replace a state religion which has equality as its key belief, with a state religion whose key beliefs are less easily falsified by empirical data about the world.

Take Christianity, reinterpret away young earth creationism as a parable about early humans getting black pilled, and we have a religion far more resistant to empirical falsification by the facts of this world than progressivism, a state religion far more compatible with reason, science, technology, and industrialization than our current state religion.

Fortunately the Church fathers were already onto the job, sixteen hundred years ago.

Origen, writing about two hundred years after the crucifixion, tells us in no uncertain terms in Book Four of “The Principiis” that the young earth account of creation is to be understood spiritually, not literally:

let us examine the passages of Scripture. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars — the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how anyone can go out from it. But not to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having rea­sonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the king­doms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with atten­tion, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted his­torically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.

And Augustine similarly tells us that the Bible is not a science textbook, and if you argue scientific facts on the basis of biblical authority, you are an idiot. Three hundred and seventy years after the crucifixion, and twelve hundred and sixty years before science and the scientific method was granted the prestige and authority it came to possess and had the success it came to have, he tells us that religion needs to stay out of matters in which science has its proper magistry – something that the enlightenment is in its arrogance and violence conspicuously and spectacularly fails to do.

Compare and contrast with the enlightenment. Irrespective of whether the left position on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is true or false, it crushes science and replaces it with holy rolling and the persecution of dissent. Global Warming is sin. Being in favor of Global Warming is like being in favor of adultery.

Saint Augustine took various self contradictory positions on the book of Genesis, but in his final work on the topic, “the confessions” holds it to be allegorical and to contain a multitude of spiritual meanings. Fourteen hundred years before Darwin, Saint Augustine points towards Darwin’s program:

In the beginning were created only the germs or causes of the forms of life, which were afterwards to be developed in gradual course.’

This account (which is to say Darwin’s account) is, according to Saint Augustine, the “literal” meaning of Genesis, which is not very literal at all.

The proper magistry of science in religion is, for example, to confirm the doctrine of the fall with evolutionary psychology, that risen killer apes will have the human nature described in the book of Genesis. The proper magistry of religion in science is, for example, the moral character of the scientific method – that scientists are obligated to speak the truth, and use methods of evidence and argument likely to lead to the truth. And if they fail to do so (as for example in global warming science, vegetable oils, and so forth) then those scientists are sinful. Sin is within the proper magistry of the state religion.

In the argument on animal fats, and the argument on Global Warming, scientists, instead of employing the scientific method, politiced to add their doctrines to the official state religion. This should be heresy, and heretics should be denied state and quasi state employment – not heresy in claiming Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is true, nor heresy in denying that it is true, but heresy in adding either doctrine to the state religion.

Unapprove | Reply | Quick Edit | Edit | History | Spam | Trash

266 Responses to “Science and Christianity”

  1. […] Science and Christianity […]

  2. Slumlord says:

    Righteous post.

    • j says:

      You are ignorant and think stereotypes. Orthodox Jews are over-represented in science, even among Nobel Prize winners. For example, Daniel Kahneman.

      • jim says:

        If you come up with a psychiatrist for your orthodox Jew scientist, you are hard up for examples.

        Daniel Kahneman is a psychologist. Psychiatry is not science. It is bullshit, and Jews are overrepresented among bullshitters, lawyers, and conmen (though, of course, under represented among murderers, robbers, etc)

        He got the economics noble prize. Microeconomics is not bullshit, it is indeed a science. Macroeconomics is bullshit and lots of related subfields of economics are bullshit.

        Plenty of atheist and progressive Jews in the real sciences, the hard sciences – Feynman and Einstein being the most famous examples, though Jews tend to theoretical science, and are seriously underrepresented when it comes to empirical science, hands on stuff, underrepresented when they need to get their hands dirty.

        On checking his work, I find he got a Noble prize for telling our rulers what they wanted to believe – which is stereotypical of Jews through the ages – or rather stereotypical of Jews since the exile starting with Josephus.

  3. The Cominator says:

    You cannot really impose a new state religion without being in a position of personal power (and I mean life and death personal power). The new state religion after the current one falls will in the end mostly be the decision of one man.

    What can be done gradually is make the current one untenable. The USSR fell because nobody believed in Marxist Leninism anymore by the time of the Breznev era (even if a fairly large % of Russia has Soviet nostalgia now that doesn’t mean they believed in building the new Soviet man). When everyone lost faith the clock was ticking on the Soviet system.

    We have to make the current political religion an object of mockery with everyone. Milo with his dangerous faggot tour had the right idea. Charlottesville was the wrong idea.

    The big obstacles to this are

    1) Single women who are stupid and politically conformist enough to actually believe in it.

    2) The cuck part of the political right. Hard to make the Cathedral’s equality religion an object of utter mockery when its theoretical opposition is reiterating its premises.

    Minorities are not really a problem since black and hispanic men at least probably believe in the religion less then white people do (they are aligned with the Dems entirely out of patronage and scare propaganda).

    • TBeholder says:

      What can be done gradually is make the current one untenable. The USSR fell because nobody believed in Marxist Leninism anymore by the time of the Breznev era (even if a fairly large % of Russia has Soviet nostalgia now that doesn’t mean they believed in building the new Soviet man). When everyone lost faith the clock was ticking on the Soviet system.

      It’s a fairy tale. The belief in Marxist drivel (with exception of a few morons) never was a mass phenomenon.
      People who could run did so from the very early stages. See also: the PoW from Red Army joining the Finns back in the Winter War. And that’s after Red Terror turned on those who drove it and the worst lunatics were declared heretics and killed off.
      Then again, the real government then was composed of the people using in their own circle the term “educated Marxist” for “bird-brained parrot good only for show” (q.v.: Bazhanov).
      The only significant real belief was that the reddening is “historical inevitability” or at very least a Leviathan of unstoppable doom wave. Once this belief crumbled, everything crumbled with it (see also: Blitzkrieg and mass surrenders).

      • jim says:

        Until about 1936, the Soviet elite did believe.

        But you are right. From 1936 to the fall of the wall is not “quickly”

        • The Cominator says:

          Pre Stalin really gaining control (in about 1936 as you say) they really believed (except Bukarin) after Stalin until some time in the 60s they believed in a sort of Marxism with Russian characteristics.

          By the time of the Brezhnev era they had those jokes Reagan told in his speeches and you could probably tell them at KGB headquarters.

          • The Cominator says:

            “It’s a fairy tale. The belief in Marxist drivel (with exception of a few morons) never was a mass phenomenon.”

            Of course it never was a mass phenomenom hence the rather random nature of the various purges (since the regime couldn’t really effectively sort out its enemies as almost everyone was) but it was in the Brezhev era when people could start joking “there is no God thats okay there are no potatos”.

            The true believing morons (what few were left) such as they were became an object of ridicule instead of terror in the Brezhev era.

            And as I said to accomplish this with our own equality religion… Milo had the right idea and Charlottesville is the wrong idea.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          The fact that Stalin wrote comments in the margins of Lysenko’s papers mocking his ideological science is usually interpreted as proof of Stalin’s sadism. But probably it means Lysenko was backed by people who were, if not more powerful than Stalin, at least powerful enough to win some major concessions. Lysenko wasn’t fired until 1962, almost a decade after Stalin died.

          • The Cominator says:

            Stalin’s was a weak dictator prior to WWII (and prior to around 1936 not one at all) but after WWII Stalin could have easily purged him but he did not.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              Stalin was able to purge Zhukov, but that does not mean much. Can Trump purge Michael Mann just because he could fire McMaster? McMaster was a general while Michael Mann is just some noodled armed academic, but that is not how it works.

      • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

        The belief in Marxist drivel, before Marx: “Neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.” Acts 4:32

        As Ludwig von Mises observed on page 413 of his text entitled Socialism, “Christianity is Bolshevism.”

        • jim says:

          Paul, however, tells us that this was a really bad idea, so, like the Puritans, they wised up.

          • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

            “Really bad ideas” in the Bible, eh? I concur with you, Jim!

            What do you think of Le Merchant’s afterlife cult that demands we filthy Goyim bitches (Matthew 15:21-28) abandon blood and soil (Luke 14:26, Matthew 19:27-30) and pay Le Merchant for a chance at a fantasy afterlife (Romans 15:27)?

            Really bad ideas too?

            Wise up!

        • Mises Reader says:

          The Mises quote is a misleading excerpt. The actual quote reads as follows (p. 416): “The clearest modern parallel to the attitude of complete negation of primitive Christianity is Bolshevism.” https://mises.org/library/socialism-economic-and-sociological-analysis

    • peppermint says:

      The prestige of the Enlightenment rested on the Classics, which are no longer taught to anyone since everyone is funneled into where they were taught and anyway they are racist sexist transphobic. Consequently, no one seriously tries to scan poetry in English as if it was syllable-timed like Classical languages.

      Because the Enlightenment has taken a dump where it eats souls, the current leaders of major progressive organizations are either very old or morons. Consequently they are unable to recognize heresy unless it is as blatant as Charlottesville, let alone deal with it effectively, instead handing us our best people as disgruntled as possible.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      Progressivism merely parasitizes on the moral instinct of men. They don’t bother even trying to define any morality but just go straight to shaming and exclusion, i.e., the punishment stage. Indeed, not writing it down makes it the more convenient as a tool.

      (Though one could argue that prog morality is to an extent encoded in bureaucratic guidance of various sorts, subject to continuous evolution and modification, of course.)

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        Here is a related example which I found after searching for the popular IYI slogan “strong beliefs weakly held” (which, in essence, means manage your beliefs like you’re in ‘1984’ and which possibly serves as the basis for the moralfluid community). Written, to boot, in this terrible melange of algorithm-inspired autism and kindergarten teacher-tyrant condescending naivism which has emerged from vulgar computer science and a myriad of conferences with codes of conduct. You will just have to suffer.

        https://lisacharlotterost.github.io/2017/05/07/why-do-we-not-believe-in-facts/

        (“Code of conduct? Based on what?”)

        • Dan Kurt says:

          She goes off the rails at the beginning accepting the 97% of “scientists” nonsense.

          Dan Kurt

    • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

      The Cuck Part:

      “His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant.” (((Matthew 1:18)))

      Christianity can’t get past the first chapter of the New Jew Testament without shoving cuckoldry down mens’ throat.

  4. some guy says:

    noice. glad to have helped

  5. Doug Smythe says:

    In a proper State religion, the personnel we usually refer to as “scientists” aren’t in any sort of position to add or subtract anything from the official religion in any case. A big part of the problem that we have now is that self-promoting charlatans from the weather bureau or whatnot can weigh on matters of doctrine on their own initiative just because they call themselves “scientists” and claim to possess some sort of empirical finding. Theology will have to be restored to its proper place as “queen of the sciences”, and everyone made to know that official theology cannot be falsified because of something a meteorologist or other mere technician has to say or specialist has to say; that any merely empirical finding that appears to contradict official theology is self-evidently either false or misconstrued in its implications; and that if any such findings do have doctrinal implications, it’s strictly up to the Church to determine what they are, not the technicians.

    • The Cominator says:

      The problem we have now is that “progressive theology” IS considered the queen of the sciences.

      We need a different state religion, but I think theology has too much prestige its just not the kind of theology you are thinking of.

      • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

        Progressive theology is the same old-timey religion of Act 13:1, which elevated a Nigger into a position of leadership.

        Progressive theology contains the same old-timey Commission to shove globalism down the throats of All Nations. Matthew 28:19.

        Progressive theology demands the same old-timey Rejection of your own blood and soil (((Jesus))) required in Luke 14:26, Matthew 19:27-30.

        Progressive theology bitterly clings to the old-timey “common property” economic model of Acts 4:32.

        Progressive theology implores old-timey values like hating your own life (John 12:25) and loving your enemy’s life. (Matthew 5:43-46)

        Progressive theology despises the strong and successful as much as (((Jesus.))) Luke 6:24, Matthew 19:21-24, Mark 10:21-25, Luke 12:13-21, 16:19-31, 18:22-25

        Progressive theology curses natural fertility as much as (((Jesus))) did in the good old days. Matthew 24:19, Mark 13:17, Luke 21:23, Luke 23:29

        Progressive theology elevates sterile androgyny to old-timey heavenly status. So angelic! Matthew 22:30

        What exactly has changed?

        • The Cominator says:

          Not really interested in debating with people who put Jesus in “echoes” bit I’ll indulge.

          Unironic National Socialism won’t happen and its not the way.

          Religion also abhors a vacuum (at least with everyone except Asians who can do okay with philosophical religions with ancestor worship tacked on) no matter how much you want religion to just go away.

          Christianity has various interpretations. Prior to the 19th century the progressive interpretation was considered the Pelagian heresy by Orthodox, Protestants and Catholics alike.

          • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

            > Unironic National Socialism won’t happen

            It already did happen, if you insist on interpreting the Fasces in the Senate and the United States Dime and other US symbols as “National Socialism.”

            infogalactic.com/info/Fasces#Fasces_in_the_United_States

            Are you anti-fa?

          • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

            If (((Jesus))) doesn’t go in echoes, what do you reckon he was, Swedish?

            Dodge this.

            “JEWS FIRST” -Romans 1:16

          • peppermint says:

            So how do you think Transcendentalism happened?

            Churches were taken over from the seminaries, which were controlled by academics, who are evil and must die.

            • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

              Academics, like “teachers?”

              “Jesus…Rabbi (which means Teacher)…” -John 1:38

              Per your wish, they already put him to death.

              • peppermint says:

                you’ve taken the red pill that progressives control the default interpretation of scripture and the churches.

                which raises the question, why did the christianity of the men who built this country become progressivism in the 20c?

                the problem was academics, who virtue signaled that they were 110% committed to doing good things all the time which is how you know they’re Elect, then that all people everywhere, including the noble savages, are inherently good, except for you because you think only the baptized are inherently good, then that everyone has the same calling to God expressed differently and a witch doctor who believes is better than you, then that actually god doesn’t exist but everyone is just trying to get along except you’re hateful and don’t share.

                the problem is the very nature of the university as an institution. you can’t gather a bunch of people and tell them they’ll be ranked on how smart they all look and expect them not to come up with some evil schemes.

              • jim says:

                The Rabbis were engaged in a holiness spiral that in due course got most of them killed. Jesus called out their holiness signaling spiral, and prophesied it was likely to get a lot of people killed.

                So yes, very much like the present day.

                • TJ's Ghost says:

                  “Rabbis engaged in a holiness spiral that got most of them killed” describes the Jesus character’s behavior to a tee.

                  The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. (((John 2:19)))

                  There is not a better descriptor of a holiness spiral and its consequences than that phrase.

  6. some guy says:

    The proposition that our society is not religious is obviously false.

    I think that what our society actually is, is “spiritual, but not religious.” the difference between the two is formality. Much like how moldbug would prefer if we just made the actual power structure in the US formal, so that everyone knows where we stand, I would prefer if we made the spiritual morality that you call the “state religion” into something formal, since in formalizing, it would become clear, and more-or-less static. Formalization is, in my mind, one of the ways to stop the purity spiral.

  7. Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

    Galatians 3:28 states that Nigger believers—e.g., Simeon the Nigger (Acts 13:1) or the feminized Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-40)—and White believers are magically equivalent via “Jews First” (Romans 16:1) magic.

    Enlightenment says they’re not:

    Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites, ten thousand recollections by the blacks of the injuries they have sustained, new provocations, THE REAL DISTINCTIONS WHICH NATURE HAS MADE, and many other circumstances will divide us into parties and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginny)

    “Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.” (TJ’s Autobiography)

    Fact: Enlightenment predicted RAHOWA.

    • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

      Now that I’ve countered Jim’s (and progressives’) mis-interpretation of Jefferson’s phrase “all men are created equal,” let’s discover what it means.

      It was a political provocation against hereditary monarchy.

      “The Declaration’s claim that all men are created equal was, in a world where monarchs and aristocrats held political power by birthright, a political provocation.”
      http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/jefferson-locke-and-the-declaration-of-independence/

      And as history abundantly shows, hereditary monarchy doesn’t work, because of dysgenics. Men must rise to leadership by their strength, not entitlement. Either combat or voting among the male fasces of the “militia” is the best way to get good genetics into leadership. If you don’t think it works, I offer the God Emperor as an example of how the individual White Males bound together into a collective Fasces still does work, even though the system labors in an extremely corrupted form, and may soon fail.

      • Samuel Skinner says:

        Combat leads to the Roman Empire where constant fighting whenever the old leader dies in the norm. This eventually leads to China where the military sucks because no ruler wants to have one that can overthrow them (and they know it is a possibility since every previous ruler fell that way).

        Voting leads to leftism. It lead to leftism reliably in ancient Greece and will even more reliably lead to it in modern times.

        “I offer the God Emperor as an example of how the individual White Males bound together into a collective Fasces still does work,”

        Trump won because he convinced the lake states that he would bring back their jobs; this gave him the electoral votes he needed to win. His path to victory was mapped out over a decade ago by Steve Sailor.

        • John Sterne says:

          if voting a representation of actual power leftism does not ensue.elites using the power of people against other elites doesn’t just happen in democracy the capable men of any nation are owners of a certain amount of power through their economic utility and violent capability.They more dispersed and are so less organized than elites so they only exercise that power when cheated very badly. The solution is not to cheat them but its tempting to cheat them because they are not organized. democracy helped this but then some elites gave vote to their niggers and wives and kids capable white men did not mob for nigger voting elites pushed it through like they do immigration in spite of what the capable white man votes. aristocracy doesnt solve this. white men demonstrating that niggers and women and children dont have any real power and so their potemkin votes are shit is the solution but white men hate to lose their shit and wreck things. before jews and niggers and women their was the jews religion of cucktianity to cuck a white cucks brain to do stupid shit like take a perfectly reasonable thought like all white men are not necessarily inherently unequal to the offspring of some inbred mad king to mean niggers women and children are equal to capable white men.

      • peppermint says:

        hereditary monarchy would work provided that the king must marry a noble woman of the nation. By the time the system of monarchies in Europe was abolished, they were all bastardized with jew and muslim blood, and didn’t represent their peoples.

        All the top nobles staging a tournament would also work.

        The function of the king is not to personally make all the decisions. It is to be the top guy that no one can ever challenge, so everyone knows their place, and no one has to fight over position instead of serving the nation. The prime minister is probably the guy with the ideas – but if parliament takes formal power from the king, the prime minister becomes a captive of intellectual fashion and incapable of long term strategy for anything but political intrigue.

    • jim says:

      Jew and Greek, man and woman, are equivalent in the next world, not this. Are equally in the image of God.

      Progressivism immanentizes the eschaton, attempting to implement the next world in this one. That is its great heresy and its great delusion, which cannot be blamed on Christianity.

      Men not created equal. Those who accept Christ are equally sons of God, and are equally rewarded in the next world, not this.

      The enlightenment did not predict that granting equality to blacks would necessarily result in race war. Jefferson, making an unprincipled exception to the enlightenment, predicted that granting equality to blacks would necessarily result in race war.

      • John Sterne says:

        JUST STOP IT JIM
        All religion is and christian jew religion particularly is, an invitation to cuckery. Of course they are going to attempt to immanentize the eschaton its the first rule of magic have you never read the Golden Bough

        • jim says:

          You defend the heretical religion derived from “Jew Religion”, and reject and demonize the western civilization that brought us Science, the Joint Stock Corporation for profit, technology, industraliazation, and conquered the world, because it oppressed women in a manner that you associate with middle easterners.

          • John Sterne says:

            No Jim what happens is in your quest for bombastic highs you make ridiculous claims that just go so far the other way to make us all look like idiots an force someone to say hey there’s a point of diminishing return. Maybe i just dont get you anymore you just dont seem to be a serious person the past couple years. our fucking world is actually burning down we are all going to die and you’re larping to the resentments of basement dwellers in search of a father.
            Im totally on board with women assuming or being put back into their proper biological place whites have until my lifetime always had this without having to resort to afghan for advice. My mother wore a veil to mass. My women do the housework etc. But to bring all that back on a mass scale you have huge problems that go way beyond burning some commie jewesses books.
            seriously jim youre about my age and a celt so Im guessing if you have like me always been a conservative and a trad you fought the good fight against V2 and all the rest you were raised to revere west civ and have a sentimental attachment to the church or a church if youre a prot but while i may have defended the faith i never actually believed it and neither do you its now hopelessly cucked we can now see and discuss how and why and it shouldnt be controversial that the left won we are post religious yeah we can blame jefferson fine but that was a good thing.If jefferson really meant niggers were created equal because god said so or i can tell by looking at them then he was an idiot but we both know that wasn’t so so to conflate the entire enlightenment with what jews did to it is pretty weak tea. If you want to pull back a few notches and discuss how universalism was a wrong intellectual turn for the enlightenment or white philosophy well yeah and there were [plenty of white philosophers who said so we all can see the quintessential enlightenment man Jordan Peterson is about to hit a brick wall on exactly this misinterpretation of jefferson Maybe Im wrong im a steam fitter not a college prof jim but my impression is jefferson would laugh at petersons naivete and crazy thinking. But why are we in this intelectual mess because the devils in the details if we have learned anything in the 200 years since is shit is way more complex than we think lorenz lorenz lorenz. youre proposing to solve west civ with a fucking blog post and not even a serioius one. come on you used to be better than that you can be the viking professor but then you got to aim smaller at the scale yourew bezerking its just chaos

            • jim says:

              > Im totally on board with women assuming or being put back into their proper biological place whites have until my lifetime always had this without having to resort to afghan for advic

              For advice you should resort to the civilization that conquered the world, that created the Joint Stock profit oriented coorporation, that created science, technology and industrialization.

              And that civilization used measures that would have made the Taliban blush.

              When (the equivalent of) Moll Flanders showed up on the shores of Port Jackson, disembarking from ship Britannica, they fixed her problem mighty quick.

              • The Cominator says:

                Jim I have to ask?

                I think a realistic portrayal of how bad women got dealt with in the 18th century was Moll Flanders (even if her character was not realistic).

                Now England in the 18th century was very harsh on crime and didn’t coddle fallen women but I don’t see that there was any Taliban like moral enforcement structure. Its just that father’s and husbands were allowed to beat misbehaving wives and daughters and misbehaving wives and daughters could not go running to the state for help.

                There was no vice and virtue enforcement (Cromwell’s England had that briefly during the Major General’s period) no professional standing police force and women’s outfits at the time (corsets) are probably less modest then the tomboyish attire they wear today.

                So I don’t quite understand the comparison to the Taliban. English society from the time of the Restoration until after the Napoleanic wars rather disliked government morality enforcement, it reminded them of the very unpopular era of the Major Generals under Cromwell (and Cromwell being one of the smarter puritans recognized it was so unpopular he ended that in 3 years).

                • jim says:

                  > I think a realistic portrayal of how bad women got dealt with in the 18th century was Moll Flanders (even if her character was not realistic).

                  > Now England in the 18th century was very harsh on crime and didn’t coddle fallen women but I don’t see that there was any Taliban like moral enforcement structure.

                  Women could be, and frequently were, whipped for speaking back to their husbands, so I doubt they allowed to cheat on their husbands. The women who walked off the Brittanica into Port Jackson were generally shotgun married at high speed, sometimes within hours of getting off the boat, which implies some kind of Taliban like moral enforcement structure.

                  It is clear that chastity enforcement and marriage enforcement was normally left to the families, to the family of the woman till marriage, and the family of the husband after marriage, and in this sense, no “Taliban like enforcement structure”. They did not have a morals police, or indeed any police. But that does not make enforcement less severe, it makes it more severe, and when that familial enforcement failed, as at Port Jackson, a distinctly talibanic official state enforcement structure stepped into the gap.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “It is clear that chastity enforcement and marriage enforcement was normally left to the families, to the family of the woman till marriage, and the family of the husband after marriage, and in this sense, no “Taliban like enforcement structure”. They did not have a morals police, or indeed any police. But that does not make enforcement less severe, it makes it more severe, and when that familial enforcement failed, as at Port Jackson, a distinctly talibanic official state enforcement structure stepped into the gap.”

                  Good answer, I would say that Port Jackson was a penal colony. I’m not sure the state did much if the woman abandoned her husband/father AND managed to avoid being arrested for theft or something.

                • jim says:

                  Because it was penal colony, the state stepped into the role normally performed by fathers.

                  Which tells us what fathers did with daughters at that time.

                  And which also tells us that if fathers failed to perform their role, this was regarded as a problem that needed fixing. Maybe Moll Flanders could slip through the cracks, but if too many Moll Flanders slipped through too many cracks, state and society were willing to get off their asses and fix those cracks.

              • jay says:

                Why does Muslim Patriarchy fail so hard?

                • jim says:

                  Mohammed allowed himself to be manipulated by lecherous women, who wanted a system where they all marry the alpha male.

                  If you read the hadiths on the origin of the Muslim rules on modesty, marriage and the family, it is not a lecherous Mohammed plotting against his men to steal their women, it is lecherous women plotting to be stolen.

                  Mohammed steals someone’s wife, issues a rule that he not be tempted to do the same thing again, and other people should not do the same thing again. And then …

                  Muslim patriarchy fails because in theory easy polygyny (which leaves a lot of young military age men out in the cold) and easy divorce, which gives no security for women.

                  And because a relatively few males are the beneficiaries, it is fragile, and prone to feminism – the Saudis are not nearly as patriarchal as feminists complain – feminists attack weakness, not strength. They are full of indignation about college frats, oblivious to Somali rapeugees. That feminists complain about Saudi “patriarchy” should tell you that Saudi “patriarchy” resembles college frat “patriarchy”, while Somali rapeugee patriarchy is the real thing.

            • jim says:

              > My mother wore a veil to mass.

              And your sisters do not – nor will you make them.

              And if you get married and have an eight year old daughter, you will demand that forty year old men be stopped from fucking her, because you are not going to do a damned thing to stop her from fucking them. And if you did you would probable wind up with child protective services taking her away from you, your wife divorcing you, and you being hit with imputed alimony on the basis of what the judge thinks you might be able to earn.

          • The Cominator says:

            Why are so many White Nationalists White Knights?

            I think your (ie Jim’s) view of women IS a bit too extreme (since I don’t really see the 18th century legal status of women being like the Taliban’s, I think Moll Flanders is a rather accurate portrayal as to how wayward women and bastards were dealt with… ie something close to the libertarian solution).

            Giving them political rights or incentives to desert their husbands (which did NOT exist in the 18th century, a girl in the 18th century could run away from her husband… even if the law said she had to stay there was no police force to bring her back… but if she asked for poor relief after that they would tell her she had to go back to her husband) is a disaster though.

            • John Sterne says:

              Why are so many White Nationalists White Knights?

              Ide imagine its because the are cavaliers and also actual conservatives of blood and soil and white knighting is old timey, white men cultivate complex societies that allow them to live better lives, part of that is elevating all sorts of things to higher levels, our animals plants buildings and women are all much more evolved pampered complex ornamental etc than they need to be for jims afghan vision. Its also Im sure partly a status thing. and like all of the late stage success a civilization has its a two edged sword that leads to faggotry and away from the martial virtue society made the space.

              Im neither a WN or a WK. Just not letting jim and his pizzagate pals near my children. Dont want to live in a nation where some piece of shit pedo or cad can claim someone that belongs to me because i couldn’t keep them in my sight 24/7 If i want to train my hi-cog daughters to be good company for hi-cog husbands i cant do that in afghanistan, I need a high trust nation of decent white gentlemen. decent white gentlemen dont go around raping and beating children certainly they dont brag about it or contend that it the basis for civilization.

              why is it that the guys on here that are alphas and or that actually have women wives families oppose jims little larp while all the neckbeard losers cheer him on? You want women to treat you nicely to pay any attention to you at all learn some game and learn to be a man theres plenty of decent chicks out there even today.
              you want to larp a little islamic rape and pillage to get in touch with your inner neanderthal cowboy up go to war with the left I will allow you as many leftist women slaves as you can carry. But your not going to be allowed to build a society of rape and beating white mens children

              • The Cominator says:

                “Im neither a WN or a WK. Just not letting jim and his pizzagate pals near my children.”

                I don’t think Jim sacrifices children the way Podesta probably does and I think thats a pretty deadly insult…

                My position is more moderate then Jim’s but Jim is correct that the civilization can’t recover until their malignant influence is removed from public life. They can’t really be attracted to the mass of men (as opposed to a few rich men, celebrities and criminals) until men are made higher status then women.

                How can you be a reactionary and support a feminist age of consent law like 18? Women should be married off before then. I’m not saying it should be 10 (as Jim said once probably to stir up shit) but it should be set shortly after average puberty like say 14.

                “If i want to train my hi-cog daughters to be good company for hi-cog husbands i cant do that in afghanistan, I need a high trust nation of decent white gentlemen.”

                Take it from a literal sperg who learned a bit (not a virgin or neckbeard anymore)… the ONLY women who appreciate nice behaviour from men are fatherless girls (or girls who’s father died in early puberty).

                Girls with doting father’s are MORE attracted to assholes.

                • John Sterne says:

                  actually hes many many times used eight as the age you can fuck them and it wont be raped because theyre whores and he knows this personally from how many times girls that age have hit on him. so I have no problem going to the matt on that as for the possibility of him just being bombastic well this blog is full of pages of my imploring him to walk it back just a tad and clarify he did not mean what he said he never failed to double and triple down.

                  Of course we need women to resume their proper place in civilization i never specified an age. 14 is about a minimum its really the fathers choice and a man that takes what isnt his ought to be subject to afthwers decision death horsewhipping shotgun marriage whatever, if fathers dont fairly often kill these guys scumbags will rape 14 year olds in anticipation of being rewarded a child bride.
                  Yeah im not a sperg a bit of a path though and an alpha i could have written heartistes blog at 16 in fact i actually did write a pamphlet for friends back then. Look roisy speaks a lot of truth but like jim its more complex than he lets on. first what pisses me about jim is hes also a boomer so he like i remember the world before it was gone. your experience with how girls are today is skewed It would be like me saying millenial men are utter faggots and it really seems that way to me when i look around and compare it to the world i grew up in.leftism has changed us all for the worse.also not all women are the same HBD is a spectrum of trait distribution. Your observation about women seem way wrong and my numbers over 200. but like i said theyre not all the same if i had to give a formula that worked more time had not id say carrot and stick works best and gives an opportunity to see which way that particular girl responds. Id also say generally you don’t want a relationship with a girl that responds strongly to game. I also know this is true because i spoend half my life in a rural mountain state where kids get married at 16-19 and are mind blowingly good people from the perspective of a native newyorker. yeah modernity is working its way in slowly over the past 25 years i’ve been up there things have changed.But its nothing like what you guys see in the modern sub/urbia.

                  Theres no doubt we need a radical rebooting i just think jims gone off his meds or something and is wasting precious time.

                • jim says:

                  > actually hes many many times used eight as the age you can fuck them and it wont be raped

                  liar:

                  This does not in the slightest resemble anything I have ever said. It is almost the direct opposite of what I say with great regularity.

                  I say that we should prevent female sexual misconduct at any age by controlling females, rather than males, by guarding that which is precious, rather than which is cheap, which is the opposite of saying that female misconduct at age eight is fine. It is not fine, because females should marry as virgins, and should marry at fertile age.

                  because theyre whores and he knows this personally from how many times girls that age have hit on him.

                  I have always said that sex below fertile age is a sexual perversion, and that “rape” is meaningless at any age because women are incapable of making decisions without appropriate male guidance at any age.

                  I have also with great regularity said that it is unwise and evil to allow eight year old girls to fuck adult males, and we should stop allowing them to fuck adult men and that prohibiting adult men from fucking eight year old girls is an irrational displacement activity from what actually needs doing, which is prohibiting women of all ages from fucking men other than their husbands.

                  If eight year old girls are frequently whores, and they frequently are, this is a minor part of the massive problem the women of all ages are frequently whores, and this is the problem that needs fixing.

                  I have also often said that there is no fixed age at which women start to hit on men. It is highly variable. The age at which sexual interest starts is both substantially younger in females than males, and also much more variable in females and males, but the mean and median age at which sexual interest starts in females is around nine or ten, Disney Princess age, which is considerably below the mean and median age of menarche – that girls typically start hitting on males, normally much older males, at around Disney Princess age, but sometimes earlier, often much earlier.

                  In males there is a fixed connection between the onset of horniness, and physical maturation. Females don’t exactly get horny in the way that males do, but are nonetheless willing to crawl nine miles of broken glass to be with their demon lover, while males would be inclined to find some other chick that did not require crawling nine miles over broken glass. Onset of female inclination to find their demon lover (which is not the same kind of inclination as the male inclination to find a warm wet pussy) has no strong connection to physical maturity, sometimes sets in considerably later, sets in long after she has become capable of conceiving and bearing children, sometimes, often, astonishingly early, ridiculously early, long before fertile age.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “first what pisses me about jim is hes also a boomer so he like i remember the world before it was gone.”

                  The bad guys won long before the 1960s. I personally think they won in 1918 (Jim thinks it was Queen Caroline). The 1960s was just mopping up the last pockets of resistance.

                  Natural alphas tend to be more indulgent (on the macroscale) when it comes to female misbehaviour as they are spared the worst of it.

                  The taliban is not necessary, but the state cannot enable or back women against their husbands or their fathers either… down that road lies damnation.

                • jim says:

                  > Women should be married off before then. I’m not saying it should be 10 (as Jim said once

                  I have never said that women should be married at ten.

                  I said that shotgun marriage at age ten should be available as a remedy for sexual misconduct by young girls.

                  Normally women should be married shortly after the reach fertile age. Very early marriage should be a remedy for sexual misconduct, and sexual misconduct should be rare – though I invariably add that drastic means that we will find disturbing will be necessary to make early female sexual misconduct rare.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Contrary to somewhat common belief, women respond to incentives. If sexual foolishness at age 10 leads to marriage at 11, then women are apt to avoid sexual foolishness at 10.

              • jim says:

                If i want to train my hi-cog daughters to be good company for hi-cog husbands i cant do that in afghanistan, I need a high trust nation of decent white gentlemen

                Instead of attempting to control your daughters, you propose that we control every single male in the entire nation.

                Nah, you don’t really propose that, since it is obviously ludicrous. Rather, you figure that since you cannot stop your wife from fucking Jeremy Meeks, and you are not sure who fathered your daughters, you will let them fuck Jeremy Meeks also, and you are just making excuses for your unwillingness and inability to control women.

        • Nikolai says:

          Everyone who rejects Christianity for being too left wing is always far to the left of every major Christian denomination from 33 to the mid 1800s.

          It is not Christians who are cucked, it’s you

      • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

        > Are equally in the image of God.

        You have said it yourself.

        To weasel out of fully admitting it, you’re quibbling about timing, while you’ve swallowed the principle of equalism between races hook-line-and-sinker. And the globalist religion of Christianity is precisely why you believe that bullshit that races are equal, because Christianity’s first principle is that its fantasy afterlife is more important than objective biological reality on this world.

        Is Simeon the Nigger in Acts 13:1 your Christian “brother,” or not? If so, would you ship a “brother in Christ” back to Africa?

        • jim says:

          What makes Simeon a nigger?

          Progressivism is a heresy. Any heresy finds some hooks in the parent religion to hang its heresy on, but you are not pointing the the heresy in the Christianity, you are pointing to lines of text that the progressive heresy claims.

          • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

            Have you never read the Bible, Jim? Nigger is the term used in the King James Version. Except with a single “g,” as if that matters. Nigger is simply classical Greek/Latin for black, if you know the slightest about classical languages.

            Simeon that was called Niger Acts 13:1 KJV
            Simeon (called the black man) Acts 13:1 NLT

            Now answer that difficult question, instead of weaseling around it.

            Is Simeon the Nigger in Acts 13:1 your Christian “brother,” or not?

            If so, would you allow a Nigger Christian “brother” to have authority over you as one of the “prophets and teachers?”

  8. Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

    Jim’s proposal to “reinterpret away young earth creationism” reinterprets away the whole point of Christianity, salvation, which rests firmly on a literal interpretation of young earth creationism.

    “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Romans 5:19 (also see 1 Corinthians 15:22 and 1 Timothy 2:14)

    Or is Jesus a figurative character like Adam?

    Reinterpret away!

    • jim says:

      > Jim’s proposal to “reinterpret away young earth creationism” reinterprets away the whole point of Christianity, salvation, which rests firmly on a literal interpretation of young earth creationism.

      Origen disagrees, and Saint Augustine’s “literalism” sounds remarkably like Old Earth creationism plus Darwin’s evolution.

      Old Earth Creationism does not deny the fall, or nor necessarily even the literal existence of Adam – though it makes Adam the first Priest King of the priesthood of Yahweh and royal line of Melchizedek, rather than the first approximately human shaped creature.

      • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

        You and Origen disagree with St. Paul? That is hardly surprising, so did the authors of the Jesus character disagree with St. Paul.

        Jesus: “Call no man your father.”
        Paul: “You have only one spiritual father. For I became your father.”

        For where two or three Christians are gathered together in Jesus’ name, there shall be three or even four opinions in the midst of them.

        > Old Earth Creationism does not deny the fall, or nor necessarily even the literal existence of Adam

        Evolutionary biology, to which “old earth creationism” attempts to reconcile, definitively denies the literal existence of Adam, because Biology deals with the evolution of *populations,* and biology proves there was never a single Adam/Eve pair, but at the very least 2,250 individuals in an ““effective population size,” as Jerry Coyne shows:

        “…Adam and Eve couldn’t have been the literal ancestors of all humanity. Normally, such a scientific trashing of scripture could be absorbed, at least by liberal theologians. They’d just reinterpret Adam and Eve as metaphors. But that causes big trouble on two counts…” http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115759/adam-eve-theologians-try-reconcile-science-and-fail

        I’ll bet you can’t reconcile that big theological trouble on two counts.

        • jim says:

          There is no problem if there were other humans around so that the sons of Adam and Eve did not have to marry their sisters, nor the daughters of Adam and Eve have to marry their brothers. Which is implied by Saint Augustine’s interpretation of Genesis -that humans appeared by gradual development, with Adam being the start of the fully human story, when the first priest king first confronted the problem of good, evil, and obedience to God.

          • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

            There is no problem if there were other humans around—unless you believe in creationism. In whose image were those other humans made? Did any of them have a missing rib?

      • Alrenous says:

        By ‘first man’ Genesis clearly means something like ‘first Israelite’ or ‘first ingroup’. There were clearly many other sub-men, albeit still sexually compatible, with the first ‘man’ of Adam.

        First of all, they knew about inbreeding. Adam’s children weren’t going to marry each other. Second, why is Cain marked? There’s only three other people in the world according to the ‘literal’ translation. There’s no need for a mark, they all know what happened. Similarly, exiled to where? How is Cain supposed to survive, given that he’s been stripped of his farm? Etc etc?

        Literalism is retarded.

        There’s also the fact that Pandora’s Seed is the story of Eden, but you know, actually literal. Humans were all happy and frolicked in the wilderness and never had to suppress their instincts until population density got too high and they had to turn to farming, which sucked royally.

        • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

          Does Literalism remain retarded when it comes to literally believing in the resurrection narrative?

    • some guy says:

      For what reason is it necessary that the earth be 6,000 years old in order for mankind to need a savior? Jim is not proposing reinterpreting away the actual existence of a human man, who was also God, named Jesus in Palestine. He is actually not even proposing reinterpreting anything. Merely proposing returning to the old interpretations of Genesis, which were not literal, unlike the modern heresy of young earth creationism.

      • Alrenous says:

        >needs a saviour
        yup
        >none exists
        uh oh

      • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

        Because Paul made the young earth creation story about a single human breeding pair Adam and Eve infecting all of humanity with their original sin essential to the salvation narrative.

        Try answering biologist Jerry Coyne’s question about the Adam and Eve narrative in the following article, and you’ll begin to see the problem:

        The first raises the problem of how the transgressions of two people could infect the entire species. And what about those people outside the Middle East who were already on their own evolutionary path? How did original sin get to the Aztecs, Incas, and East Asians?

        The second scenario, which proposes that Adam and Eve could be “literary representations” (i.e., a made up couple) of an entire group of ancestors, also fails to explain how that whole group became afflicted with original sin.

        http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115759/adam-eve-theologians-try-reconcile-science-and-fail

        • jim says:

          If you go far enough back, we are all biologically descended in the male line from one man – who was probably King over his nation rather than the only approximately man shaped creature. And I don’t see that biological descent is essential to the story – we are doubtless all memetically descended from the first priest King.

          Adam might well correspond to, or be pretty close to, the male whose Y chromosome had the M91 mutation, the progenitor of haplogroup BT-M91. In which case, most civilized men, more or less, are descended from him in the male line, everyone is descended from him one way or another, and all farmers and pastoralists are memetically descended from him.

          • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

            Jim: “If you go far enough back, we are all biologically descended in the male line from one man”

            Can you really say that with a straight face Jim? You’re grasping at straws. But go ahead, cite your evidence.

            • jim says:

              Look up Y Chromosome Adam.

              Also look up haplogroup M91

              Everyone is descended in the male line from Y Chromosome Adam, and most pastoralists and agriculturalists are descended in the male line from M91. I would guess that M91 was, like Abraham, some big time cattle herder.

              • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

                Alright, I’ll look it up.

                “It is also clear that there was no single Adam and Eve…”

                Y-Chromosomal Adam Lived 208,300 Years Ago, Says New Study
                http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/science-y-chromosomal-adam-01709.html

                Can you even read, Jim?

                • jim says:

                  Why is this a problem, or even relevant to Paul’s statement?

                  You are finding some meaning in his Paul’s statement that may seem obvious to you, but is far from obvious to me.

                • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

                  “It is also clear that there was NO SINGLE ADAM…” -article on Y Chromosome Adam

                  “For just as through the disobedience of the ONE MAN the many were made sinners…” St. Paul, Romans 5:19

                  Still clueless, Jim? If you can’t sort out the relevancy, maybe your IQ is no higher than your shoe size.

            • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

              So now, two questions for you, the first you’ve left unanswered, the second new to your new ridiculous claim:

              1. Are you the brother of Christianty-believing Niggers, like Simeon the Nigger of Acts 13:1?

              2. How can you fault the Christian/Leftist/Globalist narrative that all men are equal brothers when you’re promoting the Christian/Leftist/Globalist claim that we’re all equal brothers?

              • jim says:

                What makes you suppose that Simeon is blacker than than Assad or Assad’s wife?

                That all men are equal brothers is not a Christian claim, nor do I support it.

                That all Christians who subscribe to the one true Christian Church are adoptive brothers is a Christian claim, but does not imply that all adoptive brothers are equal.

                • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

                  Jim: That all men are equal brothers is not a Christian claim, nor do I support it.

                  Jesus: “all of you are equal as brothers and sisters.” (((Matt. 23:8))) biblehub.com/matthew/23-8.htm

                  I suppose you could weasel out of what Jesus said by saying Jesus wasn’t a Christian! 🙂

                  “And hath made of one blood all nations of men…” Acts 17:26

                  Christianity is a globalist religion that relies on the “we all bleed red, man!” narrative of Acts 17:26.

                  Your weak attempts at denying the very clear teaching of the Jew Testament is just humorous now.

                • jim says:

                  Not seeing anything there about equality.

                  That all Christians (of the one true Church) are adoptively brethren is standard Christian theology. Always has been, always will be. That is Christianity.

                  That all men are equal is a completely different, unrelated, and in practice a hostile and heretical position.

                  Even the considerably weaker proposition that all Christians of the one true church are equal is also hostile heresy.

                  Christ is here teaching sola scriptura, but that is not how Christians have normally interpreted him – rather he is taking the sola scriptura position hyperbolically, as hyperbolic pushback against the notorious Jewish practice of over interpreting, re-interpreting, re-re-interpreting, and over-re-over-over-re-re-interpreting scripture.

                  One can conclude sola scriptura from this verse, and protestant Churches notoriously do, making every good Christian equally a priest, but even if that interpretation is valid, it does not imply that everyone is entitled to the same goodies in this world.

                • jim says:

                  > Jesus: “all of you are equal as brothers and sisters.” (((Matt. 23:8))) biblehub.com/matthew/23-8.htm

                  Some twenty first century commie made that shit up and attributed it to Jesus

                  King James Bible accurately and reasonably translates Jesus from the Greek as:”But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.”

                  Full context:

                  1. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
                  2. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
                  3. And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
                  4. And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
                  5. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
                  6. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
                  7. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
                  8. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
                  9. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
                  10. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
                  11. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
                  12. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
                  13. Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

                  In the context that he is winding up to curse the pharisees, the proposed translation, in addition to being plainly and unambiguously false to the Greek that it is supposedly a translation of, makes no sense.

                • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

                  “Not seeing?” Open your eyes and look.

                • jim says:

                  What am I supposed to be seeing? An invisible intangible pink unicorn?

                • TJ's Ghost says:

                  Why not? Unicorns are mentioned 9 times in the Bible. Do you not believe in them?

                • jim says:

                  All of the mentions of unicorns in the bible refer to them as mythical beasts and do not imply that they ever actually existed.

                  There are lots of things in the bible presented as fact, that are highly unlikely to be true. Unicorns are not one of them.

                • TJ's Ghost says:

                  Unicorns in the Bible aren’t real?

                  HERESY!

                  “To think of the biblical unicorn as a fantasy animal is to demean God’s Word, which is true in every detail.”
                  answersingenesis.org/extinct-animals/unicorns-in-the-bible/

                  BURN THE HERETIC!

                  🙂

                  Jim, try as you might to deny it, Christianity is a globalist religion that fantasizes it can make “brothers” of people of all races and nations to be “one.” (Gal.3:28KJV) Which means you’re one with the Nigger believers in Acts 8 and 13.

                  The Jewish salvation cult of Christianity was Detroitized before it got to first base.

                  An observation: your attempt to save civilization based on biblical apologetics is doomed. You’re one of the worst I’ve ever encountered, but quite typical of the average apologist, supposing bombast and repeating yourself is somehow an argument.

                  Actually, it’s worse than doomed. You’re sabotaging any attempt to divorce Europeans from globalism. Looking forward to carrying Jew water when you get to Jew heaven? You worship a foreign Jewish “King of Israel” (John 1:49) and pledge your allegiance to a foreign Jewish capital city. (Rev. 21:2)

                  When will your loyalty return to your own people, and you consider a White/European/Western capital city to be “holy?”

                • jim says:

                  > Which means you’re one with the Nigger believers in Acts 8 and 13.

                  Who are these “nigger believers” in Acts 8 and 13 and what leads you to call them “niggers”?

                  > your attempt to save civilization based on biblical apologetics is doomed

                  The civilization that conquered the world, that gave us the for-profit joint stock coporation, that made the scientific method high status and widely practiced, that gave us science, technology, and industrialization, was officially Christian with an officially enforced state Christianity, government enforced chastity, monogamy, and wifely obedience, and non believers excluded from state and quasi state office. If you wanted a statal or quasi statal job, you had to affirm the thirty nine articles and put up with the book of homilies.

                  Let us have some of what they were smoking.

                • glosoli says:

                  I admire Jims patience.

                  I’m skim reading the thread.

                  I’ll just mention that unicorns = rhinoceros.
                  Just google it.

                • jim says:

                  Makes sense: The biblical unicorn’s main characteristic is that it is immensely strong and dangerously aggressive. Sounds like a rhinoceros.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The thing is, in the 21st century, rhinoceroses barely exist either. Any time one gets shot, they create a new species (“the north-eastern black rhino”) and declare it extinct.

              • TJ's Ghost says:

                Jim, are you mentally retarded? You keep asking what makes the Nigger in Acts 13:1 a Nigger. I’ll explain again, for the third time, in simple terms. The Bible does. King James Version:

                Simeon called Niger Acts 13:1 KJV

                One g, two g’s, hard g, soft g, Niger/Nigger/Nigra is just Latin for black. Like this version says:

                Simeon (called “the black man”) Acts 13:1 NLT

                It’s a wonder you can even tie your shoes. But in all likelihood, your obtuseness probably feigned ignorance, used as a defense mechanism to avoid this reality:

                Niggers are your Brothers in a Jewish globalism cult founded by the Rabbi (((Jesus))).

        • jim says:

          > Because Paul made the young earth creation story about a single human breeding pair Adam and Eve infecting all of humanity with their original sin essential to the salvation narrative.

          Nothing in Paul’s account proposes infection by biological descent, and if infection was by biological descent, nothing in his account denies that there were other man shaped creatures around at the time, who married the sons and daughters of Adam.

          • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

            Jim: “Nothing in Paul’s account proposes infection by biological descent”

            Paul: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners.” Romans 5:19

            Looks like Jim and Paul disagree, again.

            • jim says:

              Where is Paul saying “made sinners by biological descent”?

              And, supposing he is saying “made sinners by biological descent”, where is he saying that the sons of Adam had no one to marry except the daughters of Adam?

              • TJ's Ghost says:

                Do you imagine you can weasel out of the most common Christian explanation of original sin because Paul didn’t specifically use the word “biological descent?” Here’s the first three search results on original sin that readily confirm how most Christians think of it, which is how I’m approaching the concept.

                Original sin, also called ancestral sin, … Because of his sin, his DESCENDENTS will live a mortal life, which will end in death of their bodies.
                en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

                Original sin deals with the Fall of Adam and the inheritance of the sin nature of Adam to all his DESCENDENTS. People are sinners by nature.
                carm.orghttps://carm.org/what-is-original-sin

                According to Christian tradition, Original sin describes the condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are HEREDITARILY born. christianity.wikia.comchristianity.wikia.com/wiki/Original_sin

                • jim says:

                  Fine. Still does not imply that the sons of Adam had no one to marry except the daughters of Adam.

                • peppermint says:

                  Because we know that it is ridiculous to define the first biological man because evolution happens with communities in which individuals compete for resources, biological descent and blame attaching to it is a metaphor for the sin of the first man to eat non-gluten-free, illustrating something new, that not only is the sin of a man who has a mutation to be scheming and greedy and capable of shameless lying and sexual depravity for its own sake likely to be continued in his line if he is permitted to reproduce, but the man who introduces and shapes institutions can so radically affect the children of those institutions that it’s almost the same thing.

                  Right now, our people are at the precipice of biological destruction due to the accumulated weight of the sins of our leaders, as the bibble says all famers are cursed with living differently from their forebears because of Adam’s sin. Millennials hate Boomers, but Millennials are like Boomers. GenZ, growing up with different institutions, is less like the Boomers.

                  Now, why isn’t that the default interpretation instead of Adam’s sin of property which is theft being redeemed through taking up the White man’s burden? Literalism is a conservative gambit where the conservative pleads that the liberal interpretation could be good but it isn’t literal. Literalism means rejecting liberalism but substituting nothing.

                • TJ's Ghost says:

                  Peppermint, if the first “one man” is a metaphor, then how fast do you have to flip flop to make the second “one man” not a metaphor in Romans 5:19?

                  For just as through the disobedience of the ONE MAN the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the ONE MAN the many will be made righteous.

                  Either young earth creationism (Adam) and salvation (Jesus) are both real, or they are both metaphorical.

                • jim says:

                  That Adam was one man does not imply that his sons had to marry his daughters, nor does it imply that Cain only had to worry about the opinion of only three other people.

                • TJ's Ghost says:

                  Jim keeps shoving the notion that the “one man” in Romans 5:19 does not actually mean “one man.”

                  Jim is a heretic.

                • jim says:

                  > Jim keeps shoving the notion that the “one man” in Romans 5:19 does not actually mean “one man.”

                  Liar

                • TJ's Ghost says:

                  Heretic

            • Roberto says:

              Is that your blog:

              https://chechar.wordpress.com

  9. John Sterne says:

    more utter bullshit from a lazy bombast.You want a simple answer, no thats not true you want to be the head of a little cult online. Go to any NRx website 85% of the links are dead the few that work are by invitation only. NRX squandered a decade on bombast like your rubbish and worshiping the jewbugs throwaway idea like monarchy by tech lords. Bow down yo jews like zuck over my dead body.
    The enlightenment and science were part and parcel they have both been right and wrong about a number of things both steered by the times they existed in both pozzd at this point, but the textbook definition of both is empiricism so technically when they are wrong they are wrong not a movement to enshrine wrongness. You know as well as i doo TJ didnt mean all men were his equal let alone his nigger slaves,he meant he never met a king he thought was his equal. By TJs time their were a lot of TJs feeling like oh I dont know say how moldberg or you feel when you look upon our own elites, or even how a lowly steamfitter like me feels when i look around at whos in charge. You want an aristocracy we have one enjoy. Oh you want to be the king of more than jims blog? yeah me too, At least i understand how you get there hint it isnt bloviating bullshit about 8 year old girls are whores and zuck should rule us whites.
    It doesnt matter what flavor of white civil organization youre sentimental about even wasting time arguing that when the reality is in a few decades we shall be hunted down like white south africans if we do not act now. None of the flavors can work in a multicultural nation and there is no way to undo the multicultural nation without some sort of war. the little faggots that worship you have never been inb so much as a fistfight few americans have been to war we can not even conceive of it as a possibility let alone embrace it it seems to us absolutely insane and anyone talking of it a fool. And yet its not different this time its the one and only way humans defend themselves and settle the power struggles. You can fight or you can be killed without fighting but in 30 years niggers will be taking your house and women thats a fact unless we go to war. One of the biggest things cowards lie to do is point out how a war can not be won, in fact thats exactly what the conservatives have done for 100 years. That said theres lots of ways to wage wars but calling for white islam is a pretty stupid way. While NRX has talked its way into the dustbin of history the alt right and light have grown i have little use for them either except to say they at least get we are in a real war not in a video game where fastest talker wins. so spare me the sneers about how the special forces will wipe out my band of white trash in the idaho mountains and start talking about what tactics could bring the cathedral down without allowing the chinese to takeover. you will never take over the cathedral with counter propaganda it might help build up people willing to fight a real war but the cathedral needs to be defeated to an extent that what non white remain post war national might can deport them all.Thats a total takeover of the entire USG empire. youre not blogging your way to that.no youre not getting there by a prepper militia either and i have never said that you guys think youre smart you think tech is on your side (its not its built by jews for darpa to keep you down goy) then stop jerking off to child porn and strt inventing the tools that can force the left out of power by force.
    Yeah it would help if you could figure out what your going to do besides evict the invaders but its clear NRX is not the group capable of that youre all too enthralled to moldbergs flattery and stupid ideas

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      ” but the textbook definition of both is empiricism so technically when they are wrong they are wrong not a movement to enshrine wrongness. ”

      From wiki

      The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy and came to advance ideals like liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state.

      “he meant he never met a king he thought was his equal.”

      Jefferson belonged to the political faction that sought to win election by importing voters. He was less competent then the average monarch.

      “You can fight or you can be killed without fighting but in 30 years niggers will be taking your house and women thats a fact unless we go to war. ”

      The white population of Rhodesia never exceeded 10%. Same with Haiti. You aren’t going to be killed by niggers unless other white people are working to have them exterminate you.

      • John Sterne says:

        SAM SAM Pick up thy musket man.

        Look you don’t need to tell me jefferson was in some sense a leftist revolutionary but whites like to improve things that’s why they call it progressivism. They actually think they have empirically found a better way. so pointing out where newer information proved them wrong is not an argument that either their intent was to make things worse or that they embrace irrationality. Just because we want to be edgy doesnt mean we can just insist the enlightenment was a movement that embraced superstition and irrationality. I mean seriously dude have you ever been to monticello? I mean if you want to even try this crap at least throw popper in there.and when you try and pull that leftist trick of looking at the 1700s in the 2000 frame jefferson was an exit ist. americanism was an exit moldbergs has addled your mind you are tied up in contradictions. You want to really get at the rub the question is was jefferson going to better lead or king george well look at the america/ british 500 year chart what do you see? You want to make the question was jeffersons demotism or georges monarchy the better solution to the disruptions of the age? well pull up the charts on democracies and non democracies over the same period hell better yet pull up the 3000 year chart and look at the european democratic highpoints and then overlay the GDP and achievement charts.Demotism and hierarchy by merit are european edges all other races do order by thuggery we do meritocracy by consent.because while its trickier the results speak for themselves less wasted human capital.
        Yeah of course any good idea can go too far its almost a given any idea that succeeds will certainly be pushed until its point of diminishing returns and beyond. Im not arguing for either end really just saying republicanism as jefferson imagined it worked well for a long time for good reasons. and frankly if my choice is to be ruled by jews as a first rate empire or be second tier autonomous im going for autonomy.

        “The white population of Rhodesia never exceeded 10%. Same with Haiti. You aren’t going to be killed by niggers unless other white people are working to have them exterminate you.”

        In my lifetime the white population of america has gone from 90% with 90% whites ruling to 60% with 50% jews ruling and 40% whites ruling.we now live in a nation where our own government daily identifies us as the enemy. If you cant extrapolate where this is going you just a cuckfag

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          ” so pointing out where newer information proved them wrong is not an argument that either their intent was to make things worse or that they embrace irrationality.”

          http://www.blackpast.org/primary/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery


          He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

          Thomas Jefferson was aware importing niggers was bad. He went ahead with importing foreigners for power anyway.

          “Just because we want to be edgy doesnt mean we can just insist the enlightenment was a movement that embraced superstition and irrationality.”

          Sure we can. The Enlightenment elevated reason above empiricism. The structure is the same as religion; don’t believe your lying eyes, your betters know what is best. The difference is religion defends tradition because it is based on it while ‘reason’ attacks it because that is how you signal rationality. People adopt crazier and crazier beliefs in order to out do one another and eventually tear down everything.

          “at the 1700s in the 2000 frame jefferson was an exit ist. ”

          Exitism is retarded. You do not solve politics by running away from it.

          “well pull up the charts on democracies and non democracies over the same period hell better yet pull up the 3000 year chart and look at the european democratic highpoints and then overlay the GDP and achievement charts.”

          You are out of date. Western Europe is run by police states that can (and do) arrest people for private speech. People in China are free in a way that Englishmen are not.

          “If you cant extrapolate where this is going you just a cuckfag”

          The problem is that our elite wants us dead, not niggers. If you get rid of niggers without solving the hostile elite, they will import a different group and keep importing people until they exterminate you.

          • John Sterne says:

            sam Im not a TJ fanboy hes just the poster boy i suppose for americanism which is in turn the poster child of enlightenment success. so let me stipulate again jesus and jefferson were leftists and in hindsight can be made out to be evil from my POV. I think i saying reason and empiricism is a jabberwocky statement, but to follow it with religion meaning christianity upholds tradition lol like the tradition of i bring you the new spirit of the law over the letter of the law and kings must be submitted to a higher authority kind of tradition. Exit today as moldberg proposes it is a rubbish idea back hundreds of years ago when whites still had whole continents they could take over was a reasonable solution. I mentioned he was an exitist assuming you’re a MM fanboy. as for solving politics well that the thing its a proxy for war and the only real solution is to crush your enemies politically so they cant escalate to war as long as theyre still politicking they are a risk. if there were still enough space i would be in favor of exit over war but there isnt so war it is.Ill add as i have elsewhere exit even when possible is not always the move a small pocket of whites hiding out witing to be slain in 100 years is not a better solution to them banding together now and trying to save our hegemony. we can not afford to lose the cathedral military industrial complex or the continental USA and other white lands because if we do we will in the long run all die anyway.so we agree in today’s situation exit is stupid and impossible you seem to think politics still is, Ill go this far politics is still a viable form of war we should be waging in addition to other forms. But we can not allow ourselves to fall into hope that there is a political solution all non whites need to be out of our territories for us to find a solution to our other problems that can never happen short of war any politics is simply maneuvering into a better position to strike.
            We agree the problem is our elites want us dead our elites are jews and their running dogs traitors, it might be true that if it were not jews it would still be other white elites wanting us dead ill say two things to that, first doesnt matter it is in fact jews running things and race traitors giving them cover in return for privilege. second elites wiping out the competition is indeed the problem to solve and you and moldberg havnt solved it. the obsession on democracy is moronic and you know it or you would keep switching positions within the same comment its not mobs of proles demanding free shit that ruined us it outer elites using the proles against inner elites the same way they will use any social organization this becomes orders of magnitude easier to do when the elites have destroyed the genetic cultural. you get elites to work together through culture when you allow others inside you culture and you have a religion of universalism that they can use to justify deconstruction of genetic cultural allegiance then you have a problem of defection even among your own. But here you can fairly bring enlightenment philosophy into the equation it also assisted entryists to deconstruct us.
            But it didnt understand what it was doing and the idea of the enlightenment is not intrinsically evil its intrinsically white.Theres a difference between white leftism and jew leftism white leftism attempts to improve jew leftism attempts to destroy. The enlightenment confronts the problem of agri monarchy being an anachronistic system in need of improvement and it does a pretty good job on a lot of fronts its guiding principle is truth through reason how that can be a mental trap is a very complex argument but its a smaller truth to tthe larger truth that we ought to reason things out rather than blindly follow tradition. yeah theres reasons to follow tradition but that makes you follow your reason not tradition no?

            yeah we could handle niggers if not for the hostile elite but why would we if any one problem could be said to have destroyed america its niggers they were the thread the elites and the jews kept tugging on it was fucking retarded to bring millions of niggers as slaves but the brits didnt think of america as home so werent worried but things changed.
            yes the elites are the real problem but even if we had the power to remove every last one the problem will re emerge. elites are smart and will try to get ahead unless well constrained. culture can do that if culture is homogeneous. keeping them busy and well rewarded and just as importantly keeping everyone busy and fairly rewarded because as soon as a group is obviously being cheated they are an invitation to some elite to organize them. fortunately proles just want to work and have family time so they are not easily proxied by elites which is why the jews gave up on white proles and imported niggers, niggers will always be too different to assimilate or have close to equal outcomes and so are always going to be an easy target for some elites proxy army.In a fairly homogeneous nation a meritocracy hierarchy can work fine to both maximize the nations human capital and relieve the class strains and engender a national feeling of family. an actual monarchy besides turning quickly to an oligarchy simultaneously gets a genetic component of we are not one family but one family rules the other families. what jeffersonism turned into he may or may not have planned all along i dont know what he and the others actually did was not too far from an ideal way too advanced for non whites but if not for the non whites that were allowed entry i think it would still be going strong or would have intelligently corrected itself as times changed. And times did change and asI have said a lot of leftism was the obvious solution that was almost certainly going to be tried i mean take lincoln i can hate on the prog lincoln destroying the patchwork freeing wild animals etc but wtf would we do with a billion slaves in this day and age? he saw that and figured hed end slavery but never did send them home im only saying many leftist solutions made some sense and you didnt have the option of wishing there were no niggers in the first place which was the really smart choice too bad the aristocracy didnt think of that hundreds of years prior.

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              “sam Im not a TJ fanboy hes just the poster boy i suppose for americanism which is in turn the poster child of enlightenment success.”

              The United States was successful before the revolution; it was richer per person then England making it possibly one of the wealthiest areas on the planet.

              “second elites wiping out the competition is indeed the problem to solve and you and moldberg havnt solved it.”

              Titles of nobility. The elite no longer have to worry about competition from peasants because they can openly use to legal system to block that from happening.

              “the obsession on democracy is moronic”

              Yes and no. As Jim likes to say, the issue is coordination. It is easier to coordinate when you have one person in power for a long time. You can have this with voting; elective monarch, presidential dictatorship work. You are not going to succeed with the current governments. Power can be local or it can be at the center, but having multiple different concentrations at the center does not work.

              “Theres a difference between white leftism and jew leftism white leftism attempts to improve jew leftism attempts to destroy.”

              The French Revolution managed to get all the whites in Haiti killed because France’s leaders wanted to one up the British and show how moral they were so abolished slavery, back stabbed the planters and left the whites to die.

              “The enlightenment confronts the problem of agri monarchy being an anachronistic system in need of improvement ”

              The ‘obsolescence’ was that the monarchy wasn’t as efficient at strip mining society in order to extract resources for war. That is not a problem that should have been solved.

              “and it does a pretty good job on a lot of fronts its guiding principle is truth through reason how that can be a mental trap is a very complex argument but its a smaller truth to tthe larger truth that we ought to reason things out rather than blindly follow tradition. yeah theres reasons to follow tradition but that makes you follow your reason not tradition no?”

              Because in most cases people will be using ‘reason’ to set the default of the discussion (in this case to tear down); it is a move by sophists and the proper response to their games is not to play.

              “so are always going to be an easy target for some elites proxy army.”

              Niggers make a horrible proxy army. They are good for voting and crime.

              “In a fairly homogeneous nation a meritocracy hierarchy can work fine to both maximize the nations human capital and relieve the class strains and engender a national feeling of family. ”

              Meritocracy encourages people to promote incompetent underlings because competent underlings will replace them.

              “an actual monarchy besides turning quickly to an oligarchy simultaneously gets a genetic component of we are not one family but one family rules the other families.”

              Only in France or Japan. Everywhere else the turnover it high enough that doesn’t hold true.

              ” he saw that and figured hed end slavery but never did send them home”

              https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8319858/Abraham-Lincoln-wanted-to-deport-slaves-to-new-colonies.html


              They found an order from Mr Lincoln in June 1863 authorising a British colonial agent, John Hodge, to recruit freed slaves to be sent to colonies in what are now the countries of Guyana and Belize.

              “you didnt have the option of wishing there were no niggers in the first place”

              Niggers aren’t the issue in the long run. In the long run Malthus is; combined with modern technology you get what Hitler saw- genocidal race war to secure food supplies for your people.

        • jim says:

          > Just because we want to be edgy doesnt mean we can just insist the enlightenment was a movement that embraced superstition and irrationality.

          Obviously the Enlightenment was a movement that embraced superstition and irrationality, resulting in today’s enthusiastic search for witches.

          The enlightenment was the left wing edge of Christian holiness spirals, transliterating unfalsifiable Christian beliefs about the next world, to blatantly false beliefs about this world. ‘All men are created equal” is transparently false, while that Christ rose again on the third day is unfalsifiable.

          Christians who speak in tongues and handle snakes are way saner, because the snakes generally do not bite them, while diversities do bite the enlightened. Modern art is speaking in tongues, only even more embarrassing because it gets in everyone’s faces and does not disappear when saner company arrives.

          The enlightened are a bunch of snake-handling speaking-in-tongues Christians who are endlessly searching for and finding evil witches who cast evil spells. They believe that evil wizards like myself cause women to underperform by thinking evil thoughts at women.

          The enlightened are inverse of young earth creationists, in that they believe in evolution (from the neck down) but do not believe in Darwinism.

    • John Sterne says:

      And no theres no exit. and if you find an out of the way corner to hide out while the other races take over USG and its satellites you’re not doing anything but hiding out waiting to die. the european people do this together or we are all going to die together.we need all our lands to win and all our people to win.You seem to be in favor of some sort of trump fascism hes an idiot hes not the guy we can hope hes inadvertently made someone else see the possibility of fascism but fascism isnt the answer but it might be enough of a disruption to open its own space for something else, we dont have many options all are long shots because we have been unwilling to go to war for so long and the enemy has rolled over us like hitler rolled over europe. There certainly a 4g aspect and at this point right street art is probably going to do more harm than good just like representing the right as in favor of making 8 year old girls fair game is not a good idea. the fact is women understand the average man today is not a man hes a slave faggot and not worthy they are right to pledge themselves at the cathedral.If i wanted your world jum i could convert to islam today. women want what we want its not possible for too many reasons feminism being a symptom not a cause of.youre not willing to really look at what the cuses of modernity are and see if theres a way to keep some and get the result or what the stark choices are. I admit im not as smart as most of you but im not as smart as soros and clinton but i know they are wrong and evil. I dont think any of us can work this out alone but we have to overcome our biases and begin.how do you have a capitalist technological economy that doesnt destroy the biological requirements humans have yet to evolve out of? can it be done? if not can we reesign out DNA to match out captech is oit possible to survive without captech or isolate captech to the military and survive without it socially? probably not captech is probably here to stay but maybe it can be used safely somehow or maybe we can redesign our dna. the left will probably go for the redesign model maybe they epigenetically doing it and low testosterone etc is in fact just the beginning. Im emotionally opposed to this but the fact is cap tech has disrupted the shit out of white human civilization models of all kinds and if one wants to keep the power of captech or more likely has to in order to survive then we need a resolution. women IQ is not so low its dispensable and homemaking is not likely enough of a use for it but outhome isnt working maybe women can be put to work in home, we see already children are starting to make money in home while under authority.one of the most disrupting factors of captech has been the leaving of the family home to work. first men then women then abandoning the village for work and losing the extended family that made child rearing bearable and cost effective.You want to see women acting the way you like you go to a place like north idaho half the men work on the farm with the family the other half work close to the home and close to the wife and husbands parents. A conversation between a prospective employee and employer starts like this ” I dont work elk season” and of course hay season” Thats fine we are closed for elk season and we help each other haying season” the women watch the men build their homes bring home their meat, repair their machines they understand homeaking is so much easier they are humbled by their husband benevolence.
      So jim when was the last time you humbled a woman by your capability? do you think any woman is reading your garbage about pedophelia being righteaous and is being awed by your competence? is this what NRX means when it claims to becoming ready to rule? That idaho logger is infinitely more qualified to rule than you and moldberg.

    • jim says:

      > The enlightenment and science were part and parcel they have both been right

      Science got started became high status and started making good progress with the Royal Society in 1660. The Royal society was made Royal by King Charles the Second, and its key founding scientists were enemies of the enlightment, notably Boyle. And when Harvard crushed the scientific method in 1944 and replaced the scientific method with peer review, with the truth being determined behind closed doors by insiders on the basis of secret evidence, that was the enlightenment finally accomplishing by violence what it attempted unsuccessfully to accomplish by violence under King Charles – to smash science and the scientific method with the violence that King Charles’s the seconds men at arms prevented.

      > the textbook definition of both is empiricism

      It is a strange form of empiricism that rejects evidence, experiment, and observation. The enlightenment manifests as Wikipedia’s rule – no primary sources.

      • John Sterne says:

        Jim you know perfectly well that the left has doublethinked everything prior to ok 1945 works for a start of the last iteration.No leftist is even in the current year going to say science is not rational the whole reson they have to make up all this fake science and fake ways to vouch for the fake science is post enlightenment no one believes in magic anymore.so they pay lip service to rason science while trying to confuse you on the logic and facts. since we live in an ever more complex world thats actually pretty easy to do. but that’s a whole other thing from what you assert is happening. if what you were saying were true they wouldn’t even need the cathedral they could just have the ayatollah go on tv and spout some bulshit but even in iran that wont work anymore.
        no one disputes they have entered the halls of science and reason and perpetrated frauds. Thats not the same thing as theres no such thing as real science real reason- unless you want ot get into the whole whos truth philosophical question which we all know was one of the roads the entered the academy through the answer is not to try and reason them out of their truth thats a logic and semantic trap in a sense the left is correct truth is relative philosophically speaking the answer is to tell them yes you have your truth i have mine please get out of my safe space with your hate thought truth. force them to live in their own nation under their alleged truths we will live in urs with our “subjective” objective white reality of science and reason.

        • jim says:

          Their Global Warming schtick is exactly the Ayatollah spouting stuff. They don’t need to provide actual evidence or rational argument because “the science is settled” – settled behind closed doors on the basis of secret evidence.

          With the war on animal fats they plausibly went through the motions of providing empirical evidence, but with Global Warming, did not really try very hard.

          Wikipedia’s no primary sources policy is “Have faith in the ayatollah. Do not believe your lying eyes”.

    • hcm says:

      Anything but “lol look at this boomer” is more of a reply than any of than any of this guy’s posts deserve.

      • Alrenous says:

        Fact check: true.
        If you’re really razor sharp, you can get away with poor punctuation. This guy isn’t that sharp.

        Paragraphs exist! The more you know!

  10. Alrenous says:

    Compare and contrast with the Harvard self esteem culture, where speaking the truth shows you are a deplorable and an oppresser of the holy masses.

    In other words, Harvard believes speaking the truth makes you a gentleman and an aristocrat. Jedi masters are Sith pretending, and this is them attempting a Jedi mind trick.

    Similarly, Global Warming isn’t really a sin. Being caught favouring Global Warming is censured. (I’m in favour, by the way. Interglacial’s end is already overdue; gonna be begging for as much warming as we can get, then.) Much like Harvard backhandedly acknowledges truth-tellers as aristocrats, you’re supposed to be in favour of Global Warming such that nobody can catch you doing it. It is not a coincidence that climate summits require many people to use horribly inefficient private jets. It is not a coincidence that nuclear is all but banned.

    Augustine shows that literalism is heresy. Moreover, it’s simpleminded peasant heresy. Taking things literally uses less brainpower. Some peasants, many peasants, don’t have the brainpower not to take Christianity literally. They are, however, peasants and should never have been taken seriously. However, the Greek texts, which were looted from Toledo when it was reconquered in 1100 or so, contain instruction manuals for Jedi. Jedi love to pretend to take peasants seriously.

    • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

      If literalism is heresy, is regarding the resurrection of Jesus as figurative acceptable to you? Not being a peasant, I do have the brainiacpower to interpret the resurrection as figurative. I’d hate to be a heretic in your eyes by taking the resurrection literally.

      • Alrenous says:

        You shouldn’t care whether I think you’re a heretic, so it’s good that you don’t.

        You should care whether heresy per se thinks you’re a heretic, and I happen to have an uncannily good track record for predicting what things like heresy think.

  11. John Sterne says:

    religion is not the only way to pwn the traits that react to it. in fact its the worst way, and is why the left has discarded it as a vehicle wherever it can. christianity could not be a worse religion to use for a right mind control, but all religions appeal to magic and can therefore be taken over by a faster talking priest.reality reason science is what a state should be based on because a state that is not based on that is likely to die horribly and because the states interests reality are aligned against any that are aligned against the states interest with lies, humans have an inherent ability to reason adequately. a state that is based on lying up against an entryist also lying has a problem.a state based on lies against an adversary telling the truth has a problem.NRX is supposed to be as i understood it the reality truth science to court the crazy religionists is to make the same mistake as the cuck GOP the cucks will have you cucking and the left will hold you to your own cuck religion rules. they just did it what you want to give thewm a second shot cause you think in the current year you can astroturf a more right wing religion believed by a greater population than hundreds of years ago youre mad religions dead stick a fork in it turn the reason game back on the left and win they are absurdly out on a limb past actual truth reason helped them back when the world believed in magic now they believe in magic

    • jim says:

      > religion is not the only way to pwn the traits that react to it. in fact its the worst way, and is why the left has discarded it as a vehicle wherever it can.

      The left has not discarded religion as a vehicle. It declares its religion to not be a religion, but the truth, and all other religions lies, and liars must be punished.

      • Thomas Jefferson's Ghost says:

        Does that mean that all the evangelicals proclaiming “Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with Jesus Christ” are actually The Left?

      • Alrenous says:

        …their religion being merely the truth is what Christians have always thought. What proggies feel about racism is exactly what ye olde Christians felt about heresy.

        • TJ's Ghost says:

          Alrenous: What proggies feel about racism is exactly what ye olde Christians felt about heresy.

          You have said it yourself.

          Both groups are fanatically irrational True Believers—SJWs if you want a more modern term—and behave similarly, as Eric Hoffer wrote in his 1951 text The True Believer.

  12. Dave says:

    O/T but worth sharing. The socialists at PBS apparently hired one of our guys to write a story book explaining democracy to children, and he made a hilarious Flash animation explaining why democracy is bull crap:

    http://pbskids.org/peg/games/election-problem

    Our enemies are so stupid that we can broadcast our propaganda on their media without them noticing!

    • jim says:

      Crimethink blindness.

      People cannot hear what you say when it is a crimethought.

      This often has difficult consequences for the crimethinker if he puts his position plainly: Your enemies are apt to steelman your arguments. But if you merely imply your position, you can get under the radar.

      The general form of a steelman argument is as follows.

      1. Paul says X.
      2. Peter cannot think X, or even notice that someone else has thought X, because X is a crimethought.
      3. So Peter invents for Paul an argument that Peter finds thinkable, which is usually Paul being outrageously evil, which is a “steelman” argument because Peter finds it a lot more persuasive than the literally unthinkable argument that Paul actually made.

      The evil of the steelman argument is a projection of the sense of evil that Peter feels, projected onto a different argument that he is allowed to hear and allowed to think. The steelman argument is an evil argument that Peter could hear without committing a crime, in place of the actual argument whose evil consists in being a crimethought, which Peter literally cannot hear, no matter how plainly one expresses it.

      Thus

      “Jim says it is OK to rape eight year old girls because they are whores”

      is a steelman version of an argument that I actually make, the argument that I actually make being that males should control female sexual choices because females are apt to make choices that are really bad and damaging for themselves and society – which implies not that raping eight year olds is OK, but that girls should have fathers, and those fathers need to control their daughter’s sexual choices, which in turn has the implication that eight year old girls and twenty eight year old girls need to be controlled in much the same way for much the same reasons, rather than adult males controlled.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        Well to be fair, you do advocate treating women like dirt. I suspect your adversarial approach to women derives from previous unpleasant experience you might have had with them in the past. You obviously don’t understand women which is why your can’t discern between good women and bad ones. The very thought of there being good women out there that are smart, capable and virtuous – is a crime-thought. Your enemies are giving you the pulpit because they know you will discredit and degrade yourselves. They aren’t worried about you at all – they own the platform and you are less than dancing monkeys for their amusement. It’s sad because you actually have some good things to say.

        Similarly, I have to laugh at your biblical authority, Jim. I’m only half way through the new testament and I can tell you right now – that thing does not say what you say it does. For those of you able to truly think for yourselves as I can – I strongly suggest you read it for yourself. If you have basic reading and comprehension skills, it will readily become apparent that the scripture is about men and women controlling themselves, working together and acting in a virtuous manner to honour their God.

        I’m sorry Jim – but there are times when you’re just doing the same thing the bad guys are. There’s good and bad in the world, and if you can’t see the difference and live your life as if it’s all bad… you will find yourself becoming a bad person.

        • Roberto says:

          The only unrealistic thing Jim has ever suggested about women is that 10-year-old girls would rather fuck a bald and fat grandpa than a young military-age stud.

          • jim says:

            Obviously ten year old girls would prefer to fuck a young military-age stud – if he is alpha and has pre-selection. But they tend to focus on alpha and pre-selection. As I remarked in my discussion of “Frozen”, the bad boy love interest and the good boy love interest are both depicted in their early twenties but are performing the social roles of middle aged men, while the princess is depicted as sixteen.

            • bruce says:

              Girls that age seem to be into the boy-band type and cute teeny magazine teenage boys/young adult men types.

              • jim says:

                So one would suppose from mass media.

                One would also suppose from the mass media that all scientists are black, all white women have black boyfriends, and that the only good fathers are black males.

        • jim says:

          > Well to be fair, you do advocate treating women like dirt.

          Liar

          > I suspect your adversarial approach to women

          There is absolutely nothing aversarial about my approach to women. The man should lover and cherish, the women honor and obey.

          > derives from previous unpleasant experience you might have had with them in the past

          Worst things women have ever done to me is sleep with me and sleep with someone else, and attempted paternity fraud. My wife was a very good women, and I have been with some good women, and some bad women, but the worst of them were never able to harm me more severely than by having sex with me, and having sex with someone else. Which these days happens to all men all the time – except of course the vast majority who never get any pussy at all. I have had one charge of rape and false imprisonment, but it evaporated when she decided to go home from the cop shop with me, and the false paternity evaporated when I insisted on a pre natal paternity test.

          Nearly every man I know has been treated by women vastly worse than I have. His wife sleeps with another guy and takes his children away, feeds them to her bad boy lover, and destroys his assets in endless lawsuits and gets him jailed on frivolous charges of domestic abuse. My wife took good care of our children and our assets, and my current girlfriend is very careful with my money.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Well that sounds like being put through the wringer to me. And no, putting women in irons because you’re afraid they’ll fuck around on you… that ain’t right, Jim. If you have to worry about chit like that, you have no business in a relationship like that.

            Your ideas about human sexuality and behaviour seem to be predicated on shitlib trailer park dwellers – and adolescents at that! There is no difference in some feminist shrew accusing all men of being rapists, and guys like you claiming all women are batshit crazy sluts that need to be beaten and kept on a leash.

            • jim says:

              > Well that sounds like being put through the wringer to me

              Being put through the wringer is having to dance for heavily used pussy, and then not getting any pussy.

              Being put through the wringer is losing your assets.

              Being put through the wringer is losing your children.

              Being put through the wringer is raising the child of a man your woman will always regard as manlier than you.

              Being put through the wringer is going to jail or getting classed as a sex offender as part of some slut’s bitch test.

              And one of those, sometimes all of those, happen to most men I know, but none of it has happened to me.

              > guys like you claiming all women are batshit crazy sluts that need to be beaten and kept on a leash.

              Not all women need to beaten and kept on a leash, but all women are happier and more content if the possibility exists that misbehavior might result in them being beaten and kept on a leash.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          “You obviously don’t understand women which is why your can’t discern between good women and bad ones. The very thought of there being good women out there that are smart, capable and virtuous – is a crime-thought.”

          Keep in mind that the only daughter of the author of this is a lesbian who is out of contact with him.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Proving what, exactly?

            • jim says:

              Proving that you are projecting – that your inability to think crime thoughts about women got you burned, while my realism about the moral frailty of Eve kept me safe.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                Ding!

                The truest test of science is engineering.

                Speaking about observations of women and predicting their response to your actions is science – actually doing it is engineering and if you end up with the worst possible result that’s all the proof you need that your science is wrong.

                • Glenfilthie says:

                  Well Steve, if you had an intellect, you’d know that at best, psychiatry and psychology are at best inexact sciences. A lot of what we’re seeing is the result of politics, which is even further removed from the sciences.

                  You guys are actually funny. On one hand you’ll say ‘Women will always choose security over freedom’ because…hormones! Instinct! Evopsych! And when you pencil heads notice the ones in Europe are importing millions of brown and black mud flaps that hate them and want to rape and kill them – you explain it by saying they lust for black cack because yours just don’t do it for them. LOL!

                  A psychologist would probably call your ‘theories’ symptoms of a raging inferiority complex. My theory is that often shit just happens. Sometimes, it’s shitty women doing shitty things to good men, sometimes it’s the other way around, sometimes it’s both. But we can and do rise above our hormones and instincts and impulses all the time. That’s what built our civilization.

                  I could go into depth to support my arguments but I’m getting the sense that you don’t have the capacity to assimilate them, never mind rebutting them with any intelligence.

                  As for my daughter…one of the deepest pains of parenthood is the child that doesn’t grow up right. I tried, I blame myself too, I tried to convince her to do right by her family and herself, and I failed. Our formerly solid extended family dissolved overnight over it. You can’t beat me up on this Steve, I did that job for ya long ago. The tears were shed, the bodies were buried, and it was an experience I wouldn’t wish on even an asshole like you.

                  Think I’ll just leave things with you like that. Less said, the better.

                • jim says:

                  No one sane ever said that women prefer security to freedom. You are projecting again. That women look for security is blue pill progressive doctrine.

                  Women hate freedom so much that they will destroy their security and the security of their children in order to destroy their freedom. You see that happen every time a fertile age woman divorces her husband.

                • pdimov says:

                  >But we can and do rise above our hormones and instincts and impulses all the time. That’s what built our civilization.

                  Do you have an example of women (collectively – a single woman does not a civilization make) rising above their hormones, instincts and impulses?

                • peppermint says:

                  I’ve never seen it happen with individual women either, even on TV. Harold Covington didn’t know it, but his strong womyn terrorist characters were required by the plot to do great things by being authentic womyn. No one ever expects womyn to do anything but routine work without supervision and any time they do anything remotely clever they get the same accolades as an original man.

                  Accolades and academic degrees. The fact that a woman can teach college classes in the past and the future will be sufficient proof that college classes are worthless, and the fact that academics were the thought leaders will be proof that they are worthless.

                  TJG, do you have a similar argument against Christianity? If so, consider that, in the future, men will be much more honest than they are now, and will be able to think of it, provided we get the academics off our backs. I imagine the phrase “college of bishops” will be sniggered at.

                • Glenfilthie says:

                  Well, that at least makes a bit of sense, said that way Jim. Women are fascists and socialists by nature – but the better women I associate with have risen above it.

                  It all comes down to experience I guess. If ya live in a trailer park and need to keep your tirebiter on a leash, so be it. I expect more from women, and other than the obvious progs and cat ladies, I have not been disappointed.

                • jim says:

                  Pretty sure you have been disappointed, but just blame yourself or other males for the misbehavior of your women.

                  The Victorians were catastrophically disappointed, with a horde of women giving birth in dark alleys in the mud and the rain to bastards spawned by thugs. Victorians remained in denial, blaming evil men for the problem, and that denial continues to this day. So when I hear someone denying what the Victorians denied, I am unpersuaded, and count him a virgin or a cuckold.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  >As for my daughter…one of the deepest pains of parenthood is the child that doesn’t grow up right. I tried, I blame myself too, I tried to convince her to do right by her family and herself, and I failed. Our formerly solid extended family dissolved overnight over it. You can’t beat me up on this Steve, I did that job for ya long ago. The tears were shed, the bodies were buried, and it was an experience I wouldn’t wish on even an asshole like you.

                  You did everything but learn from it.

              • Glenfilthie says:

                Safe, huh?

                You just said you’ve been cucked. Guess ya didn’t see that coming, did ya?

                I don’t ‘believe’ theories. I know there’s good women and bad ones. Their choices are what define them, and for one reason or another, my daughter chose to make bad decisions and be a nasty woman. And – while I’m laying waste to your theories – homosexuality is not natural. It’s a perversion, and it’s one they are actively pushing in the public schools. Things like that don’t matter to cellar dwellers and the alpha impostors, though, do they?

                In my defence, your theories were unheard of back when my daughter went off the deep end. We didn’t know what a social justice warrior was. Terms like ‘snow flake’, ‘virtue signalling’, ‘cry bullies’ and all the jargon that are part and parcel of your ‘theories’ hadn’t been invented yet. I was as much taken by surprise as you probably were when you got cucked.

                Ironically My daughter was shaped and bent by the same prog forces that are warping you and your fanbois. Just as my daughter is a ghastly parody of a woman, you fellas are becoming angry parodies of men. It’s sad, really. In her case the damage done is obvious. In yours, it’s a little more subtle and far more tragic. When our men can’t think, it is a sign that we are most certainly lost.

                • Roberto says:

                  Your problem is that you are signaling a superior ability to grok women, while utterly failing to exhibit a superior ability to grok women.

                  Put non-autistically: Jim’s theories about women are valid because they have a strong explanatory power, otherwise we wouldn’t even be discussing them; whereas you don’t offer any counter-theories to Jim’s, because you only care about presenting yourself as “above” engagement with the subject.

                  In other words, you are a vain boomer, and when you accuse the “fanbois” here of whatever it is you accuse them of, you reveal an abysmal lack of self-awareness, as it is *you* who have failed as a father to your daughter.

                • peppermint says:

                  Boomers thought the government didn’t hate them.

                  Conservative Boomers continue to pretend to think the government doesn’t hate them. Everyone has to pretend to believe a lot of nonsense to confuse the sjws and keep them off their scent.

                  Liberal Boomers actually believe the government doesn’t hate them. These are scum and, while they don’t need to be killed like the academics, no cost should be incurred in keeping them alive.

                • Glenfilthie says:

                  Roberto, I ain’t ‘signalling’ anyone. If you live in a trailer park with batshit crazy women, that’s all you know – Jim may indeed have some answers for ya.

                  All I know is the women in my circle seem to be made out of better stuff. Our church ladies respect and love their men and our numbers are growing.

                • jim says:

                  All I know is the women in my circle seem to be made out of better stuff. Our church ladies respect and love their men

                  You are deluded. Your Church ladies swagger down the middle of the corridor and their menfolk scuttle out of their way. They interrupt and speak over your men. They interrupt and speak over in a supposedly respectful, helpful, friendly, and supportive way, but they interrupt and speak over. They look directly at the men, and the menfolk drop their eyes.

                  I know this because of the institutions you describe: that your church ladies gather together in female only spaces, but the men are not allowed male only spaces.

                  I know this because you will not speak of the memes that are taught in the female spaces except in the most vague and general terms. If they were the memes that Paul tells us the older women should teach the younger, you would proudly be telling those memes.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  >All I know is the women in my circle seem to be made out of better stuff.

                  Except the one that matters – your daughter.

                  >Our church ladies respect and love their men and our numbers are growing.

                  But your numbers aren’t growing because your child is sterile.

                • Roberto says:

                  >If you live in a trailer park with batshit crazy women

                  I do not, but I suspect that any random woman from a trailer park would be somewhat more honest, and somewhat more humble, than the “nice” ladies of your Church who fully dominate their men – but oh, they do so in a very very “nice” manner.

                  Your whole attitude is cucked.

                  You write: “Our church ladies respect and love their men,” when what you should have written had you actually had a patriarchal Church is: “our church ladies obey their fathers if unmarried, obey their husbands if married, and keep their mouths shut in silence all throughout.”

                  You didn’t write that, because evidently your unmarried Church ladies don’t obey their fathers (case-in-point: your own daughter), your married Church ladies don’t obey their husbands, and no Church lady keeps her mouth shut in silence.

                  It is staggeringly obvious that it’s the women and not the men who wear the pants in your community. With lots of “love,” of course. So much “love.”

                  What you really need is White Sharia in a White Afghanistan, Glenfilthie. Someone needs to slap the cuck out of you.

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        “Steelmanning” is probably the stupidest and most evil idea to come out of the Bayes cult, and that’s a crowded field.

        > Rather than engage and argue with what my opponent has actually said, I’m going put my own words in his mouth and argue with those instead. Because I’m so much smarter than he is and I have so much integrity, I’m going to a better job making his case than he can. It’s an act of generosity, courage, and intellectual honor. I’m still going to win the argument, obviously, because I’m right.

        “Rationalists.” It is to laugh.

    • Alrenous says:

      That animation is pretty good – the voice aside – if it’s actually intentionally satirical. The kind of subtle I appreciate.

      However, 1) ‘good’ doesn’t equal ‘useful.’ I’m deeply skeptical about the idea you can red pill someone on democracy without them noticing. It will most likely get compartmentalized.

      2) How do you know it’s ‘our’ guy? Did the person in question tell you, perhaps via their anonymous twitter account? Is it you? Seems more likely to me that bioleninists do stupid things by accident, quite frequently. In this case, accidental verisimilitude.

      • Dave says:

        I have no idea who made it, I just noticed the title while helping one of my kids get a different game running.

  13. glosoli says:

    This post ignores the fact that something created our universe from nothing.
    Science has no clue.

    Eden is literal. God chose a hominid and injected a soul, hence in His image.

    Gave Adam and Eve free will, and some rules, and they messed it up pretty quickly.

    Why was a bad snake in Eden if God created everything? Surely it would be perfect? Nope, the Hebrew word is ‘recreate’ or rebuild. So there’s a back story, goes back billions of years, likely this current inter-glacial is far from the first iteration of everything we see today. It’s all part of something much bigger. We see through a glass darkly.

    To deny a Creator is silly. To choose to ignore Him and His rules is understandable, most humans do that. They just die. Those that rise above all of this shit and try to be like God, they earn something special after death.

    Pick and choose: live now, be bad, shit on people, fuck around, be selfish, did forever. Or follow the commands of God, love thy neighbour, love God, and live forever. It’s the golden pill after the black pill. Not many reach it, even those that believe get lead astray and ignore the truth and the laws.

    This inter-glacial is long in the tooth, humanity has never been further from Jehovah and His laws since Eden, never. God will not give us much more time, He’ll end this run, pluck up the elect, burn it all, and let it cool for a long while, then hit the restart button. Nothing new under the sun. Be prepared, shits going to get real in a hurry. Amen.

    • jim says:

      > Eden is literal. God chose a hominid and injected a soul, hence in His image.

      Perhaps, quite possible, but your “literalism”, like the “literalism” of Saint Augustine, implies an old earth, gradual and continuous evolution, and is conveniently unfalsifiable.

      • glosoli says:

        No other organisms sit around thinking about these things and sharing thoughts.

        Similarly, no other animals deliberately slaughter millions of their own offspring for the convenience of the mother. We ain’t evolving at all, it’s all downhill for humanity since Eden, with the occasional bear market rally.

        Get that and you get it all.
        Only one way to escape the madness: the golden pill.

        • TJ's Ghost says:

          You’ve swallowed the Goldstein pill.

          You are disloyal to your own blood and soil (Luke 14:26, Matthew 19:27-30), as commanded by the foreign “king of Israel” (John 1:49) you worship.

          Have you sent shekels to Jerusalem in gratitude for le happy merchant’s afterlife insurance? Romans 15:27 says it’s a good idea to keep current on your tribute, goy.

          • glosoli says:

            Herr Hiller was a Jew. His ascent to power was entirely fake.
            He looks like a Jew too.
            Read Miles W Mathis.
            You’ve been duped.
            Guten tag.

            • TJ's Ghost says:

              Now we Europeans saying the Nordic days of the week like Woden’s Day (Wednesday) is equivalent to Herr Hitler? LOL I think “glosoli” is a pseudonym for “Comedian Michelle Wolf.” At any rate, you’re about as witty in your Hate-Whitey tirades.

              • glosoli says:

                For the peanut-gallery, you’ll be too scared to read them:

                http://mileswmathis.com/hiller.pdf

                http://mileswmathis.com/putsch.pdf

                Hitler, literally Jew, literally part of the ongoing Kalergi plan, which is anti-Jehovah btw, He appointed nations.

                His granddaughter Angela must make him so proud. satan chuckles at your gullibility.

                • TJ's Ghost says:

                  I’ve never brought up Hitler, but like a typical progressive, you can’t think of anything else.

                • Roberto says:

                  Alex Jones just called in, glosoli. He wants his memes back.

                • Roberto says:

                  In case the point isn’t clear: not only are you peddling bullshit, your stuff is also incredibly *unoriginal*. At least make an effort to come up with your own crackpot theories

                • glosoli says:

                  No way Hitler obtained power by legitimate means.
                  Clearly the man they wanted.
                  Likewise, Churchill was bought and paid for by the same group.

                  Hey presto, let’s have WW2. Good for biz.

                • jim says:

                  Hitler won power legitimately and was for a long time denied power illegitimately. Democracy was not destroyed by Hitler, but by those who wanted to prevent him taking power.

                • Roberto says:

                  Okay – but calling both Hitler and Merkel “Jews” is a bit of a stretch, isn’t it? Could it be that you just hate Germans because you are an Anglo supremacist, and in that vein, identify Anglo-Americanism with Christianity and continental Europe with Paganism?

                • glosoli says:

                  I just read stuff, consider it, accept it as likely fact or likely fiction. The Mathis papers on Hitler are quite convincing, especially the Putsch.

                  WW2 was staged, fake adversaries. As usual all about money. Merkel bears a resemblance to her grandfather Hiller, both leftists, both evil, both bought and paid for.

                  No one gets to those positions of power by chance, no one, certainly not Trump.

                  I’m not an Anglo-supremacist, I’m a Jehovan Christian. Everything else is subordinate to Him.

    • peppermint says:

      » chose a hominid and injected a soul
      note that the usual theistic evolution requires dualism and prohibits Aristotle and Aquinas.

      »hence in His image.
      so basically, hominids are nothing, the only interesting part is the soul in God’s image bound to it, and the fact that no hominids are found without souls just means each sex act is sacred and abortion is unacceptable.

      » They just die.
      so basically, heaven is valhalla

      • TJ's Ghost says:

        No, Jew-heaven isn’t Valhalla.

        Christians are loyal to a foreign King of Israel. (John 1:49)

        Christians consider a foreign Jewish capital as holy. (Revelation 21:2)

        Those in Valhalla are not traitors, and remain loyal to their own nation.

        peppermint: “each sex act is sacred”

        Then Jew-heaven is profane, because the Rabbi (((Jesus))) prohibited sacred male-female relations in his perverted paradise, in favor of androgyny. (((Matthew 22:30)))

        Jew-heaven is like walking the streets of San Francisco.

        • glosoli says:

          You ought to get a life, it’s sad to see a young man repeat himself day after day, everyone hating him. It’s the nature of the German, no one likes them. Boring folk, even the Chinese are more fun.

          Try befriending a Musim neighbour.

          • TJ's Ghost says:

            When you are unable to address a topic, and obsess about me personally, does that make your panties wet?

    • TJ's Ghost says:

      You don’t worship God (Gott, Gottin Wotan Woden), you worship the Jew’s Jehovah, traitor.

      “God” was inserted into European translations of the Jew Testament to hoodwink goyim into swallowing a Jewish cult. Same with inserting the Nordic “Hell,” realm of Loki’s daughter.

      Tomorrow is Woden’s Day (Gott’s Day) and may God reveal to you his true Nature then.

      • jim says:

        Unfortunately paganism is dead in the water. No real pagans remain. Deader than Christianity.

        A lot easier to revive Christianity, than to revive the worship of Wotan.

        Show me a live Wotan worshiping tribe.

        Condemning Christianity will not bring Wotan back. Wotan is dead, Christianity on the brink of death. If you can revive Wotan, Christianity will be irrelevant.

        • glosoli says:

          Also, Germans are literally the most boring backward people on the planet.
          It’s why the Jews chose them to fight the wars, slavish order-followers, couldn’t even spot that Hiller was a Jew.
          Merkel leads them to total collapse, sad, she’s also a Jew.
          Mind you, Germans will make great Muslims, very submissive.

          • TJ's Ghost says:

            glosoli sticks to his Hate-Whitey tirade. How’s the weather in Tel Aviv? That is located in the nation that you consider “holy,” is it not, traitor?

          • peppermint says:

            Glosoli, you are a progressive and always have been. But it was Corvinus who proved to me that mere Christianity would not save us.

            • TJ's Ghost says:

              Those who correlate Christianity with being essential to Europe’s success, are making the same mistake as Russians who correlate Communism with Russian success.

            • glosoli says:

              Peppermint, why do you think I’m a progressive?

              • TJ's Ghost says:

                For one, progressives conjure Hitler at every turn, when nobody else has even thought of or mentioned him. Check.

                • glosoli says:

                  You and Peppermint are a bright pair.
                  Empty vessels.
                  One trick ponies.
                  You hate and blame all things Jewish.
                  He hates and blames boomers.
                  Both boring and dullards.

              • jim says:

                You are obviously soaked in a culture and society full of progressive and Jewish memes, and you don’t take a critical or adversarial position on those memes. You pronounce shibboleth “sibboleth”.

                My analysis, however, is not that you are a secret progressive mole, rather you are recovering progressive, converso Jewish or from a converso Jewish milieu, and have not yet fully recovered.

        • TJ's Ghost says:

          Jim, you’ll still say Woden’s Day tomorrow. And you’ll say Thor’s Day the next.

          It’s actually not a lot easier to revive a Jewish Salvation Cult, now that the printing press has been invented and we can read the damned thing.

          • peppermint says:

            Ok, what’s a Germanic wedding like? We know what rules we want, but the ceremony.

            The record of Christianity is clear. It failed to unite the White against the mudslime in 1000 and in 2000. Instead, it was subverted and used against us. We can discuss its fate after we restore our civilization. Until then, we must discuss how we can use what Christianity remains.

            Christmas pisses off our enemies because it’s implicitly ours. So we say merry Christmas. Our enemies hate how we can point to the Bible instead of using our own words when denouncing faggotry. They are out on a limb with their interpretation and we don’t need an interpretation, anti-faggotry has always been everyone’s default position. And so forth.

            • TJ's Ghost says:

              Good points, peppermint.

              To be sure, I’m not promoting paganism, I’m just demonstrating that European paganism is still alive and well today. God (Gott, Wotan, Woden) is a pagan deity, and continued use of His name was a method to hoodwink Europeans into swallowing Jehovah swill.

              The Northern Crusades violently invaded and spread Jew swill into Europe until 1410 CE, and we northerners Protested against the Cuckiantiy in 1517 CE and said that if we’re going to be forced to be Christian, we’re going to damn well do it our way, so traditional “Western” Christianity ruled “Western” Europe for only, say, 107 years or so.

              So much for the strained claims that the Jew Testament is necessary to European society.

              God bless you, peppermint. Your comments on Jim’s blog are the most valuable.

              P.S. Being anti-faggot means being both anti-Jesus and anti-Paul. Paul in Acts 16:3 acted as a Kike “mohel” and sucked the dick of his young traveling companion. A man who has a young male companion snuggled in his “bosom” (John 13:23) is exhibiting faggoty behavior by most any cultural standard. And no, Jesus’ faggotry can’t be explained away, as early Christian artists knew exactly what was going on. Compare on Google images paintings of “Jesus+John+Beloved” and the pederasty of “Zeus+Ganymede” in ancient art. Those many priests who just can’t stop cornholing the choirboys, century after weary century? They understand Christianity’s meaning the best, as it is taught in semen-ary.

              • peppermint says:

                You don’t know what is a normal pagan wedding or funeral or how pagans say grace before eating with their families. Presumably Christianity was draped over White customs and will be removed in the future with no one noticing. Tomorrow is consecrated to WOTAN in England as it is to Mercury in Spain. Does anyone you know pour out a libation for the gods as is described in Homer? If we restore any paganism, we know more about Greco-Roman paganism than Northern European paganism tyvm christcucks.

                The point of religion is to be normal with other normalfags, not to sperg out about your purity and harass the normalfags.

                That’s why bishops must be required to have families. Celibate men are naturally low status. So they seek status by browbeating normalfags and say anti-family and nati-nation things because they know that no matter how much status they accumulate they’ve been suckered into a genetic suicide pact.

                Our people are under occupation. The academics offered a genetic suicide pact that the boomers were feckless enough to sign. Condemning Christianity and demanding special snowflake religious rights thereby providing cover for kikes, mudslimes, pajeets, and whatever else, doesn’t help protect normalfags acting normal.

                Normalfags get it about the faggotry of the churches, too. I know a normalfag who wanted to Do It Right getting married in a church after knocking up his normalfaggette, but didn’t go forward because the churches use that instinct to raise revenue, to support the mud flood of his community, but that’s unthinkable, so, to do whatever with like buy the priest a new car or whatever perfectly normal corruption.

                • Anonymus 2 says:

                  Cliche Came Out of its Cage by C. S. Lewis

                  1

                  You said ‘The world is going back to Paganism’.
                  Oh bright Vision! I saw our dynasty in the bar of the House
                  Spill from their tumblers a libation to the Erinyes,
                  And Leavis with Lord Russell wreathed in flowers, heralded with flutes,
                  Leading white bulls to the cathedral of the solemn Muses
                  To pay where due the glory of their latest theorem.
                  Hestia’s fire in every flat, rekindled, burned before
                  The Lardergods. Unmarried daughters with obedient hands
                  Tended it By the hearth the white-armd venerable mother
                  Domum servabat, lanam faciebat. at the hour
                  Of sacrifice their brothers came, silent, corrected, grave
                  Before their elders; on their downy cheeks easily the blush
                  Arose (it is the mark of freemen’s children) as they trooped,
                  Gleaming with oil, demurely home from the palaestra or the dance.
                  Walk carefully, do not wake the envy of the happy gods,
                  Shun Hubris. The middle of the road, the middle sort of men,
                  Are best. Aidos surpasses gold. Reverence for the aged
                  Is wholesome as seasonable rain, and for a man to die
                  Defending the city in battle is a harmonious thing.
                  Thus with magistral hand the Puritan Sophrosune
                  Cooled and schooled and tempered our uneasy motions;
                  Heathendom came again, the circumspection and the holy fears …
                  You said it. Did you mean it? Oh inordinate liar, stop.

                  2

                  Or did you mean another kind of heathenry?
                  Think, then, that under heaven-roof the little disc of the earth,
                  Fortified Midgard, lies encircled by the ravening Worm.
                  Over its icy bastions faces of giant and troll
                  Look in, ready to invade it. The Wolf, admittedly, is bound;
                  But the bond wil1 break, the Beast run free. The weary gods,
                  Scarred with old wounds the one-eyed Odin, Tyr who has lost a hand,
                  Will limp to their stations for the Last defence. Make it your hope
                  To be counted worthy on that day to stand beside them;
                  For the end of man is to partake of their defeat and die
                  His second, final death in good company. The stupid, strong
                  Unteachable monsters are certain to be victorious at last,
                  And every man of decent blood is on the losing side.
                  Take as your model the tall women with yellow hair in plaits
                  Who walked back into burning houses to die with men,
                  Or him who as the death spear entered into his vitals
                  Made critical comments on its workmanship and aim.
                  Are these the Pagans you spoke of? Know your betters and crouch, dogs;
                  You that have Vichy water in your veins and worship the event
                  Your goddess History (whom your fathers called the strumpet Fortune).

                • peppermint says:

                  CS Lewis is like Jordan Perterson. The best that can be said about him is that he’s broadly conservative.

                • jim says:

                  > You don’t know what is a normal pagan wedding or funeral or how pagans say grace before eating with their families.

                  Maybe we would be better off reviving paganism, but it is dead beyond revival. All we could get is people larping. Eighteenth century Christianity merely sleeps, as a mustard seed sleeps, still present in the King James Bible and the 1662 version of the Book of Common Prayer, awaiting the sun, the moisture, and the soil.

                • TJ's Ghost says:

                  I concur that the point of religion is to be normal with other normalfags, and that’s why, when you come to my house for a meal at my family’s table, I say grace, using God’s name. We also say Ma’am, if you ain’t into that I don’t give a damn.

                  But I won’t pray in (((Jesus))) name, since I don’t need a magical Jew to save me. If you do at your house, I still have my head bowed and “rub blue mud in my navel just as solemnly.”

                  Since I don’t drink or smoke or have long hair and dress conservatively and love to say “God Bless You” to hijack Leftist amygdalas, most folks assume I’m on the more Fundamentalist side of religious. Which can be fun, especially when a Leftist tries to make hay with it. I science-thump them with a couple quotes from “Big Gods” (Princeton University Press) or “Darwin’s Cathedral” (Chicago University Press) and they usually slink away.

                  Arguing online is a White Man’s Privilege, and arguing religion is almost as enjoyable as a game of chess, another outlet for the systemizing male brain. When somebody’s losing in a battle of strategy, they tend to characterize a systemizing male brain as autistic or “sperging.” All it proves is they’re acting like an overly-empathizing cunt and don’t like hurt feelz.

                • Roberto says:

                  >When somebody’s losing in a battle of strategy, they tend to characterize a systemizing male brain as autistic or “sperging.” All it proves is they’re acting like an overly-empathizing cunt and don’t like hurt feelz.

                  Oy vey – how dare you adopt and embrace the theory of (((((((((Simon Baron Cohen))))))))). Truly, you are a race traitor. Using Jewish ideas is not okay, TJG. What are you – a Christian?

                  No valhalla for you!

                • Jacqueline says:

                  “All we could get is people larping.”

                  No cult of belief. It doesn’t matter what you “believe in”. The idea that salvation comes from within is a modern heresy. What matters is what you DO. Systematically, it’s ein plex of ritual. Pour a libation and you have summoned a psychological dæmon. Act first, then “believe”. Learn from the best: to foster belief, first induce act: speech, dress, school, standardized testing, college, work: all one incredibly sophisticated ritual. What is a civilization but its rituals.

                • TJ's Ghost says:

                  Roberto, I’ll give up E-S theory if you give up the Jew Testament.

                  Deal?

                  Or don’t you really believe what you say?

                • Roberto says:

                  I am genuinely fascinated by your mono-mania. I’ve seen anti-Christian content here before (e.g. Peppermint), but you’ve taken it to a whole new and bizarre level. And I’m not even trying to offend you by calling it a “sperg out” or “mono-mania.” Clearly you’re not stupid, so I’m sure that you understand that your oeuvre of commentary comes across as not quite sane, even if your overall point is correct.

                  I’m not going to troll you anymore, though. I have concluded that you must be a relatively old man, because only boomers and genXers take religion as dead-seriously as you do. You’re a dinosaur.

                • TJ's Ghost says:

                  Can’t give up the Jew, can you, Roberto? Now that’s monomania for ya. You’re not going to troll me anymore, because you lose when you do. At least you admit it. Bye.

                • peppermint says:

                  》What is a civilization but its rituals
                  The civilized men who know that their civilized behavior will be rewarded by each other?

              • jim says:

                We have to have a state religion. We always do. Our current state religion wants us dead, so we need a different one. If not eighteenth century Christianity, then what?

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Does it really matter? I don’t see any good argument that we need art, history, tradition, and a compendium of theology with high literary value in order to have an effective state religion. Progressivism does not have any of those things, and it is still the state religion.

                • jim says:

                  When I see the state whip up a successful and effective state religion, for example Restoration England and the Japanese restoration, they grow it from something that has deep existing roots.

                • Jacqueline says:

                  Catholic art, Protestant science, Greek ritual and athletic culture, Musk rocket futurism, 1950s optimism, Gattaca bioengineering. We get to meme the future into reality. It’s 2018.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Roots are fine. But it does not see that the graft has to be very convincing. Again, progressivism.

                  Meanwhile, the Bible contains a ton of dangerous stuff, even in the better translations.

          • jim says:

            You are not reading the bible. You are reading something written by leftists in the twenty first century. Try the King James version.

            • TJ's Ghost says:

              I’m reading the KJV mostly, as it has the best sounding language.

              You’re trying to weasel out of the simple fact that in any culture, when you refer to a man as your brother, equality is implied.

              “Brothers share equal status…”
              en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_(Catholic)#Religious_brothers_today

              Wow, so simple. Open your eyes. And no, “brothers equal” isn’t some mythical unicorn.

              Furthermore, Jesus is more than an Equalitarian. He, while cursing Goy hierarchy, stated he wanted to turn Goy culture upsidedown. Even in the KJV. Try dodging Matthew 20:24-28. Jesus there is exactly the opposite of what you make him out to be.

              • jim says:

                > You’re trying to weasel out of the simple fact that in any culture, when you refer to a man as your brother, equality is implied.

                Japanese has umpteen words for “brother” which imply higher status and lower status, elder and younger, larger and smaller, first born and not first born. And I regularly see priests dressed in elaborate costumes based on what Kings used to wear a thousand years ago addressing their flock as “brethren” from a high pulpit that elevates them above those that they address.

                Obviously does not imply equality in those languages and those cultures.

                Indeed, I am pretty sure that “brethren” did not imply equality until the communists adopted it from the diggers.

              • jim says:

                I don’t know what strange meaning you have forced upon Matthew 20:24-28

                You really need to tell me what the supposedly obvious meaning is.

                Maybe you read him as calling for the last King to be strangled with the guts of the last priest, but Jesus in Matthew 20:24-28 is clearly not preaching the overthrow of Kings, and no one has ever interpreted him thus until the late twentieth century

                • TJ's Ghost says:

                  Jim, Jesus plainly said he hates Goy Male Hierarchy in (((Matt 20))), and your excuse-making is wearing thin.

        • Oog en Hand says:

          Let me put it this way:

          Shall I gouge out your eyes? Jesus forbids euthanasia.

          Wotan allows euthanasia.
          Perkunas allows euthanasia.
          Perun allows euthanasia.
          Tengri allows euthanasia.

          Any questions? I have been in county jail, and not for petty theft or sexual harassment.

          HELL IS ETERNAL!!!

          • TJ's Ghost says:

            Wrong. In Matthew 15: 1-9, the Jesus character rebuking the Jews who were not following the OT commandment that children who curse their parents should be euthanized.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          I worship John Tomlinson’s Wotan ^^

          Maybe we need to be neo-positivists and just worship celebrities unironically.

          Bagsy Ian Bostridge.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          “Unfortunately paganism is dead in the water. No real pagans remain. Deader than Christianity.

          “A lot easier to revive Christianity, than to revive the worship of Wotan.

          “Show me a live Wotan worshiping tribe.

          “Condemning Christianity will not bring Wotan back. Wotan is dead, Christianity on the brink of death. If you can revive Wotan, Christianity will be irrelevant.”

          Progressivism is a totally sterile, hollow religion imposed by fiat. We could bring back Paganism, just make a bunch of statements and then pay people to create culture around it in money and status. That might be ripped off from paganism, Christianity, or any other source.

          But saying that the Bible trumps our fiat is dangerous. Even the Progressives dumped that one and the New Testament agrees with them much more than it does with us. (I agree that it is not fully agree with them.)

  14. The Cominator says:

    Jim,

    As far as reviving Christianity.

    Protestantism only shows signs of life now in South America, Korea and Africa. And not the high Church variety of it that you want. It may not be as dead as Wotanism (it still has a few non larpers) but its damn close.

    Catholicism is too cucked and too international to want to revive, which is why I hope Francis is Pope forever as he prevents the Vatican from being able to influence normie cuckservatives at all.

    Maybe you can revive the Orthodox Church but it needs more people in the West to become Orthodox as part of the revival.

    • TJ's Ghost says:

      The Jewish cult led by a virgin soyboy who wears a fish-hat with a Star-of-David is “too international?” LOL Have you never read that (((Jesus))) demanded it in his Globalist Commission?

      “ALL NATIONS.” (((Matt 28:19))) KJV says it too.

      Normie cuckservatives swallow (((globalism)))) too. Ever been in a church vestibule with all the missionary pictures featuring their shitskin “brothers” from around the globe?

    • Orthodoxy is strongly mixed with Greek-Russian culture, it feels foreign to the West. It is precisely the tribal Westerners who would reject it first.

  15. glosoli says:

    The fact that hasn’t been addressed at all is that Jehovah alone has the power to make or break the world.

    We either go back to His ways sharpish, and there’s a slim chance we will if things get bad and we have another (God-ordered) mini ice-age for 100 years. Or we continue in other ways and He’ll conclude that it’s time for a reset.

    All this planning and speculation about other options is a waste of time.

    Ask yourself why might Egypt has been a shithole for a few millennia, when it was once a great power? Jehovah smote them and cursed them:

    http://forgetfuljust.tumblr.com/post/172876299240/egypt-the-base-kingdom

    Ask yourself how a shitty little island in Northern Europe, constantly invaded and defeated for Millenia, suddenly became a blessed and mighty Empire?
    Because Alfred the Great and his doom book of laws was based on Jehovahs ways, which are perfect.

    And so Britian was blessed and became mighty and ruled the world. It subsequently turned from God, and is now cursed, I pray not forever.

    Americans were God-fearing once, they became mighty. The turn away is in progress. Will American turn back?

    With Jehovah behind you, you can defeat all enemies. Amen.

    • TJ's Ghost says:

      In the 1948 years since 70 AD, Jehovah has never even managed to get his house rebuilt once at the Temple Mount.

      • TJ's Ghost says:

        Maybe performing this bit of sage advice can motivate Jehovah to rebuild the Temple:

        Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

        🙂

      • glosoli says:

        He nevertheless added c.3 billion believers, versus Woton’s 42.

        Heh.

        • TJ's Ghost says:

          Way more than 42 people, liar, continue saying Wotan-Woden-Gott-God’s name. The middle of the week isn’t Jehovah’s Day. And even when you worship your magic Jew, it’s on Sun day. heh

      • jim says:

        Temple appears to be cursed, much as the Tower of Babel appears cursed. This curse could be because Jehovah is pissed at the memes that the building manifested and was a manifestation of, or because would be builders feel in their hearts it to be cursed. Notice the reluctance of Jews to take back the Temple Mount.

        Babel is in the Hebrew the same word as Babylon, If Babel is the same city as Babylon, and the tower of Babel a story about the unsuccessful efforts of the first city, the first Kingdom, and the first empire to resist men’s fissiparous tendencies, then the tower of Babel is the ziggurat that was the chief temple of early Babylon, but which was (oddly) never in the long history of Babylon successfully recreated.

    • peppermint says:

      Egyptian blood was tainted by multiculturalism. It’s not just IQ, it’s honor and responsibility. You don’t get to have nice things if no one capable takes responsibility for maintenance. In the here and now, it’s not impossible to find capable, responsible, honorable men, just illegal to hire them and reward them over a privileged class who may or may not be capable of following simple instructions with supervision and certainly has no reason to care about the task.

      Meanwhile responsibility and honor and constantly insulted in the legacy media. And no, the japs are not honorable. Look at why Fukushima melted down, that was entirely preventable and there were no niggers or sluts to blame.

    • Oog en Hand says:

      Theodosius also ruled by Old Testament Law. Mass conversions to Orthodox Judaism or Noahide Law would be an improvement to this current mess.

      It is the NEW Testament that is cucked !@#! that should be shredded where found.

      • jim says:

        Observe that Jews did not create science and technology, and Orthodox Jews still do not. Christians created science and technology. A Christian state and a Christian society empowered and gave status to the Royal Society, and the key members of the Royal society were actively Christian.

        Jews, Muslims, and atheists are incapable of the social institutions that make science possible. Atheists and Jews can build rockets, but they cannot build the society capable of building rockets.

        • Jacqueline says:

          Observe that Catholics did not create science and technology, and Catholics still do not. Protestants created science and technology. A Protestant state and a Protestant society empowered and gave status to the Royal Society, and the key members of the Royal Society were actively Protestant.

          Observe that the cumulative scientific, engineering and entrepreneurial output of a few tens of thousands of Quakers dwarf the total contribution made by hundreds of millions of Catholics.

          Jews, Muslims, and Catholics are incapable of the social institutions that make science possible. Catholics and Jews can build rockets, but they cannot build the society capable of building rockets.

          • glosoli says:

            Are you really a woman?
            If so, are you slim, pretty, fertile and single?
            And ideally a virgin?

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            “Observe that Catholics did not create science and technology, and Catholics still do not.”

            Most Catholics are outside the Hajnal Line. France, Walloons, south Germany, Austria and Northern Italy are Catholic and within the Hajnal Line.

            It is my understanding those societies have created science and technology and continue to do so.

            • Nikolai says:

              Correct.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists

              Catholics are more than capable of performing science and creating social institutions that make it possible. Traditional high church Protestants are able do to so as well, but low church fundie evangelicals are hopelessly incompetent when it comes to such matters. Same problem as Jews and Muslims, they make God too big and the religion becomes inimical to science

              • jim says:

                Not seeing the evidence for this. German science was Lutheran science, and Lutherans are pretty similar to low church fundamentalists. Where did we see science produced by Roman Catholics in institutions created by a Roman Catholic society?

                • Nikolai says:

                  One routinely sees low church fundamentalists denying easily observable scientific phenomena. I’ve seen people claim in the comment section of this blog that Darwin conjured up the theory of evolution solely because he hated god.

                  Gregor Mendel founded the study of genetics as a monk in an abbey in the Austrian empire. If that’s not a Roman Catholic producing science in a Roman Catholic institution within a Roman Catholic society, I’m not sure what is.

                • jim says:

                  People who argue for an entirely literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis have always been low status, have never been part of the official state church in the past seventeen hundred years.

                  In contrast, people who argue against Darwinism, for example Stephen Gould, are powerful and in a position to destroy your career, and might well do so, as they destroyed Chagnon’s career.

                  Every biologist is compelled to use language that denies the mutability of species, as if astronomers were compelled to use geocentric flat earth language, since language that acknowledges the mutability of species implies that existent kinds of humans are not exactly of the same species. And you worry because a faction that has never had any power in the entire history of Christianity still argues young earth creationism?

                • jim says:

                  And because Mendel’s status was so low, no one knew he had discovered genetics or remembered him until institutions created by the Church of England honored his memory.

                • Nikolai says:

                  “And you worry because a faction that has never had any power in the entire history of Christianity still argues young earth creationism?”

                  Worried? No, not at all. The conversation was about which types of Christians are able or unable to perform science and certain types of Protestants think of God the way Orthodox Jews and Muslims do, making them incompetent in advancing science.

                  Obviously a prominent left wing professor is more able to ruin one’s life and career than some random fundamentalist. I never claimed otherwise and I don’t know what that has to do with this thread.

                  If you’re saying Catholicism doesn’t make science sufficiently high status, that’s a fair point. But that’s entirely different from the claim that Catholics have never done science and that the faith is intrinsically hostile to it.

                • jim says:

                  Worried? No, not at all. The conversation was about which types of Christians are able or unable to perform science and certain types of Protestants think of God the way Orthodox Jews and Muslims do, making them incompetent in advancing science.

                  An individual that believes something incompatible with science is not going to do science as an individual. A society dominated by an institution that believes something incompatible with science is not going to do science as a society. The latter is a far more serious problem.

                  The great majority of low Church fundamentalists believe in old earth creationism, and are therefore perfectly capable of doing science. And if some them are not, not a problem. They don’t intend to exercise power in this world.

                • jim says:

                  That no one had heard of Mendel till he was hauled out of obscurity by a society with an Anglican state Church, that Galileo wound up under house arrest because the Church intruded into the proper magistry of science, is a pretty good indication that a society with a Roman Catholic state Church cannot do science.

                • Mackus says:

                  >Galileo wound up under house arrest because the Church intruded into the proper magistry of science

                  Didn’t Galileo become persecuted only after he tried to reinterpret bible to back his findings? That is, he was the one leave proper magistry of science into something that was genuine heresy?

                • Mackus says:

                  Also, Galileo was asked by pope to include pope’s arguments against heliocentrism in his book. Galileo put those words in mouth of character he named “simpleton”.
                  He wouldn’t be persecuted if he hadn’t committed lese majeste against pope who until then was his supporter.

                • jim says:

                  Sure – but you did not see the Archbishop of Canterbury getting involved in arguments on Boyle’s air pump.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  Why are you guess talking about edge cases? Would the French Academy of Sciences be the comparison you’d make to the Royal Society?

            • jim says:

              Galileo winds up under house arrest. Newton winds up buried in Westminster Abbey. Catholic societies were, as progressive societies are, hostile to science and the scientific method.

              No shortage of Roman Catholic scientists, but societies with a state or a progressive state Church make the scientific method and scientists who follow it low status.

              • Alrenous says:

                Galileo was a massive asshole, and his accomplishments are rather overrated. He got done in for the same reason Alan Turing got done in. “Quit it with the open sedition.” “No.”

                • jim says:

                  Galileo was no more openly seditious than Newton was openly heretical. (And no less) He was forbidden to teach that the earth moves, and that the planets resemble the earth, which is an unambiguous example of the Church intruding on the proper magistry of science.

                • Alrenous says:

                  To simplify…

                  Monks came to inspect Galileo’s telescope. They didn’t happen to find it convincing. Mistakes happen.

                  Galileo responded by openly insulting the Pope in a book, A Dialogue About the Two Chief World Systems. The Pope, for some reason, did not take kindly to this.

                  Notably this was after Galileo had successfully weathered two trials with the Inquisition. Rather than the Church attempting to impose on science’s magisterium, Galileo was attempting to impose on interpretation of scripture, in Letter to Castelli.

                  Meanwhile Johannes Kepler, among others, were making the exact same telescopic observations, but weren’t jerks about it and thus didn’t receive the slightest trouble from the Church.

                  The reason Galileo is sainted is because he makes a handy club for atheists to beat the Church with.

                • jim says:

                  > Monks came to inspect Galileo’s telescope.

                  Monks should not be inspecting Galileo’s telescope. Did curates inspect Boyle’s air pump?

                  If you have a situation where it is the job of the official religion to inspect Galileo’s equipment, you have a society and church hostile to science, technology, and industrialization.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’d recommend Gertrud von le Fort’s short story about Galileo, “At The Gate Of Heaven”.
                  I expect most of us would come down disagreeing with the story’s narrator but I also expect most of us would have pause for further thought first.

                  Spoiler: a German scientist is telling his young niece (I think, it’s been a while) about Galileo and his apprentice. At the end he explains that Galileo’s insistence on a heliocentric universe was in fact incorrect with the benefit of hindsight and that pushing it ‘too soon’ by church judgement had a few downsides. To add insult to injury, he’s giving this talk in the context of allied firebombing of the city (I think Cologne – not Dresden anyhow, I think).

                  Makes you stop and think, especially considering most people here would tend to agree that our civilisation was healthier prior to the fully modern age, Jim’s benchmark being George III.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Google books has it, although there’s a lovely collection of three beautiful stories for general sale, in print, at low cost……. anyhow a taste for those interested in the ‘should we do science, at all’ question:

                  https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GxbtCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT49&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  The bigger problem is it took until 1757 for the Church to begin dropping geocentrism and they didn’t finish until 1835 (when dialogues was removed from the banned list).

                • Alrenous says:

                  The monks who inspected Galileo’s telescope didn’t tell him he hand to stop using it. They didn’t even tell him he had to stop developing his theory until he insulted the Pope.

                  Galileo only got into an Inquisition court because of exactly the reverse of what you’re complaining about – Galileo intruded on the magisterium of the Church. Galileo told the monks they had to stop using their theology. He butted into a theological dispute and contradicted Italy’s version of the 22 precepts. And that debate only happened because Galileo was a massive asshole who pissed people off for no reason.

                  Straight from La Wik: “Bellarmine [Galileo’s first Inquisitor] did not regard it as permissible to advocate the [theory as literally physical] unless it could be conclusively proved through current scientific standards.” In other words, he’ll even let Galileo talk about theology if Galileo can prove his theory.

                  Proggies have lied to you about religion, again. Why is this surprising to you?

                • jim says:

                  It does not matter. Monks should not be involved in telescopes in their authority and role as monks, for the reasons explained by Saint Augustine.

                  Similarly, you cannot let the umpire get involved in wrestling match.

                  Similarly the King is the fount of all honors, mortal and divine, which means he gets to declare who wins status contest, but if he himself gets involved in the status contests, and competes with commoners for status, the whole system is screwed.

                  The Pope should ensure that struggles between scientific factions are decided ethically and honorably, by methods likely to lead to truth. He cannot himself take a position on such questions, because that undermines both science, and his moral authority.

                • Mackus says:

                  Jim, if I were to apply your poster girl principle here, we’d notice that pretty much every single scientist persecuted by catholic church was persecuted for things remarkably nonscientific, things like insulting pope or engaging in occultism.

                • jim says:

                  Galileo was “insulting the Pope” by rudely denigrating the Church’s doctrine scientific matters – and as Saint Augustine correctly observed, if the Church has doctrine on scientific matters, it will be insulted, and deserves to be insulted.

                  Newton is buried in Westminster Abbey. The Roman Catholic equivalent had his books banned, was threatened with torture, and placed under house arrest. There was never any likelihood that Newton would “insult” the King or the Archbishop of Canterbury, because they did not think it their business to take a position on scientific matters. Even when the King was in fact taking a position on scientific matters, as King Charles the Second did, he avoided the appearance of doing so, because, as the fount of all honors mortal and divine, he cannot himself directly and openly participate in competitions where status is at stake.

                  Saint Augustine told the Church not to do that, because stuff like this would happen. The Church did it, and stuff like this happened.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Monks should not be involved in telescopes in their authority and role as monks

                  Galileo was brought to the attention of the Inquisition the first two times for being involved in theology in his authority and role as an astrologer.

                  Galileo was “insulting the Pope” by rudely denigrating the Church’s doctrine scientific matters

                  Incorrect. Galileo all but called the Pope a simpleton. It turns out lese majeste is unwise.

                  http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/8-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-trial-and.html

                  “Once the book comes out, someone “helpfully” points out to Urban the apparent slap in the face contained in the Conclusion. In the Renaissance lexicon, there is little that is worse than ingratitude. Friendship betrayed turns rancid hate. The problem is that Galileo is vain and impatient of opposition while Urban is… exactly the same kind of personality.”

                  ProTip: don’t put the words of your BFF, the His Holiness the Pope, into the mouth of a dude called ‘Dumfugh.’ Moreover, Galileo only had all these ‘helpful’ enemies because he went around being an asshole to anyone who didn’t fawn over him. Result: Galileo’s gag order and house arrest were the result of him just being that much of an asshole.

              • Oog en Hand says:

                It is (sedevacantist) Roman Catholics who can make ANY claim at “defeating” us Heathens. Medieval Catholicism was closer to us than to King Charles and his Royal Society.

                The Roman Catholics knew Germanic, but the Heathens didn’t know Latin. Nevertheless, the Antifa-like Vehm society needed three monoalphabetic substitution ciphers to keep the Saxons down.

                Keep in mind that the Saxons had to fight off the Polabians and the Obodritians in the East.

                So, memorize the Vulgate in Latin, or shut up.

        • Oog en Hand says:

          https://nl.xhamster.com/photos/gallery/goth-girl-blows-best-1577467

          Good Catholic girl handling a rosary. If someone wears a cross and claims to be a Christian, it IS a Christian!

  16. Zach says:

    Vox Day has said – more or less – the same on a youtube video he recently released on Christianity which includes Christianity fostering correct science.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0cKuFfYnVw

Leave a Reply