How to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner.

Christianity, or perhaps Churchianity, tends to endorse suicidal collective behaviors. Progressives and Christians eagerly strive to outdo each other in how thoroughly they get cuckolded. Note how Christians and progressives both demonstrate superior holiness by adopting subsaharan blacks – who tend to grow into adult subsaharan blacks, with consequences as disturbing as adopting a baby chimpanzee.

I have not yet noticed Christians imitating the progressives by adopting male children and then sexually mutilating them to save them from toxic masculinity, but it is early days yet in the war on toxic masculinity.

The Dark Enlightenment emphasizes survival as a virtue, as indeed the root of all virtues. For example homosexuality is bad because homosexuals spread disease and don’t care about the future or the long term. We should enforce the marital contract so that we can have grandchildren, and so that the race and the culture survives. And so on and so forth. The old testament morality is arguably survival morality.

If survival is the root of all virtues, then we should conquer other nations to survive, colonize space to survive. At which conclusion the Dark Enlightenment parts company with with most people’s understanding of traditional Christianity.

The Old Testament was pretty cool with genocide. God would just say “genocide those pagans, I don’t love them even if I created them”. Most think that Jesus had a different opinion. I would say his opinion was more subtle and sophisticated, rather than directly contradictory.

CS Lewis gives us the standard modern progressive bleeding heart christian position on eradicating inferior races and cultures:

‘Speak to Ransom and he shall turn it into our speech,’ said Oyarsa.

Weston accepted the arrangement at once. He believed that the hour of his death was come and he was determined to utter the thing — almost the only thing outside his own science — which he had to say. He cleared his throat, almost he struck a gesture, and began:

‘To you I may seem a vulgar robber, but I bear on my shoulders the destiny of the human race. Your tribal life with its stone-age weapons and beehive huts, its primitive coracles and elementary social structure, has nothing to compare with our civilization — with our science, medicine and law, our armies, our architecture, our commerce, and our transport system which is rapidly annihilating space and time. Our right to supersede you is the right of the higher over the lower. Life—’

‘Half a moment,’ said Ransom in English. ‘That’s about as much as I can manage at one go.’ Then, turning to Oyarsa, he began translating as well as he could. The process was difficult and the result — which he felt to be rather unsatisfactory — was something like this:

‘Among us, Oyarsa, there is a kind of hnau who will take other hnaus’ food and — and things, when they are not looking. He says he is not an ordinary one of that kind. He says what he does now will make very different things happen to those of our people who are not yet born. He says that, among you, hnau of one kindred live all together and the hrossa have spears like those we used a very long time ago and your huts are small and round and your boats small and light like our old ones, and you have one ruler. He says it is different with us. He says we know much. There is a thing happens in our world when the body of a living creature feels pains and becomes weak, and he says we sometimes know how to stop it. He says we have many bent people and we kill them or shut them in huts and that we have people for settling quarrels between the bent hnau about their huts and mates and things. He says we have many ways for the hnau of one land to kill those of another and some are trained to do it. He says we build very big and strong huts of stones and other things — like the pfifltriggi. And he says we exchange many things among ourselves and can carry heavy weights very quickly a long way. Because of all this, he says it would not be the act of a bent hnau if our people killed all your people.’

As soon as Ransom had finished, Weston continued.

‘Life is greater than any system of morality; her claims are absolute. It is not by tribal taboos and copy-book maxims that she has pursued her relentless march from the amoeba to man and from man to civilization.’

‘He says,’ began Ransom, ‘that living creatures are stronger than the question whether an act is bent or good – no, that cannot be right – he says it is better to be alive and bent than to be dead – no – he says, he says – I cannot say what he says, Oyarsa, in your language.

CS Lewis goes on to lecture us, or rather have an angel lecture us, that all thinking beings are fundamentally the same, that we should not value some of them, such as neighbors and kin, over others of them. But that is not Christianity. That is progressivism – “all men are created equal”. If on the other hand, we should care about kin and neighbors more than we should care about far away strangers, and both Old and New Testaments make it pretty clear that we should, then there is some important truth in Weston’s position, and a dangerous and deadly lie in the position of Ransom and the angel.

Christians tend to attribute Weston’s program to progressives, but as Sweden and Paris demonstrate, the progressive program is pretty much the opposite, being so opposed to genocide that they wind up with autogenocide.

Clearly Weston’s program is wrong. And clearly the progressive / modern Christian / CS Lewis / Ransom program is also wrong. The God of the old Testament was not cool with Weston’s program, being pretty big on tribal taboos and all that, but he was, nonetheless, pretty cool with genocide.

Humans are human because of a thousand genocides.

What was Jesus’ program?

I will answer that question in a little while.

All this inclusiveness and diversity is not being reciprocated, and is not going to be reciprocated. It is cuckoldry. And this has been glaringly obvious since whites were ethnically cleansed out of the inner city. When whites are 43% of the voters, the government just takes their stuff away. That is simply the way things are. Just as when Muslims are ten to thirty percent of the population, you get holy war, when whites are in the minority, democracy will dispossess them.

Altruism is seldom the game theoretic solution. When it is the solution it’s a result of a highly successful culture that is fragile. The Dark Enlightenment talks about high trust equilibrium a lot. High trust equilibria are rare and hard to maintain. Underestimating both the value and difficulty involved in creating high trust equilibria is the major failing of progressivism and modern Christianity. A few centuries ago, we were a lot better at it. Old type Christianity was a lot better at it.

The natural equilibrium is defect defect, and the trick is to break out of that natural equilibrium, to get a cooperate cooperate equilibrium. Following a high trust strategy in a low trust environment is a failure mode. However, part of switching from a low trust to a high trust environment involves someone deciding to follow a high trust strategy despite the risk of being in a low trust environment.

Evil exists, so either God does not will the good, or he is not able, or he is messing with us on purpose. (Testing our resolve, making us suffer so we grow more resilient.) Human Biodiversity would imply that innately evil or useless people are not part of God’s plan, only means of his to mess with you. Are we allowed to remove those tests of God?

Given that there is an Old Testament and a New Testament, it follows that there is a time to turn the other cheek, and a time to slay the women and children. And if one takes the New Testament seriously, the New Testament should give us a hint as to when it is OK to go Old Testament on problem people.

Jesus did not tell us to love starving African children. Jesus said “love thy neighbor”, not love the whole world. The human heart is not large enough to love the whole world. A man can only love his own small part of the world.

Which then led to discussion on who is thy neighbor, and his clarification still did not include the whole world. Seems to me his story of the Good Samaritan implies that standard behavior to all those other Samaritans (rape and kill, loot and burn) was OK, or if not really OK, nonetheless a regrettable necessity in this fallen world.

Which in our game theoretic terminology, the terminology of the Dark Enlightenment, means you should attempt to break out of defect/defect equilibrium when you have a chance of doing so, not regardless of whether you have a chance of doing so.

In a more obviously threatening world, Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan is unlikely to suffer radical scope inflation, but safe and coddled as the cuckservative is, he doesn’t translate the parable into “I’ll get a mexican I find lying near-dead by the road to a hospital,” but rather, “I’ll save the WHOLE WIDE WORLD one adoption at a time.” So in the more materially trying times that are historically typical, 3) sets a standard the average congregant only hopes to approximate. But in these unusually prosperous times, the cuckservative instead sees a bar to be cleared by as wide a margin as he can muster. He wants to outdo Jesus, and he’s under the delusion that he can.

The Starving Children of Africa are not good Samaritans. Given half a chance they will cut your throat for a nickel. And if you think that they are good Samaritans, you are holier than Jesus. Recollect my recommended procedure for those that claim authority on the basis that they are holier than Jesus. A large part of the reason that so many black African children are starving is that black Africa is stuck in a severe defect/defect equilibrium, and cannot get out of it except that white men with whips take charge of them.

So: To return to the title of this post: How does the good Christian genocide inferior races and take their stuff? Clearly Weston’s approach is unchristian. But Ransom is not Christian either.  He thinks he is Christian, but he and his angel are progressives. There has to be right way to do it. The New Testament does not dump the old.

A common Dark Enlightenment theme is that while our physical technology has been improving, our social technology has been collapsing, has been being systematically destroyed. Chesterton’s fence keeps being demolished by status signaling do-gooders.

So how did our good Christian predecessors manage a good Christian genocide? Naturally they did so in a way that built a high trust society, whereas Weston’s approach to genocide “It is not by tribal taboos and copy-book maxims that she has pursued her relentless march from the amoeba to man and from man to civilization” is apt to undermine a high trust society.

We shall visit past good Christian genocides, but, before visiting past good Christian genocides, let us revisit the parable of the Good Samaritan:

Luke Chapter 10:

29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

So the good Samaritan is the neighbor of the man who fell among thieves.

Which implies that the Levite and the priest were not the neighbor of the man who fell among thieves, let alone all the other Samaritans.

Since the protagonist of the story was from Jerusalem, the levite and the priest were geographically his neighbors, but, being no good, did not deserve to be treated as neighbors. The Samaritan was not geographically his neighbor, but did deserve to be treated as a neighbor. The word “Neighbor” implies that geography and ethnicity matters, but not to the extent of overriding human decency.

Notice that wine is mildly antiseptic, and prevents wounds from becoming infected, while oil protects the exposed living flesh that is trying to form scar tissue to cover the wound. Jesus is not only commending good behavior, but also reminding his audience to follow the best medical practice of the day.

So you are not required to love the Levite, the priest, and all the other Samaritans. Just that good Samaritan. And, given the conspicuous propensity of the Staving Children of Africa to behave badly towards white people, and indeed badly to any African who is not close kin, you can refrain from loving them also. You are required to show generosity and forgiveness that moves us from defect/defect equilibrium to cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, but not actually required to be a doormat to be walked on. You are not required, or even permitted, to be a cuckold. If you love the priest after he passed by on the other side, you are undermining, rather than supporting, a high trust equilibrium. Further, if someone claims to love the priest after he crossed to the other side, and the social justice warrior who threw him to the wolves without worrying about his innocence or guilt, he is claiming to be holier than Jesus, and if I had my way, we would crucify him and see if he rises again. Holiness spirals are dangerous, and need to be forcefully discouraged.

And now, the much promised, much foreshadowed, account of how to genocide inferior races and take their stuff in a good Christian fashion, as our ancestors did; Past best practice for acquiring land and resources currently occupied by no-good people who prevent it from being put to its highest and best use while supporting, rather than undermining, your society’s high trust equilibrium:

A bunch of white American settlers want to settle on American Indian land.  Indians have previously indicated that they are unhappy with this, and there are previous agreements that white people will not settle on this land.  You offer them payment, including a lot of barrels of firewater.  Indians accept the deal, land for nice stuff, including lots of firewater. They get drunk, stay drunk, while settlers move in and build some forts.

After a while, the whiskey runs out.  The Indians wake up with a blazing hangover, no food, and no hunting grounds.  “We have been cheated”, they wail.

They demand their land back.  The settlers in the fort tell them to go to hell.

Some braves agree to go bravely looking for some undefended or minimally defended white women and children.  They catch a woman, and two small children.  Whom they rape, then skin, then burn alive.  Then they bravely go back to their tribe and tell their tribe. “Well now it is war.  So which side are you on.  The side of us very brave braves, or the side of the people who took your land and gave you this hangover?”

The tribe declares for the warpath.

And then you kill them all and take their stuff.

Weston’s error was that he proposed to kill them and take their stuff without first legitimately purchasing the land and tempting them into committing unspeakable crimes.  Had he done so, and obtained the land in that fashion, then this would have created the dangerous precedent that some stronger party could take the land from him, undermining the high trust equilibrium that made the great achievements of his society, of which he was so proud, possible, for that high trust equilibrium and the ensuing high achievements rested on tribal taboos and copy-book maxims.

291 Responses to “How to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner.”

  1. Alf says:

    Jim,

    reading you feels like taking an ice-cold shower of truth.

  2. Contaminated NEET says:

    I always thought it was ridiculous how the Roman Republic would needle peoples whose stuff it wanted to take into committing acts of war against it before conquering them. When you put it that way though, it makes sense.

    • Yvjrolu says:

      I always thought the Roman “needling” behavior was best explained by the fact that local commanders were the ones incentivized to start wars, and they happened to have the ability to needle and insult but not to simply declare war.

      I also think the dynamic where some elements within the group want conflict and so they try to provoke the outgroup is a better explanation of the white vs. indian conflict in Jim’s post. I don’t think it’s really a matter of them not being able to just exterminate by right of strength because someone else could use that as a justification for exterminating them; conquering by right of superior holiness seems to cause the same problem anyway.

  3. John says:

    Stupid little cunt. You got Ransom and Weston mixed up.

  4. Stephen W says:

    I dont like offering up women and children as sacrifices to be skinned alive by degenerate foreigners. Foreigners are fair game because they are foreigners and I care not a jot what some jewish god has to say about the matter.

  5. peppermint says:

    — For example homosexuality is bad because homosexuals spread disease and don’t care about the future or the long term.

    It’s worse than that, Jim. Homosexuals, men who don’t want sex with women, do not exist. Kinsey said they don’t exist and evolution suggests that they shouldn’t. They are just betas. They are trying to rank themselves against each other and put on sexual displays for women. The best trick the devil ever did was tell women to try to prove their sexiness by getting beta to fuck them.

    • peppermint says:

      Civilization is based on men trusting each other to be alpha. Of they can’t, they’ll spend much more time mate guarding and trying to get some pussy on the side and correspondingly less time working to improve the situation their children will inherit.

      That’s why faggotry must not be normalized and faggots must not be shown successfully reproducing.

  6. Erik says:

    > “there is some important truth in Ransom’s position, and a dangerous and deadly lie in the position of Weston and the angel.”

    Ransom is on the side of the angel against Weston; it seems you were skimming this book a little too fast. Minor confusion of names aside, your general point still comes through, but I object nonetheless that you then skimmed Lewis too fast, and you have mistaken an exchange in a science fantasy novel for a general point on war. When it comes to general points on war, Lewis sets out a position in the essay “Why I Am Not A Pacifist” – which I do not have to hand at the moment, but I expect I shall find my copy shortly to verify that my memory has not failed me. If I recall correctly, Lewis is in favor of conquest done rightly and *specific* benevolence – which may mean mercy to the conquered, and which may also mean crushing all resistance to end a war the more swiftly – rather than waffle about universal peace. Consider this a rain check for that argument.

    For the moment I would say that the Malacandrans in the Lewis book you are quoting are more like Amish than subsaharans. Weston would likely not have been able to provoke the Malacandrans into unspeakable crimes, and the Amish are hardly barbarians we should conquer.

    • peppermint says:

      Amish are capable of understanding moral arguments. Lewis’s savage tribe is not.

      The Amish have so far been doing pretty well with their evolutionary strategy of building their community and eschewing the degeneracy of democracy or the technologies that would put them in contact with democracy. As soon as the USG falls, or Donald Trump is declared divine emperor of the White race, the Amish can and will get up to speed on modern military technology and conquer Baltimore to be their capital.

      • Erik says:

        “Amish are capable of understanding moral arguments. Lewis’s savage tribe is not.”

        Stop talking out your ass. You’re not even wrong; you’re just ignorant and talking nonsense. Go read the book, or leave discussion of it to those who have.

        • peppermint says:

          Yeah, see, when the translator said he couldn’t translate moral concepts into Mandinka, it implied that the savages are incapable of talking about morality.

          This is why CS Lewis was too stupid to see that Anglicanism was collapsing, while Tolkien kept reciting the Latin mass until he died.

          So now you can go back to choking on savage chode to the degree that CS Lewis deems proper.

          • Erik says:

            Now you’re wrong. I suppose that’s progress, of a sort.

          • peppermint says:

            » ‘Life is greater than any system of morality; her claims are absolute. It is not by tribal taboos and copy-book maxims that she has pursued her relentless march from the amoeba to man and from man to civilization.’

            » ‘He says,’ began Ransom, ‘that living creatures are stronger than the question whether an act is bent or good – no, that cannot be right – he says it is better to be alive and bent than to be dead – no – he says, he says – I cannot say what he says, Oyarsa, in your language.

            The niggers have no words for morality. This is observed IRL, niggers are incapable of comprehending the concept of rape.

            The problem with CS Lewis is that he hated the English people because his White privilege would almost certainly prevent him from entering the New Jerusalem, which may hold as few as 144,000 people, and wanted every English girl raped for her own good.

            No compromise is possible with these people. The White race will not be secured until the last priest is strangled with the entrails of the last politician.

            And who does Jim think he’s fooling by saying that ((Jesus)) isn’t a commie? Who does Jim think he’s going to motivate into action with this? NRx’s inability to stop posting about cuckstainty is why NRx is over.

            Recently all major NRx bloggers were commenting on this retarded article that said that SSPX should control everything in future France, and be installed by like maybe a million Frenchies or whatever.

            The Worst Generation is now going to their graves having tried to partially atone for their White privilege by stuffing a ball gag in their children’s mouths, under the tender loving care of affirmative action nigger nurses whose family members rape their family members. Any Cucker Democrats still alive after the reaction will be rounded up and shot for trying to atone for their White privilege or save their children from White privilege by arranging for rapes. But ask milennials what they think about cuckstainty.

            Jim, do you know any milennials?

            Black Lives Matter was a major propaganda coup for our side, because it means I can openly say that all lives don’t matter and milennials will laugh. You want to go back on that by returning to all lives in God’s image – why?

            Not that it matters, it’s not going to happen.

            Recently I was hanging out with some milennials and we were talking about Christmas lights. This guy who, if you asked him, would say he’s a liberal, said that he’s pretty sure somewhere in the Bible Jesus says that if you don’t have enough Christmas lights you’re going to hell.

            Everyone knows, of course, that ((Jesus)) was actually a commie. And the reason everyone was comfortable with making stuff up is that they do not respect him.

            Milennials are just a ‘not all lives matter’ away from abandoning all do-gooder-ism and building up their own family and community the way God intended. Not that you can fuck it up, but don’t try to fuck it up.

            The Discovery Channel was probably the most subversive part of the milennials’ world, more so even than the chans. Commies compete to most shamelessly lie about animal behavior while discussing observations of it, I was recently listening to a commie podcast with this Cucker in which the people described experiments on animal behavior and then said that it proves cuck stuff when the obvious interpretation was the exact opposite (by the way, death to journalists), but it gets really hard to do that when it’s shown in video.

          • Ron says:

            Lewis’ purpose in the story was to translate the fine sounding words that sociopaths use into plain English so as to take away the glitter of the emotional charge associated with their rhetoric.

            From the wiki definition of morality:

            Morality (from the Latin moralitas “manner, character, proper behavior”) is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper: In other words, it is the disjunction between right and wrong

            Or whether an act is “good or bent”.

            He’s done this in a number of other novels, particularly when he contrasted the pompous crap Queen Jade came up with to justify her murders with Diggory’s uncles’s BS to justify the same.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Peppermint Papist”, you are nothing but a troll. More attention for you means you’re winning. I’d say “get a life”, but this is likely the best it gets for you.

            A.J.P.

        • Erik says:

          For the record, here’s why I’m confident peppermint hasn’t read the book (or utterly forgotten it if he has): “Lewis’s savage tribe” has no referent.

          First off, Malacandra has no singular tribe for the statement to naturally refer to. It’s populated by three species, all of which Ransom visits: the seroni, the hrossa and the pfifltriggi. Nor is any particular tribe the subject of the conversation quoted, which is between two humans and one unique being (not a member of any of the three species above).

          But even supposing that peppermint lazily lumped the three species together, the description would still be wrong: the Malacandrans are stated in the book to have a telescope, a portable respirator, a water cooler, the ability to build a copy of Ransom’s wristwatch, and something offscreen that makes Devine remark “These devils can split the atom or something pretty like it”.

          • peppermint says:

            …and, as demonstrated in the quoted part of the source text, no ability to conceive of moral concepts, meaning they are savages, and could not possibly be able to make any of that themselves, meaning they already succeeded in genociding whoever made that stuff.

            so let CS Lewis’ bad sci-fi be your warning of what happens when you take CS Lewis seriously

          • Erik says:

            And so we return to you needing to shut the fuck up on subjects where you’re clueless and wasting everyone’s time with your nigger nipple nonsense.

    • Anyone who thinks C. S. Lewis held progressive notions on the equality of men and cultures, needs to read “The Horse and His Boy”.

      • Stephen W says:

        And then at the end the prince and heir of Archenland marries the Calormene girl to create a mixed race royal family. The militancy of C.S.Lewis’s christianity was the like the neocon convert the world and intermarry with them. And then like a cuckstian be all surprised when your adopted haitian baby does not grow up to behave like white person.

    • Erik says:

      Here is an extract:

      > “I think the art of life consists of tackling each immediate evil as well as we can. To avert or postpone one particular war by wise policy, or to render one particular campaign shorter by strength and skill or less terrible by mercy to the conquered and the civilians is more useful than all the proposals for universal peace that have ever been made; just as the dentist who can stop one toothache has deserved better of humanity than all the men who think they have some scheme for producing a perfectly healthy race.”

      So, Lewis holds that there’s a place for conquest, for being good at conquest, and for dealing with people one has conquered.

      Through the essay, he repeatedly rejects Pacifism for multiple reasons. He says to weigh carefully whether a specific war is worth it because of the costs of war, but asserts the occasional necessity of war. He furthermore says that we have particular obligations to help those close to us first and primarily, and sometimes the right thing to do is to help one person by doing violence to another person:

      > “Hence from the outset the law of beneficence involves not doing some good to some men at some times. Hence those rules which so far as I know have never been doubted, as that we should help one we have promised to help rather than another, or a benefactor rather than one who has no special claims on us, or a compatriot more than a stranger, or a kinsman rather than a mere compatriot. And this in fact most often means helping A at the expense of B, who drowns while you pull A on board. And sooner or later, it involves helping A by actually doing some degree of violence to B”

      His argument continues even unto deadly violence. Considering that this is Lewis speaking directly while the post is the quotation of one of Lewis’s characters, I think /Why I Am Not A Pacifist/ deserves the greater weight.

      > “The doctrine that war is always a greater evil seems to imply a materialist ethic, a belief that death and pain are the greatest evils. But I do not think they are, I think the suppression of a higher religion by a lower, or even a higher secular culture by a lower, a much greater evil.”

      Note what is not said here: “the suppression of one culture by another”.

      • peppermint says:

        By the way, I did listen to the beginning of the award-winning Golden Compass before falling asleep, and I remember it includes a talking bear who is capable of detecting lies because he isn’t part of Western civilization but comes from a superior society that is basically socialist with a king who isn’t higher status than anyone else and no one ever lies because they are all equals.

        Oh, and a Calvinist Pope whose committees do this evil stuff that no one takes official responsibility for, which is why liberal democracy is better, because sunshine and cute babies that aren’t maliciously tortured.

        CS Lewis died in 1963. At least six years later, the Beatles wanted, but were not permitted, to comment on Pakis in council flats taking orders from Labour politicians. Desmond Tutu became a bishop in 1976.

        The rapes didn’t start in Rotherham in the aughts.

        CS Lewis was, consciously or not, trying to get English girls raped for their own and his salvation from the sin of Whiteness. His children’s books are garbage and should be burned as kindling for the Anglican churches.

        • Erik says:

          I’d ask what the Golden Compass has to do with the subject, but you’d probably just reply with another of your screeds where you go off topic, make shit up, and gargle pope cock while insisting that everyone who disagrees with you is secretly gargling nigger cock. So here’s some history of the potato in Africa.

          It is generally believed that potatoes entered Africa with colonists, who consumed them as a vegetable rather than as a staple starch. Shipping records from 1567 show that the first place outside of Central and South America where potatoes were grown were the Canary Islands. As in other continents, despite its advantages as an anti-famine, high-elevation alternative to grain, potatoes were first resisted by local farmers who believed they were poisonous. Colonialists also promoted them as a low cost food and so it was a symbol of domination. In former European colonies of Africa, potatoes were initially consumed only occasionally, but increased production made them a staple in certain areas. Potatoes tended to become more popular in wartime due to their being able to be stored in the ground. In present-day Africa they have become a vegetable or co-staple crop.

          • peppermint says:

            Me: CS Lewis was a cuck who wrote a book with a commie panda bear who uses kung fu to defeat the Pope’s mercenary Turk riflemen, because he hated Western civilization and believed that fighting White privilege was the only way he could be one of the 144,000 worthy of New Jewruselem.

            You: I love CS Lewis and Terry Pratchett and Harry Potter and tater tots and tofu because that’s what cat ladies told me to like when I was in preschool. Let’s talk about how vile racist colonialists introduced Africa to tater tots to supplement yams and cassava in climates where they are more suitable.

          • Erik says:

            Protip: CS Lewis didn’t write The Golden Compass.

          • jim says:

            Potatoes are completely off topic. I don’t censor Peppermint for being trollish and stupid, because I believe her stupidity is deliberate and mocking, but potatoes are spam.

          • peppermint says:

            okay, my mistake. in my defense I’d like to point out that both Narnia and Golden Compass are stories about little girls doing great things and the fundamential unity of all sentient beings, written by bourgeois Englishmen to advocate for the destruction of bourgeois Englishmen as Uncle Tom’s Cabin was written by a banshee from Lichfield to advocate for the destruction of the South

    • josh says:

      “What purport to be new systems or (as they now call them) ‘ideologies’, all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such vaUdity as they possess. If my duty to my parents is a superstition, then so is my duty to posterity. If justice is a superstition, then so is my duty to my country or
      my race. If the pursuit of scientific knowledge is a real value, then so is conjugal
      fidelity. The rebellion of new ideologies against the Tao is a rebellion of the
      branches against the tree: if the rebels could succeed they would find that they had
      destroyed themselves.”

      Lewis clearly acknowledges duty to his country and race to be part of the moral law, but no the whole of it. He is clearly correct.

      • peppermint says:

        Wait, are you Spandrell with more rice nigger effeminate gabbling? Did yon forget to log out of your trolling account? And who’s Lewis, the guy who worshipped the mongoloid Sacagawea Red Vixen, or some other faggot orientalist racemixer pseudointellectual queer?

        • Josh says:

          Lewis used Tao to refer to Logos in his book, the abolition of man, which argued for the ontological reality of the moral law. Using Tao as opposed to logos was a way rhetorically illustrating that morality is not culturally relative.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Josh”

            Think it this way, if Mr Lewis were too far off, he wouldn’t be worth considering in the first place. There were men much more disastrous, and Mr Lewis’ writings do stand as a cultural reference point which could be judged as a marker for the rest of society of that day.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

  7. viking says:

    WOW JUST WOW. 12 years of Catholic education before guitar masses, [and im not bitter Im sentimental], and Ive never heard it implied the Good Samaritan was not a proxy for universal brotherhood, in fact Jim as much as I love your writing and get how cool it would be if we could PWN Christianity.Christianity deluded dude you cant torture this communist theology into a dark enlightenment social glue it done stick a fork in it.
    As to CS lewis, If pulling some legal maneuver on a pre historic species makes you feel better fine buts its not going to prevent some niggers from housing your shit without the jew papers if they are physically stronger in the future. Weston is correct the only objective good is survival by any means necessary all our other goods stem from this [is co operation a better means than non copoperation; then cooperation is good{unless in a situation it is trumped by any other means necessary} Now if you cant rectify any means necessary with your high trust civilization thats your problem Gnon says check your premises

  8. Mark Citadel says:

    While I think a lot of your analysis is correct (particularly the stuff about loving your neighbor… but choosing who your neighbor is wisely), I would never go as far as to be endorsing genocide. Part of the differentiation between white supremacy and white separatism has been that most of us don’t wish ill upon the Japanese in Japan or the Lesothoans in Lesotho. We just recognize that we are incompatible to be living together and should stay in our own corners of the world.

    You bring up the point about needing to expand to survive (i.e – what happens when resources begin to run low?) At this point there are two good models for what occurs. Either other natural forces bring your requirements down, such as a plague. Or you expand into empty space so as to avoid the costs of war. Because of space travel, you have a vast opportunity for this kind of expansion, and no other populations in sight. Definitely not in this solar system, and almost definitely not in this galaxy. That is of course assuming we don’t experience a technological regress in this regard.

    As for provocation to war, I don’t think this should ever be undertaken consciously. It would likely occur unconsciously anyway, so there is little reason to plan it maniacally. In the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, are there provocations to genocide? Perhaps, but is it conscious?

    • Corvinus says:

      This is why this blog is comedic gold. Jim is proffering an argument for genocide. Until anyone here actually puts into practice this theory and go full Anders Breivik, it’s just men spouting off nonsense.

      “As for provocation to war, I don’t think this should ever be undertaken consciously. It would likely occur unconsciously anyway, so there is little reason to plan it maniacally.”

      A country’s hatred for someone or something has inevitably been on the minds of its citizens individually and collectively. There is nothing unconscious about this situation at all.

      “In the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, are there provocations to genocide? Perhaps, but is it conscious?”

      Of course it is conscious. Seeing one’s an enemy evokes an emotion. That emotion turns into a direct response, i.e. one is aware of how they feel and what they will do next. A group of people hell bent on murdering their rivals do not magically show up at the same time and unconsciously hack them to hamburger without realizing their intentions or purpose behind their actions.

      • Mark Citadel says:

        “Until anyone here actually puts into practice this theory and go full Anders Breivik”

        If you think Anders Breivik had a political aim of genocide, you clearly didn’t read his manifesto. Politicide perhaps, but not genocide. I suppose you also think he was a neo-nazi.

        • peppermint says:

          it didn’t matter what he thought. what mattered was his plan

          the fact that his manifesto was incoherent besides talking about growing up and being at the mercy of haji gangsters (who got the first pick of Norwegian women) instead of ‘ask Menachem Moldburg / Vox Day / Steve Sailer / Pat Buchanan what I meant by this’ was also tactically useful

          either the king of norway will lead a fascist coup and restore norway to the norwegians, or anders breivik will be the next king of norway

      • Morkyz says:

        Corvinus is the actual comedy goldmine because he trys for the autistic rationalism thing but actually comes off as borderline retarded.

        doh doh doh i cant into reading doh doh doh im Corvinus doh doh

        • peppermint says:

          It’s better than that, I don’t have to say the New Testament is irredeemable commie cuck fag feminism and christians pride themselves on being sheeple under a crook’s staff and hope to be slaughtered like the Lamb of God or at least to raise someone else’s baby like St. Joseph, he says it for me.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Peppermint Papist”,

            If it’s so weak then how did it eradicate the anti-Christian religions of Europe so thoroughly in a matter of centuries?

          • peppermint says:

            Because they weren’t anti-Christian, which was a mistake, and because Christians and their SJW spiritual descendants will endlessly eff the ineffable to try to convince or just fight where they feel strong to impose social justice, since the only thing they hate more than themselves is the thought that someone somewhere doesn’t agree with them.

            Islam has more reasonable views towards women, except that it encourages polygyny and faggotry. Most Christians, except for extreme sects like some Puritans, Mormons, and Anabaptists, believe in one marriage, as was the traditional White custom, but today most permit divorce, which is not the traditional White custom.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Peppermint Papist”,

            History is one big lie, isn’t it? I always thought so, but thank you for confirming my beliefs on it.

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              Alan, Peppermint sometimes pretends to be stupid.

              But if you find that meaning in Peppermint’s words, you actually are stupid.

          • peppermint says:

            If you take the theory of SJW signaling seriously, that in White civilizations that are sufficiently large and affluent, it becomes possible for certain types of people to boost their social status by signaling retarded and anti-civilizational views, there is an obvious parallel between the history and content of transsexualism, communism, and Christianity.

            At which point you have a choice.

            Do you say that SJW signaling is a flaw in our biology that will destroy our subspecies if we can’t figure out how to suppress it?

            Or do you say that it’s bad when some things are signaled, but good when allegiance to the foreign god ((Yahweh)) is signaled?

            Regardless, SJWs only secondarily care about the truth, and often compete to tell the most exquisitely crafted and audacious lie. Which means something for the man who was the son of God by a virgin, died, returned, and quickly left, and gave the world a bunch of nice commie slogans, and the theological debates of his subsequent followers, from the buggers to today’s #cucktheflesh spiritualists.

            • jim says:

              If you take the theory of SJW signaling seriously, that in White civilizations that are sufficiently large and affluent, it becomes possible for certain types of people to boost their social status by signaling retarded and anti-civilizational views, there is an obvious parallel between the history and content of transsexualism, communism, and Christianity.

              Well, obviously.

              On the other hand the anti civilizational tendencies of Christianity were tamed, not least by Charles the hammer, and those variants of Christianity were fundamental to European civilization.

              In restoration anglicanism, several of the 39 articles prohibited the holiness spiral, and anyone who wanted to be part of the elite had to sign on to the thirty nine articles. That worked, at least for a time.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Peppermint Papist”,

            History sucks and only idiots should pay attention to records of past events. Right???

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            Whoever is using the handle of “Peppermint” is dancing away from inconvenient facts, so it’s important not to let such a rhetorical technique go un-answered, of course.

            Whether I am intelligent or am not, I leave for the audience to decide for themselves.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              Whoever is using the handle of “Peppermint” is dancing away from inconvenient facts,

              Maybe, but that is not obvious to me. What inconvenient facts do you think she is dancing away from?

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Well enough, “Jim”…I do think that “Peppermint Papist” is dancing away from the fact that the religions of Europe were indeed anti-Christian.

            Then after establishing that, it is possible to go to the nearly inevitable way that Europeans did take to the faith. Since “Peppermint Papist” does represent his or herself as pro-white, it would “corner” P.P. into either acknowledging the way that the Christian myth (academic use of the word, here) captures the European soul so well, or quitting the argument altogether. At least it would momentarily.

            Not all must be believers, but thorn in the side they’ll not be allowed to be…

            For my own vanity, I would say that bringing the religious genocide of the polytheims of Europe quite fits into your blogpost, “Jim”.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

            • jim says:

              I do think that “Peppermint Papist” is dancing away from the fact that the religions of Europe were indeed anti-Christian.

              Not following you at all, and therefore doubt that Peppermint is following you at all. The religions of Europe were Christian, not anti Christian.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            That’s not entirely correct…

            A.J.P.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            “acknowledging the way that the Christian myth (academic use of the word, here) captures the European soul so well”

            I’ve also ruminated on this A.J.P. I think Peppermint makes the classical error of confusing Occidental Christianity with what some have come to call ‘Churchianity’. Joel Osteen would be unrecognizable to the Church Fathers, and I’m afraid to say so would the current Pope. Lamenting that Modern ‘churches’ allow divorce? I lament with you, but this is a perversion, not an obedience.

            How the preachings of an obscure but mystical man from Galilee who through his miraculous actions inspired a small cadre of martyr witnesses, managed to unite the decaying Occidental people around one symbol is extraordinary, especially considering that the sword was rarely employed at all in this endeavor.

            Napoleon stated: “Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded his empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for him.”

            This is something quite extraordinary, effortless if you will, especially considering that we kind of like war… a lot, especially when it is against each other. It is something of a destiny I think, that the God who walked the earth as man would have His religion intertwined with the Occidental Tradition, and not say the Indian one. The Jews clearly rejected the message out of hand. The two best bets of the religion were India and the Occident who had a similar spiritual character, and ultimately it was only the message to the Occident that succeeded. I’m pleased with that.

          • peppermint says:

            The historical religions of Europe were swept aside by being systematically subverted or overthrown by Christians in the same way that the governments of Europe were swept aside by being subverted and overthrown by democrats. It is an accident of history that apostates to democracy often signal Christianity to rally their supporters.

            » “Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded his empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for him.”

            Do you know what this sounds like? It sounds like fetishizing love, signaling reliability with a shared symbol, and signaling comfort through self-deprecation.

            Knowing how it works, hearing it makes me angry.

            And I’m not the only milennial who gets angry when hearing love fetishized, though to appreciate the rest requires the emerging theory of SJWs and signaling.

            This is why, if SJWs have no future, then neither does Christianity. But only the content of Christianity, not Christmas, which is about Santa Claus and Christmas trees and decorating your house and you get accolades for having better decorations and giving more thoughtful or expensive gifts, or Easter, which is about the Easter Bunny distributing chocolate eggs and those marshmallow rabbits and ducks.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            -Knowing how it works, hearing it makes me angry.-

            Well, I was making a more rhetorically-heavy argument but somebody stopped me.

            A.J.P.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Mark Citadel
            The reasons for Christianity’s takeover of Europe are clear in hindsight.

            Jews segregated themselves from Roman religious culture. Antenicene Christianity borrowed this element from Judaism. For example, both refused to sacrifice to the emperor, unlike the rest of the pagan world. And because it was a nonviolent, Rome largely tolerated Christianity, only subjecting Christians to some social discrimination. (the idea of widespread Christian persecution by the Roman Empire is mostly a myth)

            Unlike Jews, Christians did a lot of proselytizing. And were quire effective at it.

            Roman society underwent a moral/economic collapse, which caused a demographic collapse. Christians and Jews didn’t undergo this moral collapse, due to their segregation from Roman society. By 350 AD, there weren’t very many pagans left, but there were lots of Christians left.

            Once Christians gained political power, they were ruthless in maintaining that power. Pagan Rome tolerated lot of religions. Christian Rome tolerated only Christianity. When you destroy all your competitors, it’s difficult for a religion to replace you. There were no pagan equivalents of the Spanish Inquisition, or the Crusades.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Jim
            I meant Western pagan. Buddhism (and some parts of Hinduism) has a lot of Christian ideas in it. It presumably developed them independently.

            Ever notice that progressives like Buddhism, and some parts of Hinduism, but not Zoroastrianism, Shinto, Daoism, Confucianism or the other dozen Eastern religions?

          • Mark Citadel says:

            @RNG – I go by the assessment of ecclesiastic historian William Hugh Clifford Frend, whose studies of the source material led him to believe up to 3500 Christians were murdered during the Diocletianic persecutions, not including the sporadic executions before and after. By the standards of the day,this was moderately severe, certainly not something to be ignored.

            You think the moral and economic collapse of Rome at this time is a coincidence and is in fact not connected to Pagan religion itself and the changes it was undergoing at this time. I don’t.

            Mentioning the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades is liberalspeak, it has no bearing on the rise of early Christianity, and the two events had virtually nothing to do with killing off competition. The Crusades were a military defensive maneuver against the Seljuk Turks who attacked Christendom first. The Spanish Inquisition was an effort to prevent mob violence against recently converted Jews (Conversos) who were the subject of conspiratorial suspicion in Spain by the masses who hated them (how is this in any way ‘destroying your competitors’?). There was nothing wrong with these two incidents, at least not in principle. I know history classes don’t teach this, but then again their priority #1 is the demonization of Christianity and in fact all white history.

            “Ever notice that progressives like Buddhism, and some parts of Hinduism,”

            This is nonsense. Progressives like their imagined Buddhism which is a religion watered down to ‘muhh feels’. No white ‘Buddhists’ are actually Buddhists, it’s moral signaling. See Buddhism in Burma and compare it to your average weekend meditation club in Miami.

            Also, Progressives despise Traditional Hinduism. They have been meticulous in trying to erase the caste system in India, condemning practices such as Sati, the status of untouchables, etc. They might love Indians because they are brown, but get into the details of what Hinduism proscribes and the Progressive is aghast.

            “has a lot of Christian ideas in it. It presumably developed them independently.”

            Independent development, yes, but I would say this hints at a spiritual similarity in racial origins between Occidental man and the Indian subcontinent, as many theorists between 1920-1945 hypothesized. Note Ancient China also had a religion with some striking parallels.

          • peppermint says:

            yes, and the hard-line policies of the Tsar and the Patriarch were shown when Dostoevsky was almost executed for once having translated a document

          • peppermint says:

            by now, everyone who cares to know, knows that the moral and economic collapse of Rome was caused by the introduction of welfare that would be paid to generation after generation, and the replacement of free holders by slave plantations. Destroy the middle class, destroy the White civilization. Duh.

            And because the middle class will inevitably choose signaling reliability through gleefully spouting whatever madness is in fashion, and signaling comfort through calling for the destruction of the middle class, the middle class must not be consulted as a group through voting. Duh.

            The Enlightenment was wrong, Christianity didn’t kill Rome, welfare did. But if Christianity wants to support welfare, which I will define as such altering of economic incentives as reduces the power, prestige, and fertility of the White alpha male, then to hell with Christianity.

            We are told love, love, love, love is all you need, it means that the White men of my generation must systematically be denied the resources to form families or the right to flirt with women, while the White women of my generation are endlessly propagandized to date subhuman garbage, who are handed the trappings of being White alpha males like jobs and apartments. So to hell with love.

            Now to quote Revilo Oliver. Someone mentioned that proggies ♥ curryniggers. They should, because the curryniggers were created through the White race mixing into oblivion and returning to the primordial soup of the Ganges never to threaten to create anything unnatural and leave a permanent mark on Gaia ever again

            » The even more absolute doctrine of the “sanctity of all life” appeared in the “Orthodox” religions of India and Buddhism while the Aryans were still dominant. In polyphyletic India of today, individuals who humanely avoid injuring the lice they remove from their hair associate with individuals who are votaries of Kali and believe that the highest religious merit is obtained by treacherously murdering a man whose confidence they have cleverly won. Such is the charming diversity of a multi-racial society. (The Enemy of Our Enemies, part 6, 1981)

            And regarding Rome,

            » Professor Frank C Bourne contributes to the volume a concise account of the” alimentary program” of the Roman Empire. This interesting institution had its inception in private benefactions comparable to the endowments that founded most of the colleges and universities in the United States, but in this case intended to provide for the children of poor parents food and clothing until they came of age, thus assuring the children of an opportunity to attend local schools instead of going to work, and indirectly encouraging the lower middle class and wage-earners to have large families. (If the Latin that you read in high school or college included letters of the younger Pliny, you may remember that he set up a foundation of this kind.) (America’s Decline, page 214, Men and Dinosaurs, December 1961)
            » Under Nerva (96-98 AD) the Welfare State assumed respon- sibility for children throughout Italy, intending at first, merely to supplement private benefactions, but soon and inevitably the imperial treasury took over the entire operation and converted it into a “program” far more ingenious and practical than anything thus far devised by our professional parasites in Washington. The governmental system not only (a) provided the sustenance of poor children, but also (b) tried to solve the Roman “farm problem” by making available to reputable cultivators loans at low interest for the improvement of their lands, especially lands of the kind now called “marginal,” thus (c) reducing unemployment in, and stimulating the economic life of, towns in “depressed” agricultural areas, and thereby (d) restoring prosperity to many municipalities and large parts of the countryside, and so (e) creating the conditions in which responsible people are willing to beget children. And the objectives of (e) are further fostered by (a), since the children are guaranteed sustenance and education in the event of the financial failure or death of their parents. The plan that combined these various pur- poses was not only ingenious but feasible. It was, furthermore, well administered by a judicious division of responsibility between the central government and local authorities, evidently designed to hold to a minimum the number of administrators; and Roman bureaucrats, unlike our own, appear to have been, on the whole, both honest and diligent. The plan worked for a hundred and seventy- five years, and the institutions thus established survived, despite occasional difficulties, until the revolving funds were extinguished by the great monetary inflation and concomitant catastrophes of the Third Century.
            » But the plan failed from the beginning – was doomed to failure by ineluctable forces which the Romans, who had before them so much less history than we, may be pardoned for not seeing. And Professor Bourne, although well disposed toward bureaucracies and economic planning (which he regards as the mark of a “mature civilization”), shows why the plan’s apparent success merely masked for a time a profound and inevitable failure. “While the alimentary institution, to judge from its hearty acceptance by land-owners, was a success in respect to the agrarian problem, and while it undoubtedly fed and clothed many children” it was essentially an extension of the Welfare State. “Generations of governmental support for hundreds of thousands of Italians, without requiring from them any tangible service, made it clear to them that they had rights on which they could insist, but taught nothing of commensurate duties.” Paternalistic government merely created “a social and political irresponsibility based on an arrogant and childish belief in ‘rights’ and confidence in immunity to danger.” The net result was a population whose “lack of vigor, and irresponsibility” doomed it to extinction at the hands of the barbarians.
            » This is a clear illustration of the operations of forces inherent in the very nature of society. As every student of politics (including, I suspect, our more intelligent “liberals” despite their artful verbiage) well knows, a Welfare State necessarily entails a totalitarian despotism – and despotisms, for obvious purposes of their own, foster “lack of vigor and irresponsibility” in their subjects. The economic price of a Welfare State is crushing taxation. The social price is national suicide. (America’s Decline, page 214-216, Men and Dinosaurs, December 1961)

            » In the Second Century a freeborn Roman citizen named C Sergius Alcimus buried his son and recorded the following facts – and only these facts – on the marble tombstone: the boy (1) died at the age of three years, three months, and three days; (2) got his handout from the public treasury on the tenth day of each month; and (3) got his handouts from Wicket No. 49. This particular inscription is No. 10,224-b in Volume VI of the great Corpus inscripiionum Latinarum, and you will find many other inscriptions of identical form on the same and adjacent pages of this volume and in other volumes of the Corpus – all proudly recording for posterity the unconscious debasement of their authors. But perhaps you will not find these inscriptions as significant as I do; I shiver when I read them. (America’s Decline, page 216, Men and Dinosaurs, December 1961)

            » An easy and superficial answer could be made in terms of con- temporary persons and events. With few and brief exceptions, the empire was ruled by despots who ranged from ruthless pirates to mutton-headed fops, including such figures as the well-read and pious Theodosius II, who professed and probably felt, “Love of man-kind”, but, in the words of the contemporary historian, “lived in cowardice” and was “under the control of his eunuchs in everything … They beguiled him, to put it briefly, as children are beguiled with toys.” One can draw up a long list of battles lost by folly or treason, and ask why supreme command of the greatest naval effort of the century, equipped at a cost that had strained to the utmost the resources of a declining nation, was entrusted to Basiliscus, who appears to have been both a fool and a traitor.
            » But even in the first chapter an attentive reader will see a deeper cause as he notices with increasing wonder that most of the prominent figures on the Roman side are not really natives of the Empire. Strike out the names of mercenaries imported from across the border, or superficially naturalized barbarians, and of first- generation Romans: the pages of history are left almost vacant. You cannot read far without confronting the appalling fact that that vast empire is one in which irresponsibility and torpor have become virtually universal; it has a multitudinous population, great cities, a noble culture, a new and elevating religion, wheat, gold, iron… But it has to import the one thing that no nation can really buy – men.
            » When the Romans finally destroyed Carthage in 146 BC, they destroyed a powerful nation that had combined a high degree of civilization (in commerce, industry, scientific agriculture, navigation, and politics) with the terrrible religious savagery evident in such institutions as the great bronze machine that was used on ceremonial occasions to shovel living children by the hundreds – including sons and daughters of the Carthaginian aristocracy – into the furnace that burned within the colossal idol of Baal. To the Roman mind, as to ours, the masochistic sadism of the Carthaginians was incomprehensibly alien and horribly inhuman. Yet before long – in less time than has elapsed since our Constitution was ratified – the Romans had set up a socio-political machine that was far more deadly – a machine, adorned with specious phrases and built, in part, with good intentions, for the sacrifice of their own children.
            » The machine devoured the Romans – almost all of the great families of the Republic were extinct by the time of Nero. It devoured the other peoples of Italy. It devoured the hardy provincials who had been brought into the /imperium Romanum/. It devoured whatever was virile and valuable in the descendants of the innumerable slaves that the Romans had recklessly brought into Italy and then set free with indiscriminate generosity. And when the machine had devoured the last manhood of an exhausted world, its work was done – and the empty husk of a dead nation collapsed of its own weight. (America’s Decline, page 218-219, Men and Dinosaurs, December 1961)

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Mark Citadel
            >I go by the assessment of ecclesiastic historian William Hugh Clifford Frend, whose studies of the source material led him to believe up to 3500 Christians were murdered during the Diocletianic persecutions, not including the sporadic executions before and after
            Given the Christian population of 5 to 6 million, that figure is about 0.006% of the Christian population. And the Diocletian/Galerius persecution was the worst of Roman persecutions.

            The United States government killed a much larger percentage of Mormons than Rome killed Christians.

            If you compare these figures to the anti-pagan persecutions of Theodosius I, and similar, Christianity was clearly the harsher and more militant religion. Which is not necessarily bad – killing lot of people is usually bad, but harshness brings order.

            >You think the moral and economic collapse of Rome at this time is a coincidence and is in fact not connected to Pagan religion itself and the changes it was undergoing at this time. I don’t.
            I don’t know whether it was a coincidence.

            It’s clear that both Christians and pagans can be civilized. And both can be anti-civilization. Whether there is a general association between Christianity, and civilization, I don’t know.

            >the two events had virtually nothing to do with killing off competition. The Crusades were a military defensive maneuver against the Seljuk Turks who attacked Christendom first. The Spanish Inquisition was an effort to prevent mob violence against recently converted Jews
            Defensive maneuvers are “killing off competition”. Literally and figuratively.

            The Spanish Inquisition was one of several Inquisitions, which were started to combat the heresy of the Cathars. And the Spanish Inquisition was designed to suppress various heresies, especially Protestantism, in recently-covered Jews and Muslims.

            >There was nothing wrong with these two incidents, at least not in principle.
            I’m not arguing there was. I was simply pointing out that Christianity was more ruthless than paganism.

            >This is nonsense. Progressives like their imagined Buddhism which is a religion watered down to ‘muhh feels’. No white ‘Buddhists’ are actually Buddhists, it’s moral signaling.
            You’re half-right. Progressives pick and choose some bits of Buddhism, and leave other bits. For example, they like meditation, egalitarianism, and it’s attempt to deconstruct established social values. Of course, they ignore the non-PC, and difficult-to-do bits of Buddhism.

            >Progressives despise Traditional Hinduism. They have been meticulous in trying to erase the caste system in India, condemning practices such as Sati, the status of untouchables, etc. They might love Indians because they are brown, but get into the details of what Hinduism proscribes and the Progressive is aghast.
            Again, you’re half-right. Progressive love some parts of Hinduism, and hate other parts. The parts they love are things like Hare Krishna, which is anti-caste. Can you find someone more famous than George Harrison, who joined Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, or Daoism, et cetera?

  9. Alan J. Perrick says:

    My priest said a few words from the pulpit about being careful about the sentimentality that is contained in Victorian Age writings a few weeks after he caught me reading some Victorian literature before a service.

    A.J.P.

  10. Alrenous says:

    >all thinking beings are fundamentally the same
    Lewis not terribly familiar with modus tollens, it would seem.

  11. CuiPertinebit says:

    Sometimes, Jim, you are brilliant. Sometimes, you seem more interested in conforming the things you read to your own view, rather than taking time to understand things on their own terms. I know that this is a temptation of blogging/writing – one wants to get something out there, and it seems worth the gamble to assume that you’ve understood something, or that people won’t notice or care.

    The parable of the Good Samaritan is indeed that the man in need is your neighbor. But I would agree that this means “the man in need whom you happen upon, who is in your path,” and that it also means “somebody deserving of help.” It certainly does not mean “pretending to really really love people really really far away,” still less that “bloodthirsty thieves from some remote corner of the globe should be relocated to your city park because of Jesus.”

    As to CS Lewis, it is disingenuous to propose that dialogue as though it were one between a strong, civilized man and a simple tribe of barbarians who only occasionally eat white men’s brains. That novel is exploring the idea of there being unfallen, sinless life on other worlds. The dialogue is therefore between a fallen man who is proud of all the contraptions we have invented to stave off mortality and to compensate for our frustrated contemplative faculties, and a group of sinless Martian immortals who have no frame of reference for our experience. And the words of the angel are true enough, in the supernatural order charity touches all equally (with piety, friendship and eros being another matter, as CS Lewis demonstrates again and again in his other writings, chiefly “The Three Loves” and “Until We Have Faces” – he wasn’t an idiot, you know).

    If you wanted to write a post on how a Christian goes about removing Kebab (and Africans), “Biblically,” I can write a much shorter one for you:

    “Any group that poses an unjust threat to people living justly in peace, may be repelled with force in proportion to the threat (i.e., its injustice, proximity, immorality, etc.). Also, we should take a page from Jesus’ book and revile, whip, confound and otherwise molest those who trample upon the sacred – and, much in Western civilization is sacred.”

    Indeed, that’s the point. If, in the mid-20th century, Western Man had taken the whip to those who were trampling upon the sacred, chasing the Jews and Usurers and petty sundrymongers out of the cultural commons, and flogging their unworthy priests and kicking them out the Church doors and down the temple stairs, and ripping Paul VI and John Paul II limb from limb (or lighting them on fire like the heathens and heretics of old) for their incomprehensible blasphemies, rather than meekly and insouciantly tolerating that the sacred be profaned and the moral integrity of the West be violated, then we would not be in this position. But they failed to act, and so the Revolution entered even into the temple. We have been left the mess. Christianity is a Church, not a “Bible-based” ideology. Those who break from the Church do not know how to handle the flame of Scripture, and are broken apart by its lofty ideals of sanctity. One consistent error made since the Protestant Reformation, is that the distinction between the Evangelical Counsels and the Commandments has been lost, as has been the distinction between the moral duties of differing states in life. And so, now, this “Bible-based” Revolution has come even into the former institutions of Christendom preaching its Satanic mockery of charity and faith; but everywhere the Church, actual Christianity, is in eclipse.

    You will never explain this to a Cuckstian, because he is one of the “Bible-believers” – those worthy few who know that all the Bible can be summed up in these two phrases “Judge not” and “Love thy neighbor.” But actual Christians have been swinging swords at people for centuries; Christianity doesn’t need a lecture on how “okay” this is. It’s just that there are few Christians left, even in the formerly Catholic institutions. All the time, I am understanding more clearly why the Scriptures use the term “anti-Christ” to describe the gradual spirit of apostasy – “antichrist” means “in place of Christ.” That is what this Cuckstian thing, this Protestant-Humanist Revolution, is – something that insists on occupying the ideological and institutional places of the Church, as an hostile force.

    • jim says:

      The parable of the Good Samaritan is indeed that the man in need is your neighbor.

      No that is not the parable of the Good Samaritan. That is the progressive spin on that parable.

      The question asked was who is the neighbor of the protagonist, the man in need, not who is the neighbor of the good Samaritan, and the point of the story was that the priest and the levite, though geographically his neighbors, failed to act like neighbors, and therefore the protagonist is not obligated to love them.

      Jesus tells the audience to love their neighbor.

      Audience suspects this is a little simplistic and unreasonably extreme, since some neighbors are no damned good, so ask Jesus for clarification

      Jesus replies Luke 10 36

      “Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?”

      So him who fell among thieves is not your neighbor because in need. Rather the Good Samaritan, from far away was the neighbor, and the priest and the levite, from near at hand, were not neighbors.

      So

      1. You are told to love your neighbor, not love everyone equally.

      Audience seeks clarification. Maybe this doctrine is a little too racist for them.

      2. Clarification: You don’t have to love your no-damned-good neighbor, and you do have to love the guy who helped you when in need.

      The plain and clear meaning of the parable is not universal love, not that everyone in the world is your neighbor, but the exact opposite, that some of your geographic neighbors are not very neighborly, and you don’t have to love those guys.

      • Irving says:

        Jim, it is true that Christianity does not and has never taught universal love, at least not in the sense that modern people would understand that concept, but it is simply false to say that the only people whom you are obliged to love are those that have helped you once or who can potentially be of help to you in the future.

        • jim says:

          It is simply false to say that the only people whom you are obliged to love are those that have helped you once or who can potentially be of help to you in the future.

          Seems to me that the geographic neighbors (other than the priest and the levite) of the man set on by thieves are the set of people who can potentially be of help to him in the future, and the good Samaritan represents the set of people who have been of help to him in the past.

          • Irving says:

            John 3:16 says: “”For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.”

            Did God sacrifice “his one and only son” only for his neighbor? Did his son sacrifice his own life only for his neighbor? The answer to both questions is no. God sacrificed his son for all of the sons of Adam; Jesus sacrificed his life for all of the sons of Adam.

            I think most of what you’ve written in this post is sound common sense that can for the most part be backed up by Christian teaching. My main objection is with your argument that Christianity teaches that one should only love when it makes practical sense to love, whereas what Christianity really says is that you are really only responsible for the well-being of yourself and your neighbors, not starving Africans or any other outsiders who neither live near you nor share any cultural or religious or racial commonalities with you, but that you are still obliged to love everyone and to remain in principle ready to do everyone–irrespective of who they are–a good turn whenever it is within your power to do so, unless their is some compelling reason not to do so.

            As well, the idea that one can rob or kill an entire people in a way that conforms to Christian teaching is offensive to Christian teaching. However, conquering “inferior races”–and of course, in Christianity, though there isn’t anything intrinsically wrong with this term, it would have to be used in a sense different from how I suspect you’re using it now–but in order to enrich yourself is fine so long as you aren’t acting in a way that is unduly oppressive.

            • jim says:

              Did God sacrifice “his one and only son” only for his neighbor?

              Maybe God can love everyone, though he seems to have a lot of people genocided, sent to hell, etc, but it is not in the nature of humans to love everyone. A man’s heart is too small to love the whole world, and the best he can do is love his part of it.

              As well, the idea that one can rob or kill an entire people in a way that conforms to Christian teaching is offensive to Christian teaching.

              Seems to be a fair bit of it in the old Testament. Not to mention that the Christians of a few centuries ago seemed pretty keen on it also.

              • Alrenous says:

                If I have two children, whom I love, if one is called Abel and the other Cain, I’m very apt to kill Cain. This is no way means I don’t love Cain. On the contrary, it may well be I wish to prevent him from suffering for his sin. However, once Cain has decided to kill Abel, no matter what I do one of them is going to die, and I can only choose which. Might as well kill the guilty party, rather than the innocent.

                The original texts rather strongly hint that Hell is not eternal. Things that burn are consumed. By contrast, Heaven is “eternal life.” Ye Olde God sends wicked souls to Hell because he is beholden to logic, and if they’re not sent to Hell, they must be accommodated in Heaven. To accommodate them in Heaven is to kill Abel and let Cain live.

            • jim says:

              you are still obliged to love everyone

              Not seeing it. Where in the old or new testament does it say “everyone”?

              The set of people that the man who fell among thieves was obliged to love were those that had done him good (the good Samaritan), or might likely do him good in future (those of his geographic neighbors who had not yet been un-neighborly).

              Which is something the human heart is indeed capable of managing.

          • Irving says:

            To be a Christian is to imitate Christ who, completely selflessly and motivated solely by love, sacrificed his life in order to save the human race from sin.

            Forget about the Old Testament in this regard. The Old Testament speaks of the love that Jews must have for other Jews. Jesus came to say that this love must be extended to the Gentiles.

            God is not the cause of evil. Fallen man is.

            Humanly speaking, we must prioritize in regards to whom we offer our help. Obviously our family takes precedence over friends, friends over acquaintances, acquaintances over strangers, your ethnic in-group over those ethnically other than you, so on and so on. This does not mean that genociding “inferior races” is an acceptable thing to do.

            • jim says:

              God is not the cause of evil. Fallen man is.

              And sometimes fallen men organize into groups, or naturally come in groups, and dealing with members of groups as individuals may be difficult and dangerous, sometimes suicidally so.

              The New Testament does not directly address this problem, but the Old Testament and the tradition of the Church does. And the New Testament does not directly contradict the Old Testament solutions to this problem.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Irving”,

            Didn’t God arrange for King Saul to be deposed because he didn’t “finish the job” with the Amalekites as he commanded him?

            Also, “Jim” is making good points regarding God’s heart vs. man’s. Hear, hear!

            Another thing is that a Christian who becomes too light, or insubstantial, is losing his saltiness, isn’t he? That means that he is only good for being thrown out into the street where people walk and then he’ll be stepped on (used as a doormat).

            A sign that self-proclaimed Christians aren’t as Christian or as holy as they portray themselves is that they are being metaphorically cuckolded so severely. In the United States, the first black president has a father from a foreign continent, and so the curse of Deut. xxviii. 43 where the alien rises higher and higher above you is being fulfilled as punishment for the lack of saltiness, or remembering that salt is a preservative, the lack of preservative staying-power that is commanded of Christians.

            From a non-Christian perspective, the Philosopher Marcus Tullius “Tully” Cicero, who is referenced often by the great Latitudinarian Anglican divines, wrote that “Gratitude is not only the greatest of all virtues, but the parent of all others” and Saint Paul of course wrote that “the greatest of these [three Theological Virtues of faith, hope and charity] is charity” 1 Cor. xiii.13. So without the action of the giving of aide from the Samaritan, whence cometh these indispensible virtues of gratitude and charity?

            Good neigbours and bad neighbours are based on what they’ve done. How could anyone love the bad form of the thing more than the good form of it? The good neigbour is more loveable because he does inspire that virtue of gratitude in one’s self. That’s natural.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

          • Irving says:

            Alan J. Perrick,

            I agree that Jim is making good points. But I really must insist none the less that he is wrong to say that Christianity teaches that it is only binding on the Christian to love when it is practical for him to do so. It is contrary to what is expressly stated in Scripture and is also opposed to what Christians have always believed. Christianity teaches that all are worthy of love insofar as they are the product of God’s creation and were created in his image.

            None of this means that we must be friends with everyone or that everyone is equal or whatever. Slavery (even of fellow Christians) is permitted, so long as the master’s treatment of the slave is not unduly harsh or oppressive. It is recognized that war is a reality of life and cannot be avoided, and so cannot be prohibited. Charity is encouraged but, because our means are limited, there must necessarily be limits to our charity. As well, it is recognized that charity given in excess can corrupt the recipient. Sometimes it is best to let the hungry starve so as to be an example to the rest. But — and this is the crucial point — although you’ve deliberately allowed the hungry to starve, that does not mean that you are no longer obliged to love those who were hungry that you have allowed to starve.

            All of this is basic Christian teaching.

            • jim says:

              Christianity teaches that all are worthy of love insofar as they are the product of God’s creation and were created in his image.

              Does it?

              Well I am sure Christianity does now, but Christianity also preaches acceptance of female initiated divorce, divorce at whim, sodomy and ladyboys now. Do you have an ancient source for the proposition that all are worthy of love? Just how long has Christianity been teaching that all are worthy of love?

              And, supposing that all are worthy of love, which I am much inclined to doubt, it is beyond human ability to love them all, whereas what Jesus asked of the man set upon by thieves seems doable, given that Jerusalem was small town by our standards. There are a lot of country towns today where people born and raised in that small town do care a lot about everyone else born and raised in that small town.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Irving”,

            Yes, and sometimes there are situations when the death penalty is called for…The sentenced man is still loved, in a way, but not in the same way that the good neighbour is loved.

            Christians insisting on the death penalty is not so basic anymore, I don’t think. There are a lot of luke-warm ones calling themselves Christian, which creates a different kind of need. A need for unity of spirit.

            A.J.P.

          • Irving says:

            Jim,
            >Do you have an ancient source for the proposition that all are worthy of love? Just how long has Christianity been teaching that all are worthy of love?

            We are obliged to love everyone because we are obliged to imitate Christ, who loved everyone. This is evidenced by the fact that he did not give his life only for his immediate neighbors or only for his fellow Jews, but rather for all of the sons of Adam, who are all created in the image of God. None of this is the product of the effeminized, modernist Christianity which sanctions sodomy and opposes patriarchy that we see being practiced in most churches today but is, instead, a teaching that was established and understood from the beginning. The Evangelists knew it, the Church Fathers knew it, the early Christians knew it, and so on.

            >And, supposing that all are worthy of love, which I am much inclined to doubt, it is beyond human ability to love them all

            I disagree that it is beyond human ability to love everyone. I agree that it is very hard to love everyone. But let’s put things in perspective. Difficult as it may be to love someone half a world away from you, it is about as difficult to love those who are closest to you, those who are actually your neighbors and who share things in common with you. Love is difficult to define but let us say that to love is essentially to imitate the example of Christ. In that case, we can say that under certain circumstances sacrificing everything from one’s wealth to one’s life will be authentic signs of true love. But how many people are willing to do these things, even if it is for their spouses or children or friends? Christianity recognizes that loving everyone is hard and so it recognizes that no human, except for the saints, will ever perfectly satisfy the requirement to love everyone.

            • jim says:

              >Do you have an ancient source for the proposition that all are worthy of love? Just how long has Christianity been teaching that all are worthy of love?

              We are obliged to love everyone because we are obliged to imitate Christ, who loved everyone.

              And plans to send a bunch of people to hell.

              Seems to me that Jesus blighting the fig tree is symbolic of the man set upon by thieves being excused from loving the neighboring levite and neighboring priest.

              12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:

              13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

              14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever.

              Did not love that fig tree, nor those who might eat from it in due time.

              >And, supposing that all are worthy of love, which I am much inclined to doubt, it is beyond human ability to love them all

              I disagree that it is beyond human ability to love everyone. I agree that it is very hard to love everyone. But let’s put things in perspective. Difficult as it may be to love someone half a world away from you, it is about as difficult to love those who are closest to you, those who are actually your neighbors and who share things in common with you.

              Love for faraway strangers is always cold enough to make your testicles drop off.

              Those who claim to love people in places that they could not find on the map always in practice somehow wind up doing dreadful evil.

              Do gooders have regularly murdered millions in ways that one would never do to one’s neighbor. So called heterosexual AIDS is actually international aid AIDS – spread by needle re-use by clinics. Clinics with paying customers or local funding do not re-use needles. And recall the various iron ricebowl programs that starved those that they would feed.

          • Irving says:

            Jim,

            >Seems to me that Jesus blighting the fig tree is symbolic of the man set upon by thieves being excused from loving the neighboring levite and neighboring priest

            In no place does Jesus say that the priest or the levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan are not to be loved. Or else he would have specified that his sacrifice of his own life on the cross was not done for the benefit of the priest or the levite, which he didn’t.

            >Love for faraway strangers is always cold enough to make your testicles drop off. Those who claim to love people in places that they could not find on the map always in practice somehow wind up doing dreadful evil.

            All of this is true, but what does it prove? It is already well-known that it is difficult to love. That does not mean that it is impossible to love.

            >Do gooders have regularly murdered millions in ways that one would never do to one’s neighbor. So called heterosexual AIDS is actually international aid AIDS – spread by needle re-use by clinics. Clinics with paying customers or local funding do not re-use needles. And recall the various iron ricebowl programs that starved those that they would feed.

            But do these do gooders do what they are doing out of a sense of Christian charity, inspired by Christian love? That is the question that needs to be answered. I say no, they aren’t.

            • jim says:

              In no place does Jesus say that the priest or the levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan are not to be loved.

              Yes he does: The question before him is “Who is my neighbor”, which in context is “who am I required to love”, and Jesus’ answer is that the priest and levite are not neighbors, even though geographically neighbors.

              One is not required to love one’s neighbor if he is unneighborly.

            • jim says:

              >Do gooders have regularly murdered millions in ways that one would never do to one’s neighbor. So called heterosexual AIDS is actually international aid AIDS – spread by needle re-use by clinics. Clinics with paying customers or local funding do not re-use needles. And recall the various iron ricebowl programs that starved those that they would feed.

              But do these do gooders do what they are doing out of a sense of Christian charity, inspired by Christian love?

              Hence the phrase “cold as charity”.

        • jim says:

          Who are the neighbors of the man set upon by thieves, but those who have helped in the past (the good Samaritan) and those who might help him in the future (geographic neighbors who have not yet demonstrated unwillingness to behave in a neighborly way)?

      • B says:

        >Rather the Good Samaritan, from far away was the neighbor, and the priest and the levite, from near at hand, were not neighbors.

        “From far away”? Samaria is not exactly Tibet.

        The word which is here being mistranslated as “neighbor” actually means “fellow.” When used in the Torah, it means “fellow Jew.” So there are things like not charging your fellow interest and so forth.

        In any case, this is a standard leftist alliance with far against near. Look at those noble Syrian refugees, so much better than racist rednecks. This is a Good Samaritan, much better than the bad priests.

        • jim says:

          >Rather the Good Samaritan, from far away was the neighbor, and the priest and the levite, from near at hand, were not neighbors.

          “From far away”? Samaria is not exactly Tibet.

          Samaria is not a neighborhood of Jerusalem.

          • B says:

            >Samaria is not a neighborhood of Jerusalem.

            Samaria is very close to Jerusalem-its southern border is the mountains of Jerusalem. Galilee, where Jesus was from, is separated from Jerusalem by Samaria.

            Really, it is very funny when goyim explain our Bible, our geography and our language to us.

          • B says:

            So by your retarded logic, the Samaritans were closer to Jewish Jesus that the Jews of Jerusalem, since Samaria is closer to his native Galilee than Jerusalem is.

          • B says:

            You are attempting to convince us that “re’eh,” the word which means “fellow” and was mistranslated as “neighbor,” actually means “neighbor” in the sense of geographical proximity.

            And that the main problem with the Samaritan from the perspective of the Jews was that he did not live in a suburb of Jerusalem. I am pointing out that Galilee, from which Jesus was, was much further from Jerusalem that Samaria, and that obviously nobody involved takes “re’eh” to have anything to do with geography.

            • jim says:

              You are attempting to convince us that “re’eh,” the word which means “fellow” and was mistranslated as “neighbor,” actually means “neighbor” in the sense of geographical proximity.

              When the Old Testament was translated by people from a few centuries ago, or a few millenia ago, the translation tells us that today’s Jews are not particularly Jewish, are no more faithful to the Old Testament than today’s Christians.

              Whenever I examine a particular holy text, it is obvious that today’s Jews are torturing the text, and this creates a conspicuous bad habit in Jews of torturing any and every text, such as the text of contracts already signed, and bets already made.

              People get over excited over this propensity of Jews, and obsess over it. It is true that “with Jews you lose”, in that you can rely on a Jew to find a surprising meaning in a contract already signed, but on the other hand, you can rely on an Egyptian, a gypsy, or a black to completely forget about a contract already signed. The recent financial crisis did not reflect cleverly worded contracts created by Jews, nor overly complex derivatives created by Jews, but completely fraudulent mortgages created by diversities. Goldman Sachs got burned by Angelo Mozillo, not the other way around, and most people who complain about this propensity in Jews are losing their sense of proportion and sanity. Nonetheless it is an irritating and noticeable tendency in Jews.

          • B says:

            >When the Old Testament was translated by people from a few centuries ago, or a few millenia ago, the translation tells us that today’s Jews are not particularly Jewish, are no more faithful to the Old Testament than today’s Christians.

            Good job, Muhammad. What next, the Chinese make a genius exegesis of the Torah and discover that they are the true Jews?

            >Whenever I examine a particular holy text, it is obvious that today’s Jews are torturing the text,

            Being completely ignorant of context and the original language, you can’t “examine” anything. You skim, you don’t examine.

          • peppermint says:

            bro, i think a neighbor is a much stronger bond than a fellow, but not necessarily a friend. but i can understand if other guys think differently

          • B says:

            I’m not your bro, bro, and what you think doesn’t matter.

        • jim says:

          The word which is here being mistranslated as “neighbor” actually means “fellow.” When used in the Torah, it means “fellow Jew.”

          Modern Jewish translations of the Old Testament are bunkum and lies. Modern Jewish mistranslations of the New Testament are double bunkum, lies, and malice.

          • B says:

            >Modern Jewish translations of the Old Testament

            Ahahahahah

            Translations from what, Chinese?

            We have the source text. No variations, down to the letter.

            The only reason you people know what it says is because we translated it for you

          • B says:

            Yes, thank you, we had no idea what a “re’eh” was until King James’ scholars came and told us. Rashi, upon whom they relied, didn’t know how to read Hebrew. Wonderful lucidity.

          • peppermint says:

            yeah, I’ll side with Jim on this one. you’re not my fellow, dude

          • B says:

            I bless G-d every morning for not making me your “fellow.”

            Fortunately, He also gave me the opportunity to cease being your “neighbor”…dude.

          • CuiPertinebit says:

            @B

            Until recently, the oldest Hebrew manuscript of the Bible was the Codex Leningradensis, which was itself only 1000 years old. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed in many instances the Christian usage of the Septuagint, and even the Vulgate.

            We have always known what is said – and more importantly, what it meant – better than you. By the grace of God, that is; certainly He can blind us just as easily as He blinded your people, and in fact, it is hard to conclude otherwise, than that Jew and Gentile alike are now quite mad together.

          • B says:

            >Until recently, the oldest Hebrew manuscript of the Bible was the Codex Leningradensis, which was itself only 1000 years old.

            So what? Parchment doesn’t survive much longer except in really exceptional conditions.

            >The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed in many instances the Christian usage of the Septuagint, and even the Vulgate.

            1) Which usage specifically are you talking about? The one where you purposely mistranslate “reah” as “neighbor” (even though the word for neighbor is “shohen” and “reah” means “fellow?) Or where you purposely mistranslate “almah” as “virgin” (even though the word for virgin is “betulah” and “almah” just means young woman)?

            2) The Dead Sea Scrolls do not include a complete Torah scroll and seem to have been used by a non-mainstream sect.

            >We have always known what is said – and more importantly, what it meant – better than you.

            See above. Or do you mean when you were concluding that what G-d means by Jew is Gentile, or what He means by the prohibition on graven images is to make lots of them, or that one is three and three is one? Or when your Church Fathers were explaining that the commandment to be fruitful and multiply means renouncing marriage and living on top of a pillar? Or when you, after deciding you were now the Jews, spent 1700 years killing each other over various fine points of doctrine? When you were issuing indulgences? Or when you decided to split, and then the splitters started mass murdering each other (I mean the treatment of the Anabaptists in the new Calvinist paradise)?

            You guys have always oscillated between the two poles of craziness and saving dishonesty.

            >By the grace of God, that is; certainly He can blind us just as easily as He blinded your people

            Blinded us to what? He has brought us back to our Land at the end of a long exile, just as He told us. You know what comes next, right?

            When you steal property belonging to someone else, the presence of the original owner is a continual reproach.

          • peppermint says:

            » When you steal property belonging to someone else, the presence of the original owner is a continual reproach.

            oy vey, it’s anuda shoah

            (卐つ◕ل◕)つ·︻┻═━一 ᕕ(✡ᐛ )ᕗ

      • CuiPertinebit says:

        So, why did the Samaritan take pity on the man, since that man had not yet done anything to prove his neighbourliness? Even if we admit your interpretation, you are saying that folk need to act neighbourly first (as the Samaritan did) in order to be considered neighbours – and this includes ourselves, no? Thus, the initiative in neighbourly behavior and charity is still required, at least until someone proves himself undeserving of our overtures. And that is why the narrative ends thus: “Which of these three, in thy opinion, was neighbour to him that fell among the robbers? But he said: He that shewed mercy to him. And Jesus said to him: Go, and do thou in like manner.” I.e., go and show mercy.

        Is it not obvious that the point of the parable is that the Jewish hypocrites who actually were the man’s neighbours in the physical sense, did not act like neighbours towards this man – but a Samaritan, not his neighbor, who just happened to be passing by, acted like a neighbor through his charity? “Go thou and do likewise.” It is worth reiterating, that this commandment, as all commandments, exists in the greater context of morality and reason – Jesus is not saying “if a Moslem rapes and murders your first wife, get remarried and offer him the second.”

        For what it’s worth, the Fathers of the Church inform us that the deeper meaning of the parable is an allegory of Christ. Man had fallen among thieves (the passions and the demons); the representatives of the Old Law left him as he was and did nothing to improve his situation. Finally, someone from further away (the Lord) came, treated his wounds with oil (the holy chrism) and wine (the Eucharist), placed him upon his own beast of burden (incorporated man into His Body), took him to an Inn (the Church), and left a deposit with the Innkeeper (Peter and the Apostolic choir), promising that he would return (the Parousia) to make restitution of accounts (the last Judgment).

        • Dan says:

          Well said. In typical form Jim ignores the most relevant post with the strongest counter argument.

        • jim says:

          So, why did the Samaritan take pity on the man, since that man had not yet done anything to prove his neighbourliness?

          That was an act of Supererogation, a voluntary act going besides, over and above God’s commandments, which commandments require this conduct only for one’s friends and neighbors.

          Doing acts of Supererogation is commendable. Preaching acts of supererogation is, as the fourteenth article says, “arrogance and impiety”

          To preach acts of supererogation is to declare oneself holier than Jesus, without the troubling inconvenience of actually doing anything holier than Jesus.

          Your interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan is a clear violation of the 14th article.

          As I have said several times, I favor crucifying everyone who violates the fourteenth article and then checking their grave in three days to see if they rise again.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >I favor crucifying everyone who violates the fourteenth article and then checking their grave in three days to see if they rise again.
            And what if the grave is empty, and his disciples declare that he is risen?

            We should believe things because they are valuable or true. Not because the founder was a miracle-worker.

            Obviously, a lot of the stuff in the gospels is self-destructive. And so we don’t follow it. Pacifism, celibacy and wealth redistribution may or may not get you rewards in the afterlife – but normal people do not value them.

            It seems odd that you won’t admit this. Aren’t you an atheist? Why must you get Jesus’ approval?

            • jim says:

              Obviously, a lot of the stuff in the gospels is self-destructive.

              If it was all that self destructive, Christianity would not still be around. Most of the self destructiveness is a quite recent addition – nineteenth or twentieth century.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >If it was all that self destructive, Christianity would not still be around
            Firstly, it’s not around. The only remaining Catholic are sedevacantists. How many are there worldwide? Thirty-thousand?

            And this is an ongoing process. St. James taught a different religion than Jesus. St. Paul taught a different religion than St. James. Nicene Christianity was a different religion than the one taught by St. Paul. The only long-surviving variant of Christianity is Catholicism – which died 50 years ago.

            Catholicism was very careful to protect the average believer from the gospels. For a long period of time, they didn’t even read them in church. Of course, the Priests could read the gospels, and were correspondingly self-destructive – celibate, pacifist and poor.

            Secondly, how many kids did Jesus have? How much wealth did he accumulate? How long did he live? He was poor, childless, and due to misbehavior, was executed at thirty years old. Can’t get much more self-destructive than that.

            Thirdly, the gospels idealize ascetic preachers, who gives up the world, in order to preach about the Kingdom of God. It’s not surprising that the religion survives, despite being self-destructive. The self-destructiveness is the fuel for the religion’s propagation.

            Judaism survives by spreading from Parent-to-Child. Christianity survives two ways. Parent-to-Child and Preacher-to-Convert. And since you will, on average, make more believers as a Preacher than as a Parent, it elevates Preachers above Parents.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            Also, I should point out that both the New Testament and Catholic Tradition firmly support my claims here. The gospels are filled with Jesus warning his followers that they must “take up their cross and follow him”, and that in order to follow him, they must “hate their family”, and “give all they have to the poor”. Jesus says that people should (metaphorically) self-emasculate for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

            Hebrews 11:35b others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

          • B says:

            >Restoration Anglicanism had pretty good continuity with Pauline Christianity.

            “Pauline Christianity” being Jim’s version of what Paul must have been trying to say. Because what he actually said was that eunuchs and celibates were the ideal.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Restoration Anglicanism had pretty good continuity with Pauline Christianity.
            Nope. It had less continuity than Catholicism. That’s the natural trend of religions – it’s rather difficult to restore a lost religion, and very easy to move farther and farther away.

            Paul says that celibacy is superior to chaste marriage. But marriage is not a sin. That’s the perspective of Roman Catholicism, but not Protestantism.

            Paul says Jesus was created. Nicene differs. Paul probably didn’t believe in “Faith Alone”, as Luther did.

            Paul repeatedly alludes to weird rituals and theology. Baptism for the dead. The third heaven. Judging angels. Angel lust for human women. Speaking in tongues. Ever met an Anglican prophet? The New Testament had a bunch.

            If you want a reconstruction of Pauline Christianity, Mormonism is the closest modern attempt. And they aren’t very close.

          • CuiPertinebit says:

            If by “preach supererogation,” you mean say that supererogatory acts are morally obligatory and not merely morally praiseworthy, I agree. That’s why they are called supererogatory. But one should certainly encourage people to consider making the special acts of supererogation, as our Lord Himself did.

            The 14th article is itself the very cause of holiness spirals, as I would have thought was plain to any Neo-reactionary thinker who reads it. It misses the eminently Catholic distinction between the Evangelical counsels and commands, conflating them by an error of logic so rudimentary that it is almost more aptly described as an error of fact. The previous and authentically Christian doctrine allowed for people who wish to strive for holiness according to the Lord’s special counsels (celibacy, poverty, renouncing all care and provision for the morrow, etc.) to do so, yet restrains them from criticizing those who do what is required without going beyond. But the 14th article, by eliminating the very notion of supererogatory works as arrogance, elevated our Lord’s counsels of perfection into norms of Christian conduct for ALL Christians, telling them that even if they should renounce all their wealth and future and love-lives, etc., they should still feel as though they had only done what was required. And hence one gets the Puritans and Jansenists and Quakers and Shakers and other utopian sects, all of which suffered from a tendency to try to make the spirit of the Evangelical counsels obligatory, or at least more normative, even in the everyday spirituality of the average Joe Christian.

            All of that said, I would maintain that having a charitable spirit towards others we come upon in the normal course of things is obligatory (NOT supererogatory), but that charity does not always mean offering them help in goods or services if there are other moral considerations and duties that would advise against this (or even prohibit it), such as our primary duty (via piety) to fulfill our obligations of care, provision, protection, etc., towards our kith and kin before we show it to others.

            The Catholic view – which is not Bergoglio’s view, BTW – is obviously the balanced and complete view; why you would go for the proto-SJW doctrine of the 14th article, the article that itself defines the obligatory nature of the counsels of perfection for all Christians and thus sparked the most intense holiness spiral in history, is unfathomable to me.

            • jim says:

              But the 14th article, by eliminating the very notion of supererogatory works as arrogance, elevated our Lord’s counsels of perfection into norms of Christian conduct for ALL Christians,

              This argument makes no sense at all.

              Jesus was always ranting against people being excessively and ostentatiously holier than thou. The fourteenth article also condemns those who are excessively and ostentatiously holier than thou.

              When has the Roman Catholic Church condemned those who are excessively and ostentatiously holier than thou?

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Cui. Pert”,

            You can rage against the Christian denominations of the historic white United States, but that only shows where you’re focused. No surprise, it’s the white race.

            A.J.P.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Jim
            Listen to what CuiPertinebit says. He’s the smartest guy around here.

            Jesus obviously teaches a set of moral ideas (celibacy, poverty, pacifism) that cannot be followed by all of society. If everyone is celibate, or pacifist, or poor, society will totally collapse.

            So, if you want to maintain civilization, you have three options

            1) Lie, and say that Jesus didn’t teach celibacy, poverty, pacifism (Traditional Protestantism)
            2) Don’t subject the majority of the population to these teachings. Permit people to follow Jesus’ teachings, bur require them to be orderly and lawful about it (Catholicism)
            3) Reject Christianity (Nietzsche, Evola, et cetera)

            If someone wants to be a pacifist, or celibate, or poor, that’s fine. They can take a vow, join a monastic community, and be subject to the bishop and government. But if they join a monastery, they can’t run around demanding that everyone else be pacifist, celibate, or poor.

            >When has the Roman Catholic Church condemned those who are excessively and ostentatiously holier than thou?
            For starters, Albigensian crusade and the Inquisition. And their suppression of Anabaptists.

            The 14th article of the 39 articles is certainly a source of holiness spirals. Christ clearly condemns wealth and violence, and considers celibacy superior to marriage. If we follow the 14th article, then pacifism, poverty and celibacy are not works of supererogation, but universal commands for all Christians. Hence, holiness spirals.

            Suppose we regard Christ’s teachings of pacifism, celibacy and poverty to be a higher standard than normal humans should be expected to reach. Then they are works of supererogation, which may only be taught as mandatory to those who have taken vows, and adopted a higher moral standard as their moral code.

            • jim says:

              Christ clearly condemns wealth and violence, and considers celibacy superior to marriage. If we follow the 14th article, then pacifism, poverty and celibacy are not works of supererogation, but universal commands for all Christians.

              Oh come on. In context “For ye have the poor always with you”, not universal commands that all Christians are expected to follow. The woman who broke her alabaster box of ointment of spikenard was plenty rich, and Jesus commands that she always be remembered for her good work. And where does Jesus recommend celibacy at all? He says that some are called to celibacy – but clearly not everyone, or even very many, are called to celibacy. And Paul says, if not called to celibacy, must marry, which in context (a Bishop must be monogamous and have a patriarchal family with obedient children) makes the Roman Catholic position heretical, and the endless sex scandals predictable.

              If “ye have the poor always with you” ye are generally not yourselves poor. And the woman with the alabaster box of precious ointment certainly was not poor.

              The Pauline position on priestly marriage follows logically from Jesus’ position on celibacy

              And the Pauline position is that marriage is not only permitted for Deacons, but almost mandatory for Bishops.

              2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

              3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

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

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

              6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

              7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

              8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

              9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

              10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

              11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

              12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >In context “For ye have the poor always with you”, not universal commands that all Christians are expected to follow.
            For wealth, the relevant passages are Mark 10:17-31 and James 5. And there are plenty of reasons we’d still have poor people, even if all Christians gave away all their money.

            >Mark 10:24b-25: Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is[a] to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

            Simply put, Jesus thinks that (almost) all rich people go to hell.

            >And where does Jesus recommend celibacy at all? He says that some are called to celibacy – but clearly not everyone, or even very many, are called to celibacy.
            Matthew 19:9-12 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

            1 Corinthians 7:38 So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.

            Jesus and Paul clearly teach that celibacy is superior to marriage, making the Reformation position heretical. It is not clear how many people are called to celibacy. Clearly not everyone. Both Paul and Jesus seem to recommend celibacy for “those that are able”, which is an unclear phrase.

            >And Paul says, if not called to celibacy, must marry, which in context (a Bishop must be monogamous and have a patriarchal family with obedient children) makes the Roman Catholic position heretical, and the endless sex scandals predictable.
            We’ve been over this before. Paul is not requiring Bishops be married. I’m not arguing this again.

            >If “ye have the poor always with you” ye are generally not yourselves poor
            Semantics.

            • jim says:

              >And where does Jesus recommend celibacy at all? He says that some are called to celibacy – but clearly not everyone, or even very many, are called to celibacy.

              Matthew 19:9-12 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

              You are stretching Jesus beyond recognition. That is not Jesus commanding celibacy, but reluctantly tolerating male divorce, adultery, and polygyny.

              Certainly stretching Jesus beyond the ability of Saint Paul to recognize him. You know what Paul said on priestly celibacy.

              Your interpretation of the teachings of Jesus is not the interpretation of Peter and Paul.

              In the immediate aftermath of Christ’s death, some Christians interpreted him has commanding communism. We are not told what happened to the communists, presumably the usual, because by the time of Acts, a few years after his death, they have given up on communism. And as for celibacy, though you can torture the words of Jesus into a recommendation of celibacy for everyone, Paul is perfectly clear that he prohibits celibacy for those that are not called to it – and most priests are not called to it.

              Celibacy, poverty, pacifism etc, are not commanded for most Christians, many Christians, or even many notably exemplary Christians. Paul tells us a Bishop should be an exemplary Christian – and married with children. Jesus tells us that the woman with the alabaster box was an exemplary Christian, or going to be one (anticipating his death) and she was rich.

              The official Roman Catholic position on celibacy is unambiguously heretical.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >That is not Jesus commanding celibacy
            I didn’t say Jesus commanded celibacy. I said

            >Christ clearly condemns wealth and violence, and considers celibacy superior to marriage. If we follow the 14th article, then pacifism, poverty and celibacy are not works of supererogation, but universal commands for all Christians.

            So what is celibacy, if not a work of supererogation? What are poverty and pacifism, if not works of supererogation?

            BTW, the definition of supererogation I’m using is
            >the performance of more work than duty requires

            >In the immediate aftermath of Christs death, some Christians interpreted him has commanding communism
            If you’re referring to the church in the book of Acts, it was led by Peter and James. And it’s a bit of a leap to call this “commanding communism”. They practiced a lot of wealth sharing. They did not claim that wealth sharing was mandatory – and Peter claimed that wealth sharing wasn’t mandatory (Acts 5:4, read in context).

            >The official Roman Catholic position on celibacy is unambiguously heretical.
            I’m just repeating that I disagree. But I don’t want to argue about this again.

            • jim says:

              So what is celibacy, if not a work of supererogation? What are poverty and pacifism, if not works of supererogation?

              Performing works of supererogation is very holy if God calls you to do so. But unless you are very unlucky he probably will not. Teaching works of supererogation, or even performing them in an excessively conspicuous manner, is arrogance and impiety.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Celibacy, poverty, pacifism etc, are not commanded for most Christians, many Christians, or even many notably exemplary Christians
            Jesus thinks that pretty much all rich people go to hell. Jesus thinks that everybody who is angry with his brother is going to hell. Jesus thinks that celibacy is superior to married chastity. None of these points can be credibly disputed.

            >Paul tells us a Bishop should be an exemplary Christian – and married with children
            We’ve been over this, and I’m not going to argue about it again. You’re still wrong.

            >Jesus tells us that the woman with the alabaster box was an exemplary Christian, or going to be one (anticipating his death) and she was rich
            If you keep pouring perfume on people’s feet, you probably aren’t going to be rich for long. We don’t really know her situation.

            • jim says:

              Jesus thinks that pretty much all rich people go to hell.

              Some followers that Jesus regarded as exemplary were rich, therefore poverty not required. After Christianity became an institutionalized movement under Peter, and then under Paul, Christians were not expected to give away all their wealth. In the Petrine church, polygyny was reluctantly permitted. In the Pauline Church, polygyny strongly discouraged but bishops and deacons were expected to be married with children. Celibacy was clearly not expected of priests, let alone laymen, and it is far from clear that monogamy was expected of laymen.

              >Paul tells us a Bishop should be an exemplary Christian – and married with children

              We’ve been over this, and I’m not going to argue about it again. You’re still wrong.

              The words you quote from Jesus as requiring celibacy for all do not require celibacy for all, or even very many, or anyone but a few rare exceptions, and the words of Paul treat celibacy as gravely suspect. If someone is supposedly celibate like Paul, maybe he is a saint like Paul, or maybe more likely he is secretly buttfucking little boys.

              >Jesus tells us that the woman with the alabaster box was an exemplary Christian, or going to be one (anticipating his death) and she was rich

              If you keep pouring perfume on people’s feet, you probably aren’t going to be rich for long. We don’t really know her situation.

              If she was giving away all her wealth or not, Jesus did not consider that particularly relevant.

              We don’t really know her situation because Jesus sat on objections to her wealth.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Some followers that Jesus regarded as exemplary were rich, therefore poverty not required.
            Roman Catholicism thinks that pretty much all rich people are going to hell. And yet a lot of Roman Catholics were rich.

            >After Christianity became an institutionalized movement under Peter, and then under Paul, Christians were not expected to give away all their wealth.
            Correct. Why? Remember, there are two civilized, Christian options:

            1) Lie, and claim that Jesus permitted wealth and violence and encouraged marriage (Protestantism)
            2) Regard poverty, pacifism and celibacy as works of supererogation, and don’t teach them to normal people (Catholicism, Orthodoxy)

            >In the Petrine church, polygyny was reluctantly permitted. In the Pauline Church, polygyny strongly discouraged
            The NT never addressed polygyny, which would have been foreign to Greeks, and uncommon for Jews. You are inferring these attitudes, from verses not on the subject of polygyny.

            >bishops and deacons were expected to be married with children.
            We don’t agree on this, but I don’t want to argue this particular point again.

            >Celibacy was clearly not expected of priests
            Agreed.

            >it is far from clear that monogamy was expected of laymen.
            Agreed.

            >The words you quote from Jesus as requiring celibacy for all
            And you accuse B of twisting people’s words. I never said this. I said that

            1) Jesus regards celibacy as superior to marriage
            2) If you believe the 14th article, then celibacy cannot be a work of supererogation, because it is taught by Jesus, and Jesus wasn’t impious
            3) Therefore, since celibacy is not a work of supererogation, it is a part of normal morality
            4) Therefore, celibacy is a moral duty

            To clarify your objections, just answer these questions.

            >Is celibacy a work of supererogation?
            >Did Jesus teach celibacy? Was Jesus’ teaching on celibacy “impious”? (to quote the 14th article)

            The 14th article is rather absurd, and leads to rather absurd conclusions.

            • jim says:

              1) Lie, and claim that Jesus permitted wealth and violence and encouraged marriage (Protestantism)

              It is perfectly clear that Jesus permitted wealth and violence and encouraged marriage, and if it was not clear, it is clear that that is how he was interpreted by his immediate successors, in particular Saint Paul.

              If you believe the 14th article, then celibacy cannot be a work of supererogation, because it is taught by Jesus

              Jesus did not teach celibacy. The Roman Catholic Church teaches celibacy, and therefore finds it necessary to torture the words of Jesus.

              Standard Christian Orthodoxy on this topic is obviously correct.

              Many of the apostles were married.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >It is perfectly clear that Jesus permitted wealth and violence and encouraged marriage
            Historically, the Roman Catholic church, the Orthodox church, and many types of Protestants have disagreed. All you have is a small group of Protestants, who were common between 1517 and 1700, but barely exist anymore.

            Also, note that the link you cited teaches the Roman Catholic doctrine on celibacy, rather than the Reformation doctrine.

            >If one is called into full time service, he wrote, it’s better not to marry

            To quote Luther “Christ wants a minister of the word to have a wife, but the Pope does not”. It should be rather obvious that this is false. Or perhaps half-false – Christ presumably wants those who “are not able to receive this teaching” to be married.

            • jim says:

              Historically, the Roman Catholic church, the Orthodox church, and many types of Protestants have disagreed.

              Holiness spirals. People trying to each be holier than the other, and pretty soon, be holier than Jesus. It is a chronic problem, which problem Jesus and Paul anticipated, and which problem gave rise to progressivism.

              You really have to forcefully repress this stuff with vigorous shaming if your religion is a non state religion, or executions and enslavement if your religion is a state religion. Should have enslaved William Wilberforce for apostacy and sold him to the Indies to cut sugar cane.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            –If you keep pouring perfume on people’s feet, you probably aren’t going to be rich for long.–

            *Tips Dawkins book

            M’professor

          • CuiPertinebit says:

            Response to various miscellanies:

            @ Ghost of Nixon, regarding your three options, I would also add a 4th: “Teach something like the 14th Article, and imply that Jesus’ praise of celibacy, poverty, detachment, etc., are normative advice, since the Lord Himself cannot have preached them as supererogatory if we consider supererogatory works to be arrogant by definition (Utopian and Kakangelical Protestantism)

            @Jim, St. Paul was himself a celibate, as were Ss. Timothy and Titus, whom he ordained to the episcopate. It is clear already in the Apostolic Fathers that celibacy is highly praised. The requirement that a bishop be the husband of one wife is obviously a minimum requirement, to exclude men who remarried after death or divorce of a first wife, or were even polygamists. St. Paul felt fine setting monogamy aside when an even higher standard was present. And it is obvious that he did not affirm celibacy only for those with a vocation. He explicitly teaches that celibacy is superior to marriage, and states that those who remain celibate do better and have a better manner of life, and says that the only reason to consider marriage, is fear of incontinence – placing marriage above burning in hell, but below celibacy quite clearly. So it was with our Lord – obviously a celibate, along with His Mother – who did not gainsay the Apostles when they exclaimed “if this is so, it is better than a man never marry.” His reply was that “some make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven – let him who can open himself up to this, open himself up to it.” Nothing about a “vocation,” everything about encouragement to pursue the higher path unless one feels unable to do so, and fears a lack of self-control.

            The Catholic sex scandals are fewer and further between than in other institutions. We dwell on them more than others, because we live in a Judaeo-Protestant civilization whose very essence is rebellion against the God and the Church.

            “When has the Catholic Church opposed being holier than thou?” Oh, I dunno, maybe in the Bible, the constant teachings of the Fathers (who forbid the faithful to detest marriage, wine, meat, or any created good, even if they choose to abstain for the sake of a greater good), the Synod of Gangra, the XIV Synod of Ancyra, the 6th Ecumenical Council, the 53rd and 86th approved canons attributed to the Apostles and to St. Basil, respectively, the 23rd Canon of the II Lateran Council, Clement XI’s Apostolic Constitution “Unigenitus Dei Filius,” and other canons and liturgical exhortations so numerous that it would be impossible to count them all.

            • jim says:

              > @Jim, St. Paul was himself a celibate, as were Ss. Timothy and Titus, whom he ordained to the episcopate

              Jesus, John, and Paul were celibates. All the other apostles married, including Peter, the first leader of unified Christianity (and pretty much the last, because it instantly started to fragment)

              So if you want to argue that the Pope is the successor to Peter, the Pope should be married.

              > > “When has the Catholic Church opposed being holier than thou?”

              > Oh, I dunno, maybe in the Bible, the constant teachings of the Fathers (who forbid the faithful to detest marriage, wine, meat, or any created good, even if they choose to abstain for the sake of a greater good), the Synod of Gangra, the XIV Synod of Ancyra, the 6th Ecumenical Council, the 53rd and 86th approved canons attributed to the Apostles and to St. Basil, respectively, the 23rd Canon of the II Lateran Council, Clement XI’s Apostolic Constitution “Unigenitus Dei Filius,” and other canons and liturgical exhortations so numerous that it would be impossible to count them all.

              I am not familiar with these examples, other than sixth ecumenical, which loudly announced with a flourish of trumpets that it was much holier than Jesus.

              So, I will look up the 86th approved Canon.

              Hmm. What do you know. I cannot find it. I suppose that like Saint Paul on marriage, it is hidden in the basement behind the water heater.

            • jim says:

              The requirement that a bishop be the husband of one wife is obviously a minimum requirement, to exclude men who remarried after death or divorce of a first wife,

              That is a ridiculous interpretation. Obviously a widow or widower is free to remarry and no odium attaches to that practice.

              Since many Christian converts were Jews, many Christian converts would have more than one wife. Paul does not tell converts they have to ditch their excess wives, or even that they are permitted to ditch their excess wives. Therefore, polygyny was common in early Christian congregations. Thus the rule “husband of only one wife” was a requirement of priestly monogamy, not priestly celibacy.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            I now see why you irritate B so much.

            But perhaps the New Testament is best known by someone who doesn’t know greek, and is not very familiar with the writings of the church fathers, or early Christian history.

            • jim says:

              So then, great expert on early Christian history, what did early Christians do about polygynous converts?

              The Jews did not adopt monogamy until the Christians had been kicking their asses for centuries, yet there is not a word in the New Testament barring or strongly deprecating polygyny for laymen.

              The straightforward interpretation of Paul’s injunctions on marriage to such cases is that a woman should not marry a man who is already married “let each woman have her own husband”, but, supposing she is, regrettably, married to a man with multiple wives, she should humbly obey him and sexually gratify him, and should not divorce him for any reason except abandonment, and that a man with multiple wives should endeavor to ensure that they are all sexually gratified and taken care of, and should not divorce any of them except for cause.

              And given that a significant number of early Christians must have had multiple wives, your interpretation of the relevant passages is unreasonable. If you interpret them as forbidding widowers from remarrying, you are left with a New Testament that says nothing very critical of polygyny and does nothing much to discourage it.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Obviously a widow or widower is free to remarry and no odium attaches to that practice.

            No odium?

            1 Timothy 5:9 (ESV) Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband,

            Is this prohibiting polyandry? Promiscuity? Remarriage after being widowed/divorced?

            • jim says:

              If she has been the wife of multiple deceased husbands, probably financially well off.

              “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” – younger widows should remarry, rather than seek assistance from the Church.

              In context:

              11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;

              12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.

              13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.

              14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

              15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.

              16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.

              So: The Church’s welfare system should not undermine the patriarchal family and relieve women of the obligation to work: Therefore a young widow should attach herself to another patriarch. Otherwise the Devil will find work for idle hands.

              The proposition that widows and widowers should not remarry defies common sense. You can interpret it that way if you want to, but it is an unreasonable interpretation in any age. And particularly unreasonable in an age when they have polygynous families sitting in the pews.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >great expert on early Christian history
            I am no expert on early Christian history, but I have read a number of people who are. And you consistently invent implausible interpretations, that are not consistent with scholarly consensus.

            >what did early Christians do about polygynous converts?
            Unclear. There wouldn’t have been very many. Polygamy was only practiced by wealthy Jews, not Greeks or Hellenized Jews. Early Christians were disproportionately poor, and except for the early Jerusalem church, largely Greek or Hellenized Jewish.

            All the NT letters we have are in Greek. And except for the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, and the Gospel of Matthew, would have been written to a Gentile audience. So it’s expected that the NT doesn’t address polygyny.

            I’m guessing that each local church would have made it’s own decision regarding polygynous converts, with no consistent policy or theology. And each church would have probably reinforced the norms of the surrounding society – Jerusalem would have tolerated polygyny, while Greek churches would have prohibited it. But that’s just a guess.

            >If she has been the wife of multiple deceased husbands, probably financially well off.
            Do you actually think that’s what Paul meant?

            The phrase “wife of one husband”, and it’s reverse, “husband of one wife”, are slightly different in Greek. Essentially, they say “woman of one man” and “man of one woman”. The word for “wife” and “woman” are the same. The word for “man” and “husband” are the same.

            They are general prohibitions of promiscuity. They are not specific prohibitions of polygyny, celibacy, divorce, remarried widow(er)s, or anything in particular. Nor are they likely rigid requirements. They are simply a general recommendation that the person not have had a lot of sexual partners, or lived an immoral sexual lifestyle, or violated the marriage bond.

            The idea of lifelong celibacy has a complicated history. Jews considered sexual discharge to be unclean, and thus required people to occasionally be abstinent, but had no practice of lifelong celibacy. Lifelong celibacy in antenicene Christianity was probably associated with people who couldn’t get married, due to a prior sinful lifestyle, or their low social status.

            With the development of monasticism in the 300s and 400s, celibacy was formally organized as a ritual way of “giving up the world”, and pursuing a life of spiritual contemplation, and service to God. The New Testament has no formal monasticism, though the Prophets lifestyles, and Jesus’ ideal of a traveling ascetic preacher can be described as proto-monastic.

            >The proposition that widows and widowers should not remarry defies common sense.
            Well, yeah.

            • jim says:

              I am no expert on early Christian history, but I have read a number of people who are. And you consistently invent implausible interpretations, that are not consistent with scholarly consensus.

              B is always pontificating that reliable sources say X, but when challenged, has trouble naming his reliable source, and when he names it, it seldom says X.

              So if I disagree with the scholarly consensus, name a point of disagreement and a scholar.

              The only issue where I am aware of disagreeing with the scholarly consensus is that the PC consensus wants to de-historicize all religions, including Christianity, to make it easier to claim that all religions, rightly understood, are progressivism. Supposedly the Christian holy books were not written down until X00 AD, where X is a rather large digit, so therefore OK to reinvent Jesus – after all. he has supposedly been reinvented a dozen times before the bible got written down. Hence the frequent claim that there is no historical evidence of Jesus the man – because any historical evidence does not count for some reason or other.

            • jim says:

              I’m guessing that each local church would have made it’s own decision regarding polygynous converts, with no consistent policy or theology

              Oh come on. It is pretty obvious that Paul’s rulings on divorce arose largely from a single incident where Christians embarrassed the Church by airing an ugly divorce with lots of juicy dirt in the pagan courts. If Christian polygyny was a big deal, a single case would provoke a ruling directly on it.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            I should also point out that I don’t disagree that Monasticism, and clerical celibacy were the result of a holiness spiral.

            But that doesn’t mean Protestants are correct on marriage and celibacy. Jesus and Paul genuinely do teach celibacy, and the New Testament does not prohibit celibate priests.

            • jim says:

              Since Paul was celibate, obviously the New Testament does not prohibit celibate priests. But one sure gets the impression that whenever Paul ran into another celibate priest, he would be at least a little bit suspicious that the other priest was sodomizing the choirboys.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Paul’s rulings
            Paul would have been an authority over the churches he founded. And not involved in the Jerusalem church, or churches founded by other Apostles.

            The assumption that the Apostles agreed on all major points of doctrine and practice, is unlikely to be true.

            >Since Paul was celibate
            Paul was likely a widower. Not many celibate Jewish theologians.

            >But one sure gets the impression that whenever Paul ran into another celibate priest
            I suspect you get that impression, because you are distrustful of celibacy. Paul probably met very few celibate priests in his day. Probably had no thoughts on celibate priests, as such.

            >So if I disagree with the scholarly consensus, name a point of disagreement and a scholar.
            Alright. Polygyny being common in early Christianity. And Jesus’ attitude towards it.

            You said:
            >Since many Christian converts were Jews, many Christian converts would have more than one wife. Paul does not tell converts they have to ditch their excess wives, or even that they are permitted to ditch their excess wives. Therefore, polygyny was common in early Christian congregations.
            >Jesus … reluctantly tolerating … polygyny
            > In the Petrine church, polygyny was reluctantly permitted. In the Pauline Church, polygyny strongly discouraged

            https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/010903.pdf
            >Christianity maintained and reinforced monogamous norms. The canonical New Testament tradition has Jesus take sides in Jewish debates about the propriety of divorce in a way that implies rejection of any non-monogamous practices. The roughly contemporaneous Qumran movement likewise opposed polygamy. Pauline doctrine, however, fails explicitly to address this issue. Later Church Fathers saw fit to explain away Old Testament polygamy as motivated by God’s command to populate the world, an expansion that was no longer necessary or desirable

            http://infosect.freeshell.org/infocult/John_Witte_Jr.pdf
            >This attitude toward polygamy and other sexual dalliances was also reflected in early church laws that have survived in the time before the Christianization of the Roman Empire — from the Didache (ca. 90-120) to the Canons of Elvira (ca. 300-309). In these early canons, faithful monogamous marriage was presupposed; extramarital and multiple sexual dalliances and other forms of sexual impurity were to be avoided on pain of ecclesiastical discipline (admonition and censure, bans from the Eucharist, or excommunication). Both concubinage and polygamy (whether simultaneous or seriatim marriage to a second wife) eventually were listed among the many sexual sins to be avoided on pain of ecclesiastical discipline. FP

            and for reference
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity#Early_Church_period

            • jim says:

              You said:
              >Since many Christian converts were Jews, many Christian converts would have more than one wife. Paul does not tell converts they have to ditch their excess wives, or even that they are permitted to ditch their excess wives. Therefore, polygyny was common in early Christian congregations.
              >Jesus … reluctantly tolerating … polygyny
              > In the Petrine church, polygyny was reluctantly permitted. In the Pauline Church, polygyny strongly discouraged

              https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/010903.pdf
              >Christianity maintained and reinforced monogamous norms. The canonical New Testament tradition has Jesus take sides in Jewish debates about the propriety of divorce in a way that implies rejection of any non-monogamous practices. The roughly contemporaneous Qumran movement likewise opposed polygamy. Pauline doctrine, however, fails explicitly to address this issue. Later Church Fathers saw fit to explain away Old Testament polygamy as motivated by God’s command to populate the world, an expansion that was no longer necessary or desirable

              Re read. He is agreeing with me, or at least saying my position is plausible, and the canonical position dubious rationalization and a bit of a stretch.

              Since you obviously are not reading your own sources, I am not going to read the rest of them for you.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          It’s hard to take what you write seriously and in good faith, “Cui Pert.”

          Maybe if you learned a Romance language and pushed your idea around in those appropriate areas of traditionalist forums of Roman Catholic countries…

          A.J.P.

          • CuiPertinebit says:

            Protestantism and the Enlightenment are first and second wave progressivism. The true heart and soul of Merry Old England, Mary’s Dowry, is the Catholic Faith, builder and sustainer of Western Civilization. Indeed, the English Liturgy and Church was on various occasions the light of Catholic Europe.

            Anglicanism etc. have only brought us the progressive decay; for five centuries those speaking Romance Languages fought against the progressivism and social disintegration emanating from the Protestant north. They held out longer than the Germanic peoples, only succumbing in the 1960s, and even then, not in totality. I maintain that the Catholic Church is the cradle of Western Civilization, and that this is the obviously traditionalist position for any European of whatever descent to have. My ancestors were Quaker settlers of this country (the USA); my Catholicism is not merely “ethnic.”

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Jim” didn’t write this for fake Trentian “Christians” (practicing a religion originating from the 16th Century Council of Trent).

      In fact, Trentians are infamous for blending their own genetic stock into the Indian populations, which is why Central and South America are a different shade from Protestant Christian North America and Australia.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Maybe he did write it for Trentian, Roman Catholics…But, I’m pointing out a big difference in the way your religion was applied in the New World compared to the example that is shown in the above blogpost… It’s part of getting a clearer worldview.

        A.J.P.

    • A Pint Thereof says:

      Exactly what CuiPertinebit said.

      The Church gave the NT to the world, and it is for the Church to tell the world how it should be read. When left to our own devices, we end up with the “Jefferson Bible”. And no one wants that, do they?

      • jim says:

        The Church gave the NT to the world, and it is for the Church to tell the world how it should be read.

        That would be a good system if the Church reading was reasonably stable, rather than rapidly getting ever lefter. I am not inclined to pay attention to the reading of a church that has diversity and consensus on stage in place of hierarchy and ancient ritual connecting the congregation to the apostles and to all co-religionists, living, dead, and not yet born.

        • CuiPertinebit says:

          The Church’s laws and doctrines are quite clear; those who contradict previously defined points of the Magisterium on points of Divine and Catholic Faith, are heretics. If they do this publicly, they are public heretics and are automatically severed from the Church, whether any official sentence is given against them or not.

          The Magisterium has defined quite clearly that Catholic States have a duty to defend the Catholic Faith and to keep it enshrined as the State religion; the Magisterium has also defined that abstract rights rooted in “human dignity” do not exist, but that authentic rights are rooted in what is actually Right, i.e., in God and His laws. It is thus plain from Catholic Law and Doctrine that the infiltrators of the formerly Catholic institutions in Rome (and elsewhere around the world) are actually no longer members of the Catholic Church, since they routinely advance and defend the destruction of Catholic identity in Catholic states, all in the name of humanistic rights after the conception of the French Revolution.

          This was all foretold in numerous prophecies, beginning in the Bible and down to the present-day apparitions of La Salette, Fatima and Akita. It is not unexpected to practicing Catholics, that things would come to such a pass at some point – but it is very bitter that we have been born into such times. But, with much bitterness there is opportunity for a greater share of glory.

          I understand that outsiders don’t understand this matter well, but that is the fact of the matter. The name and bureaucracy of Catholicism has been usurped by antichrist. Their natural, humanist creed is not the Catholic Creed, and should not be attributed to it.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            The R.C.C.’s Magesterium was written after the heresy of the Council of Trent, though…

          • jim says:

            The Church’s laws and doctrines are quite clear; those who contradict previously defined points of the Magisterium on points of Divine and Catholic Faith, are heretics. I

            Evidently not clear enough for the Pope. Would not want to exclude women who frivolously divorce their husbands from communion would we? Be terrible if single mothers and divorcees felt unwelcome.

            And why are there women up front acting rather like priests?

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Jim
            >the Pope
            If by “Pope” you mean, “Bishop of Rome”, then there isn’t one. Assuming we adhere to traditional Roman Catholic theology.

            If by “Pope” you mean that Argentinian weirdo that keeps talking about diversity and poverty, then so what? I can call myself “Pope” too.

            CuiPertinebit seems to understand this issue better than anybody here. Christianity preaches something that is very self-destructive – and it’s rather clear about that fact. No Catholic pretends that celibacy is for worldly gain.

            The sermon on the mount will destroy you. But supposedly reward you in the afterlife. Which is why the traditional types of Christianity have only advocated celibacy and the sermon on the mount for a small, voluntary group that wishes to give up the world.

            Protestantism, with it’s removal of monasticism and the priesthood, will try to get all of society to become celibate and pacifist. Which it has been somewhat successful at – the average American in 2015 is certainly closer to pacifist and celibate, than any other American generation, or any historic Catholic country.

          • A Pint Thereof says:

            @Richard Nixon’s Ghost

            >Christianity preaches something that is very self-destructive – and it’s rather clear about that fact. No Catholic pretends that celibacy is for worldly gain.

            You might be mistaking celibacy with chastity. Celibacy is only asked of a tiny portion of Catholics in special circumstances, and even then it is only a matter of discipline, not doctrine.

            Chastity, on the other hand, is compulsory and required of all.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >You might be mistaking celibacy with chastity
            I’m obviously not.

            >even then it is only a matter of discipline, not doctrine
            No. The idea that celibacy is superior to married chastity is Roman Catholic doctrine. And was denied by the reformers.

            Priestly celibacy is a discipline applied to the Roman rite, but not Byzantines. But all monks are celibate.

          • peppermint says:

            The Church’s doctrines are clear? So the Patriarch of Moscow can sue every Western “church” to force them to stop using Christian trademarks while peddling nonsense that violates Romans 1, such as normalization of faggots and transfaggots if not civil unions if not gaymarriage?

          • CuiPertinebit says:

            @Alan – You are always going on about Trent; I used to be Orthodox (i.e., old-school, Pre-Trent Christianity), and even I could see, when I gave Trent a fair reading, that it is in continuity with the prior tradition. What is your problem with it?

            @Jim – Yes, it is clear to the anti-pope Bergoglio; he doesn’t care. The whole lot of them are content to wield the reputation of the institution they usurped, just as progressives do with all our institutions. They are counting on the greater mass of Catholics, whom they no longer instruct in the faith, not to have the initiative or capacity to crack open the official sources of dogmatic theology and to embrace an unpopular truth that will immediately make their lives much more complicated. It’s a safe way to bet.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            The Council of Trent calls Protestant Christians wrong for not accepting the supremacy of the Vatican pontiff, which was the first step to prioritising short-term political power over the business of the saving of souls, which is what is needed to keep the faith over a longer period of time.

            The R.C.C. has convinced itself that the white race isn’t necessary to keep the flame of Christianity alive. That’s short-sighted to the extreme! Thus, one sees the advocating of the third-world flood by R.C.C.ers at all levels.

            -” This point my students would not buy. “Father Dolan,” they would say, “there’s no denying that this bigotry was there in our past. But, come on! Who could ever believe now that immigrants are dirty, drunken, irresponsible, dangerous threats to clean, white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon America! Those days are gone.”

            I wish I were in the college classroom again, so I could roll out my “Trump card” to show the students that I was right. Nativism is alive, well — and apparently popular!-”

            http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/timothy-dolan-nativism-rears-big-haired-head-article-1.2307111

        • peppermint says:

          Oh hey, it’s a good idea that the Church preaches a self-destructive life of signaling only to those who are worthy. But I have a better idea. Helicopter rides for signalers, social validation only for alpha males who do stuff.

          I mean, as long as the goal is to preserve the White race and Western civilization, right? Not maximize the utility of ((Yahweh)) or whatever?

          • A Pint Thereof says:

            If “alpha males” were really alpha, they’d alter the culture around them so that they were socially validated. That’s sort’ve the definition of alpha.

            We in whatever-this-is we’re in – NRx, white nationalism, traditionalism etc. – need to ask why our “alpha” men haven’t done this already. Personally, I think they are beginning to change things, but the rate of a reaction is sometimes the most important thing. And at the moment the rate of change just isn’t fast enough…

            • jim says:

              If “alpha males” were really alpha, they’d alter the culture around them

              Working on it.

              When I personally in my private life get away with stuff that is supposedly unthinkable, and people kind of shrug and forget to respond with the officially approved horror, am I not changing the culture one person at a time?

          • CuiPertinebit says:

            I think we can be forgiven if it takes us 20 years to undo five centuries of progressivism.

  12. Korth says:

    This reminds me of a great post from the Orthosphere: http://orthosphere.org/2014/09/12/an-eye-for-an-eye-makes-the-whole-world-cooperative/

    What about universal forgiveness, by the way? Muslims are only obligated to forgive other Muslims; Jews are only obligated to forgive in response to a sincere apology. Where is the gametheoretical advantage in always being open to cooperate with people with a history of defection?

    • jim says:

      Universal forgiveness is a good tactic when it works, a bad tactic when it fails. Parable of the good Samaritan is that if likely to fail, you don’t have to keep applying it.

  13. Korth says:

    Also, another New Testament phrase that has been hijacked by progressivism: “Turning the other cheek”. Its true meaning: if someone bitch-slaps you, don’t run away and don’t seek revenge, but stand your ground.

  14. Irving says:

    Is it the Christian way to genocide the “inferior races” and to take their stuff, or is it to preach to them and to convert them and–by these means–to civilize them? I would say the latter. In no way has Christianity ever sanctioned wholesale theft and murder, which is what you appear to be arguing although you use different terms. However, Christianity has sanctioned the use of violence as a means of bringing the uncivilized into the fold of Christianity.

    As for starving Africans by the way, the way to deal with them would be the means prescribed by Malthus, which is to allow them to suffer and die until they finally learn, while also guiding them through various means in the right direction. There’s nothing unchristian about this.

    • jim says:

      In no way has Christianity ever sanctioned wholesale theft and murder, which is what you appear to be arguing.

      Christians have regularly gone to war, and if they had not, there would be no Christians remaining. By and large, most of the time, the settlers made an honest effort to make a deal with the Indians, and by and large, most of the time, the Indians would renege on the deal. Usually with the most horrid atrocities as the war party, fearing lack of support from the rest of their tribe, tried to make peace impossible. Therefore war.

      Sometimes other religions sought to eradicate Christianity with fire and steel, as for example the battle of Tours. Therefore war. Sometimes other religions needed to be eradicated with fire and steel, as for example the Mexican religion. Therefore war.

      Your interpretation of Christianity is arguable, and pretty much everyone today accepts it, but historically, most Christians have not accepted it. And if they had accepted it, we would all be speaking Arabic.

      • Irving says:

        There is a difference between waging war and committing wholesale theft and murder. Christianity has always approved of the former, especially when the war was defensive as opposed to offensive, and has always condemned the latter. Christians did not need a theological justification for wholesale theft and murder to defend themselves against Muslims, and were never given one, and defended themselves just as well.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        >And if they had accepted it, we would all be speaking Arabic.
        If all Christians had opposed wholesale theft and murder, then Rome would have never been Christianized.

        And I am genuinely unsure, but Roman paganism certainly could have competed with Islam. They crushed the Jews so totally, that sixteen hundred years later, the Jews are sill scared to be militant again.

        Moreover, modern Christians are in favor of theft and murder. How many of them like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King?

  15. Erik says:

    Lewis is unfortunately dead, so we can’t extract his real opinion with surety, but I think the statement of Lewis’s /character/ in this quote, particularly when he is put on the spot for a task he has not trained for, should yield when they conflict with Lewis’s /own/ statements I posted above. Here’s an attempt at a more charitable interpretation of what’s going on in the quoted passage.

    What trips Ransom up is that when Weston says “Life is greater than any system of morality” and so forth, he’s committed an absurd recursion. Weston is attempting to rank something above ranking things. Hence, stumbling over translation of self-referential nonsense.

    Besides, if you’re going to be annoyed over imputing “all thinking beings are fundamentally the same” from one side of the (in-character!) debate, shouldn’t you also be annoyed at the position of the other side that all /men/ are fundamentally the same, when Weston talks about “man’s loyalty to humanity” as one of the most fundamental things? Weston asserts a general love of all men, regardless of how they are shaped, and the angel quite rightly responds that if you don’t care about their bodies, you should extend the same general love to all manlike creatures.

    • peppermint says:

      unless you can understand that, unambiguously, life is greater than any system of morality, you are a cuck and I would prefer if you would die at the hands of your nigger pets sooner rather than later.

      Let me kick this through your head shortly before snapping your neck:

      systems of morality are invented by living things to help them coordinate to better propagate themselves.

      if you have some supernaturalistic view of morality, presumably it includes a heaven for you to go to when I kill you for your beliefs, making your death a win/win.

      • coyote says:

        Peppermint: do you believe there is more (“supernatural”) than a darwinian response to life? are “humans” (morally or whatever) no different than wolves or rabbits? Some things (factual happenings, experiences, occurrences, etc. ) may be difficult to explain or measure, but “supernatural” is a word which merely points out the lack of current understanding in our techno-worshiping materialistic culture. If any of this “matters”, perhaps Pascal’s wager was a good example of a scientific “dark enlightenment”.

  16. JohnK says:

    Apropos of Jim’s thoughts, I enthusiastically recommend “Redeeming Economics,” a 2010 book by John D. Mueller.

    For Mueller means to rescue (redeem) economics from the distortions introduced into it by the omission and/or rejection, by Adam Smith and his followers, of two of the four fundamental elements of economics that had been identified and taught by Scholastic economics.

    So, for example, St. Augustine does answer “Who is my neighbor?” in a way that both Jim and (lese majeste) Jesus would approve. And Augustine also is able to analyze gifts (charity) *within* a systematic analysis of distribution and exchange, not apart from it, and not least by taking seriously the fact of scarcity of resources.

    And both of these things, I would argue, bear directly on Jim’s ruminations on the just uses of war, or as Jim says, in the extreme, just Christian genocide. For what is war, but either (a) the distribution and exchange of resources by other means; or (b) a method of securing both a just distribution and exchange of resources, and of making true gifts of resources possible.

    For Augustine’s answer regarding the nature of the Neighbor and what he is due, and even more to the point, Scholastic economics’ entire method of analysis, is unavailable to ‘modern’ economists, and is even less available to Churchianity, which has no way at all to take the scarcity of resources seriously, and which in practice has reduced the idea of ‘gift’ to nothingness by universalizing its application, and thus demeaned it into mere status signaling.

    Hence the suicide of the Just, in effect, becomes the only authentic ‘charity’, and the more holy the Just, the more suicidal; hence wars of extermination are not merely immoral, but inconceivable; and so on.

    Read “Redeeming Economics” to see that we had — we really did have — a much more comprehensive and satisfactory way to analyze and understand distribution and exchange (and gifts) of time, talent, and treasure — and we threw it away. And John Mueller hopes (and shows) that we can reclaim what we had once discarded, if we but wish to.

    Of course, by the late 19th century, neither C.S. Lewis, nor Chesterton for that matter, had any real inkling of Scholastic economics, these latent Christian resources which once had been part of the common economic analytical patrimony of Catholics, and through Catholics, Protestants.

    Protestant Adam Smith himself, Mueller teaches us, had learnt Scholastic economics during his own schooling — and then had ‘improved’ it by disregarding two of its four fundamental variables. Hence, Mueller argues, ‘modern’ economics was born in the perpetually futile effort to solve a four-variable problem within a system of only two equations.

    We didn’t ‘lose’ a way of understanding charity as one component of a comprehensive model of distribution and exchange (within which it is obvious why a mother should feed her child the available milk, ahead of the family cat) — we discarded that model; we threw it away.

    Because ‘modern’.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      No, because Republicanism. Things become significanly more “up in the air” when there is no hereditary power structure to settle them. No need to subscribe to what amounts to the Vatican’s programme for “gibs me dat.”

  17. BobbyBrigs says:

    Amazing stuff. Love thy neigbor and your neighbor is those who treat you as such. The corollary is progressive are not your neighbors for they will never treat you as such.

  18. Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

    Simply put, Jim, you’re wrong. Jesus was a leftist, and everybody knows this. The Old Testament is rightist, and everybody knows this.

    Obama likes Jesus. Obama doesn’t like the Old Testament. The Traditional branches of Christianity have always been Old Testament oriented, often to the point of ignoring the New Testament. Look at the SSPX, which is one of the few remaining organizations which represents historic Roman Catholicism.

    http://sspx.org

    You’ll notice a bunch of OT themes emphasized, which the NT supposedly abolished. The Priesthood. Sacrifice. State religion. And Eastern Christianity is every more Judaized – the Ethiopians model their churches after the Jewish temple, and follow certain Jewish dietary restrictions.

    >Human Biodiversity would imply that innately evil or useless people are not part of God’s plan, only means of his to mess with you.
    Firstly, it’s rather obvious that all people have innate evil, to varying degrees. And people are of varying usefulness. Is nobody part of God’s plan?

    Secondly, the more plausible implication is that God is not good.

    Obviously, all actions have moral trade-offs. Killing in self-defense is not morally desirable, because it makes people accept killing as a social norm. On the other hand, it is morally desirable, because discourages anarchic violence.

    (And most people are more concerned about anarchic violence, than toleration of killing. For obvious reasons)

    The idea of a “perfect God” is a philosophical ideal. The God of the Old Testament is not a philosophical God, and thus not morally-ideal-in-all-ways. Jesus (the man) is not a philosophical God, and thus not morally-ideal-in-all-ways. (Jesus may have been “sinless”, which is a qualitatively different claim)

    Judaism, Islam and Mormonism don’t believe in the fall. The Platonic/philosophical ideal of a “perfect God” is unique to Nicene-associated Christianity.

    >Jesus did not tell us to love starving African children. Jesus said “love thy neighbor”
    Jesus wasn’t the original author. Jesus was reinterpreting the Old Testament. The Old Testament would have defined “neighbor” as “Torah-abiding Jew”, and when it said “love”, it mostly meant “don’t murder”.

    Leviticus 19:18
    >You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

    >Jesus did not tell us to love starving African children. Jesus said “love thy neighbor”, not love the whole world.
    Jesus pretty clearly did tell us to love the whole world.

    Luke 10:36-37
    >Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”.

    According to Jesus, you become a neighbor by loving people. So if a Christian adopts an African baby, he becomes it’s neighbor.

    >Weston’s error was that he proposed to kill them and take their stuff without first legitimately purchasing the land and tempting them into committing unspeakable crimes. Had he done so, and obtained the land in that fashion, then this would have created the dangerous precedent that some stronger party could take the land from him, undermining the high trust equilibrium that made the great achievements of his society, of which he was so proud, possible, for that high trust equilibrium and the ensuing high achievements rested on tribal taboos and copy-book maxims.
    Jim, this is leftist logic, which I would not have expected from you.

    There were animals living in North America. And still are. Are you obligated to legitimately purchase the land from them? How would one even do that?

    You can purchase the land from the chief of the largest tribe. Or you could give some meat to the wolf-pack leader. But not all Indians follow that particular chief. And he probably doesn’t have total control of his tribe. And when he dies – the next Chief won’t necessarily think the treaty applies to him. Same type of problems you’ll have with the wolf-pack leader.

    A high-trust society is desirable. But it’s absurd to “trust” animals. Trust only applies to humans. How do we distinguish between animals and humans?

    Do we assume animals are innocent until proven guilty? No. When a wolf wanders into town, we kill it. We don’t wait until it kills someone. A wolf’s nature is aggressive – and most wolves are aggressive. Occasionally, we might kill a non-violent wolf – but we are unconcerned about that.

    The same is true of natives. If they are, by their genes or culture, aggressive then genocide away. I’m guessing that some native American tribes should have been exterminated once we met them, and some were relatively peaceful (especially the agrarian ones).

    To quote the Disney incarnation of Pocahantas:

    >You think I’m an ignorant savage
    >And you’ve been so many places
    >I guess it must be so
    >But still I cannot see
    >If the savage one is me
    >How can there be so much that you don’t know?
    >You don’t know …

    >You think you own whatever land you land on
    >The Earth is just a dead thing you can claim
    >But I know every rock and tree and creature
    >Has a life, has a spirit, has a name

    >You think the only people who are people
    >Are the people who look and think like you
    >But if you walk the footsteps of a stranger
    >You’ll learn things you never knew you never knew

    Especially the last four lines.

    • jim says:

      >Jesus did not tell us to love starving African children. Jesus said “love thy neighbor”

      Jesus wasn’t the original author. Jesus was reinterpreting the Old Testament. The Old Testament would have defined “neighbor” as “Torah-abiding Jew”, and when it said “love”, it mostly meant “don’t murder”.

      That is modern Jewish Bunkum. When the Old Testament means Jew or Hebrew, it says Jew or Hebrew. Why would it not? There are a lot of words for groups larger and smaller, more inclusive and less inclusive, and the way the Old Testament uses them only makes sense if they mean what they say. Where it uses the word for a larger group, and then the word for the smaller group, as it regularly does, it gives you a weaker duty to the larger and more inclusive group, and a stronger duty to the smaller and less inclusive group, the strongest duty, to love, being for neighbors. This only makes sense if neighbors are for the most part people that you are likely to actually meet from time to time.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        In Hebrew, it’s very common to state something twice, in different ways. The second line means the same thing as the first line, but is expressed in different words.

        A rather famous point is that Jesus advocates the Golden Rule. The Talmud advocates the Silver Rule.

        When Leviticus says “love”, it means “don’t do stuff to them that you wouldn’t want done to you”. When Jesus says “love” it means “extreme benevolence”.

        It’s generally reasonable to apply the silver rule to civilized strangers. Since law-abiding Hebrews are civilized, it’s reasonable to (silver rule) love them.

        It is not generally reasonable to apply the golden rule to anybody, except in a very high-trust society. And even then, only in circumstances where you can expect reciprocation.

        • jim says:

          In Hebrew, it’s very common to state something twice, in different ways. The second line means the same thing as the first line, but is expressed in different words.

          The scholars who created the King James Bible translated the second line as meaning something rather different from the first line, and the Jewish scholars who created the Septuagint in the third century before Christ also translated the second line as meaning something different from the first line.

          You are relying on modern Jewish interpretations of the Old Testament, and a lot of modern Jewish interpretations of the Old Testament are just far out fucking frothing at the mouth insane. Unless you figure Jews have some special pipeline to God that Christians lack, it is unreasonable to consider modern Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament authoritative.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >You are relying on modern Jewish interpretations of the Old Testament
            Not really. I haven’t read much modern Jewish stuff.

            Obviously, “love your neighbor” doesn’t include non-Hebrew idolaters, who are supposed to be killed. So the literal meaning of “neighbor” isn’t very plausible. Plausibly, it means “Jewish neighbor”.

            But again, in Hebrew, it’s common to repeat a statement twice, in different words. So your interpretation would imply that it’s two distinct commands (which is unlikely). Regardless:

            Leviticus 19:34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

          • B says:

            >Unless you figure Jews have some special pipeline to God that Christians lack,

            Well, that’s pretty obvious-the Bible which you are mangling here says so explicitly a bunch of times.

            We also happen to have the advantage of an unbroken tradition instead of just random assholes sporadically making things up to suit their agenda.

            So, for instance, the particular commandment of “veahavta et hareecha kamoha” (mistranslated as “you shall love thy neighbor as yourself”) has always been explained as dealing with your fellow Jew who follows the Torah. The earliest source given here is Rashi, who lived 1000 years ago, but I’m sure I could find this in the Talmud as well: http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/klarberg/archives/kedoshim63.htm

            It is obvious we are not commanded to love either evildoer Jews (whom we are actively commanded to hate in the Torah) or idolaters by virtue of them unfortunately living next to us.

            • jim says:

              We also happen to have the advantage of an unbroken tradition instead of just random assholes sporadically making things up to suit their agenda.

              Your tradition is alarmingly elastic. How far does it stretch before it can be called broken?

              The pretense of continuity, combined with the serious lack of continuity, has made you all into postmodernists, cheerfully prepared to argue that up is down and black is white – or that airforces are not conventional armed forces.

          • A Pint Thereof says:

            >We also happen to have the advantage of an unbroken tradition…

            A tradition of what? And since when was it unbroken?

          • B says:

            A tradition of reading the Torah (every Jewish male historically was supposed to be able to do so from age 5 by the latest, and almost all were), understanding what it says and what it means. Unbroken since we got the Torah at Sinai.

            • jim says:

              Massively broken by text torture, which has bad moral consequences for all Jews – leading for example to the notorious Jewish propensity to re-interpret bets after they are made and contracts after they are signed.

          • B says:

            But you neither have a clue what the text says in the original, being ignorant of Hebrew, nor a very good grasp of the translation (having, for instance, previously attempted to convince me that it says that Shabbat is for fun and bass fishing.)

            Your explanations of how we’ve got it all backwards are very similar to those of the Muslims, who explain with a straight face how our Patriarchs and Prophets were really Muslim, but then the Jews, corrupt people that we are, twisted everything they said and substituted a bunch of it with our own texts, and only when Muhammad appeared was humanity privileged to return to the religion of e.g. King David.

          • B says:

            >to re-interpret bets after they are made

            This is projection.

            Turkish jet shoots down Russian jet on Turkish-Syrian border.

            Jim: TURKS ARE MASSING TANKS ON THE BORDER! Soon they will be launching a tank charge towards Aleppo!

            B: I will bet you two bottles there will be no conventional ground battles between Turks and Russians anywhere near Aleppo.

            Jim: …
            …THEY SHOT DOWN THE JET! You lost the bet!

            B: Aerial combat is plainly not what the bet was about, and anyway, the jet was shot down on the border, 50 km away from Aleppo.

            Jim: THE JEW IS TRYING TO CHEAT ME!

            Similarly, when there are no gay Orthodox Jewish weddings in 2016, I bet you will not pay up but rather find some Reform homosexuals and then attempt to explain how there is no real difference between Reform and Orthodox Judaism.

            • jim says:

              > > to re-interpret bets after they are made

              > This is projection.
              >
              > Turkish jet shoots down Russian jet on Turkish-Syrian border.

              You are arguing like Bart Simpson.

              You argue that you did not lose your bet because jets supposedly don’t count, jets are supposedly not conventional forces, and you also argue that did not lose your bet because the Turkish jet supposedly did not cross the border.

              That is rather too many grounds for not losing your bet. If you really believed the Turkish fighter shot down the Russian bomber from the Turkish side of the border, you would not be arguing that air forces are not “conventional forces”, and if you really believed that air forces are not “conventional forces” you would not be in denial about which side of the border the Turkish fighter was.

          • B says:

            The bet was about conventional ground forces engaging around Aleppo. And a jet shootdown on the border does not qualify in any way.

            If you said “my dog is a neurosurgeon and a lawyer,” I would be perfectly right to say that your dog neither graduated law school nor medical school, and not only that, but it can neither read nor do surgery.

            Since your assertion is wrong in several aspects, me pointing them out doesn’t make your assertion right.

            • jim says:

              I predicted conflict, and suggested several forms that that conflict might take.

              You denied conflict, and specifically enumerated several forms of conflict that you said definitely would not happen.

              One of them had already happened.

              You also predicted that Aleppo would not fall. Russians and the Syrian government now control quite a lot of Aleppo, including the center. How far from the center do they have to reach, how far towards the Turkish border do they have to reach, before it can be said that Aleppo has fallen?

          • peppermint says:

            “I will bet you two bottles of Ardbeg that in the next two months there will neither be Turkish conventional forces anywhere near Aleppo nor any ground confrontation between Russian and Turkish conventional ground forces.”

            …is Ardbeg good? Should I try to find some to chug next time there’s a terrorism? I just finished the peppermint schnapps I started when the frenchies lay down to be executed like sheep who inexplicably don’t even make noise when they are killed seriously what is wrong with those somehow living blobs of tissue with y chromosomes its no wonder the french women look to the terrorists for a feeling of sexurity

          • B says:

            >I predicted conflict, and suggested several forms that that conflict might take.

            When the Tthurks shot down a Russian jet, you predicted several forms of conflict including that the Turks would possibly shoot down a Russian jet which they had already shot down? In that case, this prediction was indisputably accurate. Good job!

            I was under the impression that you were predicting something that would happen in the future, though, involving a Turkish tank charge to relieve Aleppo-was that not the case?

            >You also predicted that Aleppo would not fall.

            Can you please point out the exact comment where I predicted that?

            >Russians and the Syrian government now control quite a lot of Aleppo, including the center. How far from the center do they have to reach, how far towards the Turkish border do they have to reach, before it can be said that Aleppo has fallen?

            They have to be indisputably in control of Aleppo in the same way that they are now indisputably in control of Latakia and Tartus.

            • jim says:

              They have to be indisputably in control of Aleppo in the same way that they are now indisputably in control of Latakia and Tartus.

              You routinely dispute the indisputable.

          • B says:

            >You routinely dispute the indisputable.

            Are those Turkish tanks in Aleppo yet?

            • jim says:

              Turkish submarines in the Bosphorus stopped the passage of Russian ships between the Black Sea and the Mediteranean.

              Russia sent two submarine killers to the Bosphorus, Turkey withdrew, and Russia resumed passage.

              That is a military confrontation, even if no shots were fired this time. Shots were fired previously, military confrontations continue, likely shots will be fired again.

          • pdimov says:

            “Are those Turkish tanks in Aleppo yet?”

            No, they took a brief detour and ended up in Mosul.

          • B says:

            >That is a military confrontation, even if no shots were fired this time. Shots were fired previously, military confrontations continue, likely shots will be fired again.

            It’s not a ground conventional military confrontation. Shots may or may not be fired again, but I predict there will be no conventional Turkish ground invasion of Syria, and no conventional ground combat between the Turkish and Russian militaries at any depth inside Syria (maybe some exchanges of fire on the border.)

            >No, they took a brief detour and ended up in Mosul.

            I saw that. No different than the US training missions. SOF training/advising local proxies. Which is the game everyone is playing, from USSOF to Kasem Suleimani and his Iraqi/Syrian Shi’a pets.

          • pdimov says:

            “No different than the US training missions. SOF training/advising local proxies.”

            The difference, for our purposes, is that the Turkish conventional ground forces are now in theatre. Now we’re just waiting for Russia. Would a confrontation in Iraq count, or does it have to be Syria?

          • B says:

            >The difference, for our purposes, is that the Turkish conventional ground forces are now in theatre.

            Military advisors are not conventional forces.

          • pdimov says:

            “Military advisors are not conventional forces.”

            So, if Russian planes bomb and destroy Turkish tanks and Turkish artillery in Mosul, this wouldn’t count?

          • B says:

            >So, if Russian planes bomb and destroy Turkish tanks and Turkish artillery in Mosul, this wouldn’t count?

            Do you have a source saying that there are Turkish tanks and artillery in Mosul rather than just advisors?

          • pdimov says:

            “Do you have a source saying that there are Turkish tanks and artillery in Mosul rather than just advisors?”

            Googling “Turkish tanks and artillery in Mosul” will give you several, including the Iraqi prime minister.

          • peppermint says:

            https://www.rt.com/news/324787-turkish-troops-deployed-iraq/

            As soon as the Tsar Vlad’s planeys come along with the bobombs, B owes Jim some Ardbeg. But that won’t happen unless PM Iraq decides to let a foreign military in, which the rest of the Iraqis will see as cuckoldism and could do that Arab thing where politicians get sodomized to death like in those fan fictions that women get so hot over.

          • B says:

            Aerial attack doesn’t fulfill the conditions of the bet.

            If Russian infantry/armor fight Turkish infantry/armor, I will put up a bottle (assuming Jim accepts the bet beforehand.)

          • B says:

            BTW, the story seems bullshit. The number of Turkish troops is quoted as 100-150. So, an infantry company. And how many tanks does this company supposedly have? 3 (a platoon)? That means 12 crew members, plus the required maintenance vehicles-you need an evacuator vehicle, plus an ammo hauler, and mechanics…and on top of all that they have artillery? I can’t imagine a Turkish task force with armor and artillery operating in the middle of Iraq in less than battalion strength.

          • B says:

            New Yorker says a battalion backed with armor, several hundred soldiers: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-are-turkish-troops-doing-in-northern-iraq

            We shall see, I guess. But I do not see the Russians getting into a ground shooting war with the Turks. An “accidental” bombing, perhaps.

          • peppermint says:

            » Soon, a meeting [of the committee] with Prime Minister Haider Abadi will be held, at which we will propose cooperating with Russia in carrying out airstrikes against IS and in the fight against terrorism in Iraq — Iskander Watut, in an interview with Sputnik

            Iraq wants Russia to bomb Turks operating in Iraq. I think openly bombing the open ground forces counts as a conventional engagement, but, you did say ground confrontation of Russian and Turkish ground forces.

            Anyway, I’ll see if I can buy a bottle of Ardbeg to celebrate if it happens.

          • B says:

            >Iraq wants Russia to bomb Turks operating in Iraq.

            Of course it does, because the Iraqis are stupid and lazy animals who want others to fight for them.

            But I don’t think that Russia is stupid enough to fight for the Iraqis.

          • pdimov says:

            “But I don’t think that Russia is stupid enough to fight for the Iraqis.”

            Not ordinarily. But it’s Turkey, which is now an Enemy. So… we’ll see.

    • CuiPertinebit says:

      Gotta love that song from Pocahontas:

      “Sure, you know how to sail around the world, and you have a written language, and a rapidly expanding body of scientific knowledge, and an advanced civilization rooted in philosophical concepts beyond my ken, and a system of Law and justice that sets aside human passions and partiality in heroic, and, frankly, almost angelic ways, and you have technology that appears like magic to me…

      “… but can you paint with all the colors of the wind? And talk to animals? ‘Cause I totally can. See? I’m doing it! See?”

      I suppose if Pocahontas really believed that you could learn so much from talking to strangers and not assuming that you know so much, she should shut her primitive yap and listen to the man with a vessel that’s taken him to see more strangers than all the people she’s ever seen put together.

  19. […] takes on the question of how to genocide in a Christian manner. I think he stretches at […]

  20. Chris B says:

    Problem is this mechanism requires a foe who is capable of planning and organisation. Black people fail on both accounts. If they didn’t, they would not make natural slaves. They are too docile in ways that matter.

    • Yvjrolu says:

      Signalling about how subhuman black people are is retarded.

      It actually takes more coordination to not commit acts of war than not to, just ask the Palestinians.

  21. Jim:

    I leave the peanut gallery to the peanut gallery occupants. But I’ll just say… this is absolutely brilliant synthesis of a lot of various nrx strands and a seminal contribution to theory.

    There is a right way and a wrong way to perform a genocide. And the right way won’t seem very much like one.

    • Morkyz says:

      When are you paying Jim his two bottles, Nick (((B))) Steves?

      • B says:

        THE GOYIM KNOW SHUT IT DOWN

      • Please state the nature of this wager. I do not recall making it.

        • peppermint says:

          Morkowitz has you confused with ((B)), presumably because he is new to NRx and hasn’t found the hub of ideas

          not that NRx is still a thing anymore, as demonstrated by its continued autism about who can stage a reaction and how

          anyway, for the record, I view ((B)) and Jim’s bet as currently inconclusive, depending on how much bombs the planey was dropping and whether the rescue hellys were based sufficiently nearby. Also, I eagerly await Jim winning the bet and pray for that outcome every night as I get drunk celebrating the latest terrorist attack

          14 dead in san bernardino (卐つ◕ل◕)つ☕

          • Thanks for clearing that up, Pep.

            I am not B. He clearly has way more bible-knowledge than me.

            As for NRx, confusion about whether it is still a thing is all part of the plan.

            • jim says:

              I am not B. He clearly has way more bible-knowledge than me.

              He has more Talmud knowledge. He knows what the Talmud and rabbinical consensus says the Old Testament, and even the New Testament, says, but the actual content of these books tends to come as a total shock to him.

          • Morkyz says:

            He didn’t “clear” anything “up” nick, you always knew what I was talking about. Guess you decided to use one of your extra ashkenazim IQ points to trick the stupid goyim though.

  22. […] he offers this primer: How to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner. First, some important […]

  23. Mark of Gnon says:

    Most of this post seems to build quite logically on the analysis of the Good Samaritan parable.

    But it’s hard to reconcile with this later statement that Jesus also makes:

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven…”

    The medieval view seems to have been that the sermon on the Mount in its fullness could only be lived by the clergy and monastics. Others say that, like the injunction to cut off ones’ hand if it make you sin, it is worded forcefully to make a certain point. Still others attempt to follow it to the letter.

    Either way, loving your enemies still seems to be core to Christ’s teaching. What enemies precisely he means here is up for questioning. I’ve seen one Orthodox priest say that it refers to quarrels within the Christian community, not outside it.

    • jim says:

      But it’s hard to reconcile with this later statement that Jesus also makes:

      “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

      The most reasonable interpretation of this proposition is that Christians should lie down and be doormats, but it could also be interpreted as a command that Christians make vigorous efforts to break out of defect defect equilibrium by generosity and forgiveness – that there are limits to how much one is required to love one’s enemy if one’s enemy is unresponsive to being loved.

      Had the former interpretation been followed, we would all now be speaking Arabic.

      At the battle of Tours, Christians went with the latter interpretation.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        >At the battle of Tours, Christians went with the latter interpretation.
        Untrue.

        In medieval Catholicism, Christians regarded the gospels as something only priests and monks can (or should) follow. The commoners were subject to a different morality, and were not expected to be pacifist, or celibate, or voluntarily poor. Even though Jesus clearly teaches pacifism, celibacy and poverty in the gospels.

        Your approach, where you pretend Jesus was a reactionary is insane. It will not restore Reactionary Christianity, or move us toward some healthy non-Christian religion.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            I don’t know why these people are saying that Christ was not a “reactionary”. He clearly was, and set straight so many unrighteous Pharisees that they killed him due to the grudge that accumulated during the man’s lifetime.

            Pharisees were pioneering a decadence permitted with their traditions that turned (St. Matt. xv. 6.) the mandate of honouring one’s parents into a “lip service to God” loophole. There are others as well. One needs only to look for them in the New Testament with the Old as a very handy reference.

            A.J.P.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @AJP
            Jesus’ kingdom was “not of this world”. It would be rather odd if he were a Reactionary. Restoring the government of Israel was not his priority.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            R.N.G.,

            That’s exactly what I would expect to hear a papist sympathiser say at a pro-Anglo, pro-English Church blog (in the year 2015).

            A.J.P.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @AJP

            There is something amusingly old-fashioned about being called a “Papist sympathizer”. Perhaps “crypto-Papist” would be a better term?

            Everyone can tell that the Anglican Church is more liberal than the Roman church. For some reason, you can’t. Were you raised Anglican? Do you find it difficult to admit the failings of your own country and religion?

            • jim says:

              Everyone can tell that the Anglican Church is more liberal than the Roman church.

              The Episcopal Church is more liberal than the Roman Catholic Church, and the Episcopal Church owns a lot of assets and is theoretically part of the Anglican communion, but the Episcopal Church is dead as a doornail. In so far as Anglican Churches are actually functioning Churches, they are less liberal than the Roman Catholic Church.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >In so far as Anglican Churches are actually functioning Churches, they are less liberal than the Roman Catholic Church.
            The Archbishop of Canterbury has (literally) recommended England adopt Sharia law. Even the current Bishop of Rome isn’t that much of a cuckold.

        • Mark Citadel says:

          Jesus was not a Reactionary…. because Reactionary only emerged as a political ideology in the wake of the French Revolution, hence the name. Jesus’ time, and indeed all time prior to the FR was marked by the absence of political ideology, since everyone around the world had pretty much the same base observations about human nature and society. The insanity regarding these matters begins during the Enlightenment.

          • peppermint says:

            yeah, see, unless you are going to eff the ineffable and say Jesus was a reactionary. and use the social power of Church to uphold that against all the cute little proggies quoting the beatitudes, then everyone knows Jesus was a commie.

            Russian Orthodoxy was overthrown by communism once. One would hope that the institutional memory of a hundred years of persecution would permit it to gleefully misinterpret scriptures in a reactionary way.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Peppermint, you’re not understanding what is being said. Saying that Jesus was a Reactionary is as completely idiotic as saying he was a Communist. These ideologies DID NOT EXIST. The things they sprung up in response to didn’t even exist. Obviously being a millennial you harbor great generational hostility to Christianity, but at least keep criticism rational. Jesus as a Communist is as possible as Jesus as a Blairite. In the historical period (2000+ years ago), these words do not apply to anyone, let alone the Son of God.

            “Russian Orthodoxy was overthrown by communism once. One would hope that the institutional memory of a hundred years of persecution would permit it to gleefully misinterpret scriptures in a reactionary way.”

            Religion does not work this way. You don’t get to go in and make up actual interpretations to suit a political agenda. As Evola said “we do not believe tradition and culture should be dependent on politics, but rather it is politics which should be dependent on tradition and culture.”

            If a religion is true, then its political entailments must be carried out. Thankfully, the Orthodox Church has always interpreted Christianity correctly, and it is supportive of a pre-Enlightenment understanding of the world (hence why the Enlightenment didn’t occur in closer to 500 AD). Catholicism AGREED with this assessment until very recently!

            • jim says:

              Saying that Jesus was a Reactionary is as completely idiotic as saying he was a Communist.

              Yesterday’s Christianity was, however, reactionary.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            yes, Jim. And I’d say Orthodox Christianity remains largely so (at least looking at many of Patriarch Kirill’s statements). I would justify this by saying that it is the correct interpretation of not only Scripture, but the Christian tradition through time. The Catholic has to say either the Liberal direction is instead correct, or the Church has been usurped by some malignant force, because on many fronts today, not just the Pope, but several cardinals are pushing for modernization, held back by a handful of valiant Catholics. It seems clear that either something must be done about these judas priests, or the Church will before long be walking down the Church of England road.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Mark Citadel
            Orthodox Christianity, especially in the US, has become modernist.

            Here’s an example. Islam, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy prohibit usury. And there are Islamic banks, which have devised various weird ways to do banking, without usury.

            These Islamic banks are the official banks of several Islamic countries, and are frequently used by Muslims in the US. Muslims also have various Sharia-compliant investment vehicles, which do not purchase shares in banks.

            There are no Orthodox banks. No Catholic investment vehicles. Why? Because Progressivism, a derivative of Protestantism doesn’t prohibit usury. And the Catholics/Orthodox have largely converted to Progressivism. Patriarch Krill is certainly the least-Progressive Christian leader,

          • Mark Citadel says:

            With regard to usury, Nixon, you should note that Islam actually controls several countries where Sharia is the law of the land. This makes it far easier to set up non-Usuruous banks. Orthodoxy largely lost control of all its countries during the Bolshevik revolution and subsequent invasions. One of the hypotheses concerning how Jews got so wealthy is due to their ability to bank where early crusader-era Christians couldn’t. Not an argument for usury, but definitely an argument against having a state in which certain groups can be usurous, and others cannot.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Mark Citadel
            That argument is not persuasive for two reasons. Firstly, even in the US, which is not controlled by Muslims, there are Sharia-compliant investment vehicles and Islamic banks. Obviously not funded by the USG, but patronized by faithful Muslims.

            Compared to Muslims, there are similar numbers of Orthodox in the US. Where are the Orthodox investment vehicles? Where are the Catholic banks?

            >Orthodoxy largely lost control of all its countries during the Bolshevik revolution and subsequent invasions.
            And half of the middle east was invaded by the USSR. Once independent, Chechnya started implementing Sharia law. The Rest of Russia did not implement Orthodox law. Why? Because Islam is alive and kicking, while Orthodoxy is mostly dead. Which is better than Protestantism and mainstream Catholicism, who are entirely dead.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Again, Islam still does control countries, and when Soviet influence in Afghanistan and Yemen ended, they went straight back to being Islamic, and they often fund these overseas efforts along with other Islamic organizations. You talk about Chechnya, which is effectively an independent region governed by a paid off warlord. If Orthodox-compliant banking emerges, it will come out of Novorossiya. On the other hand, if you dont want to wait for a non-usurous bank, all you have to do is grab a Quran.

          • peppermint says:

            This government is about to collapse, and its banks, and its economic theories. In the future, no one will deposit anything in a bank that isn’t solvent, and no FDIC or SEC will protect people from needing to know what that means.

            Then all the banks will be, presumably, Orthodox-approved.

            Oh, and muzzies take usury as seriously as they take marriage. Multiple wives, arbitrary divorce, temporary marriage to the town goat, etc.

            • jim says:

              Dubai has legalistic workarounds to the Sharia usury law. For example you cannot borrow money to buy a car – but you can buy a car at an unreasonably high price and agree to make payments after you receive the car. And if you cannot make payments, not only do you lose the car, but you go to jail – yes, Dubai has Sharia law against usury and debtors prison.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Jim
            I’m not arguing usury is bad. But usury is prohibited by the Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim religions.

            The fact that Dubai feels a need to circumvent the Koran, rather than just ignoring it, implies that they take Islam seriously. More seriously than any Christian country.

            @Mark Citadel
            >Islam still does control countries, and when Soviet influence in Afghanistan and Yemen ended, they went straight back to being Islamic
            Why? Because unlike Orthodoxy, Islam is still a living religion.

  24. Joeshmo says:

    “Human Biodiversity would imply that innately evil or useless people are not part of God’s plan,”

    Then why are you still alive?

  25. Hamfish says:

    TL:DR

    You really need to get another hobby besides racism, Jim. The time you spent on that diatribe could have been put to use playing in the traffic.

    • peppermint says:

      rassenhaß macht Spaß

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      In YOUR OPINION that’s “racist”.

      You’re just saying that because he’s White.

      Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.

      A.J.P.

      • Hidden Author says:

        By using the mantra, you state that criticism of Jim is equal to victimizing white people and yet the topic Jim mentioned was the proper way to victimize non-white people. Stay on topic!

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          White self-hatred is SICK!!

        • peppermint says:

          Criticism of Jim is not equal to victimizing Whites. Calling people racist is equal to justifying the ongoing victimization of Whites. You and AJP are both retarded. Please kill each other, and take all these “muh childhood” CS Lewis fans with you.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Peppermint Papist”,

            Hell is forever. It’s eternal, and you seem to be forgetting that.

            A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            You know what’s worse than hell? The death of the subspecies, the great chain of being from the first White man to the latest into the future being sundered, the twilight of the gods, the end of civilization, and the Earth hurtling forever through an empty void.

            We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Peppermint Papist”,

            Are you saying that that is _forever_ because you were just reminded that Hell is forever?

            A.J.P.

          • Hidden Author says:

            How am I retarded? If I said that Indians should scalp whites, then I would be anti-white. But if I note that ethnically cleansing Indians is an act of race-based prejudice (i.e. racism), then I am only affirming reality since I did not counsel retaliation against innocent whites. OTOH, your assumption that I did counsel retaliation against innocent whites for noting the truth about ethnic cleansing shows that you have a guilty conscience over advocating such action.

          • Hidden Author says:

            I notice that with hardcore authoritarians whether they use the banner of fascism, NRx or Ben Klassen’s “Creativity”, that rejection of their power fantasies is equated with a death wish. Apparently they can’t understand the more modest vision of leaving other people alone and demanding that they do the same. It’s obviously a deep psychological and spiritual illness they have given that they can’t imagine life outside the pursuit of power over their fellow humans (even as they dehumanize their targets to justify their pursuit of power).

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Hidden Author says:

            “I notice that with hardcore authoritarians whether they use the banner of fascism, NRx or Ben Klassen’s “Creativity”, that rejection of their power fantasies is equated with a death wish. Apparently they can’t understand the more modest vision of leaving other people alone and demanding that they do the same. ”

            Holy hell. Hidden Author has squared the circle.

            Reaction is an authoritarian power fantasy but Hidden Authorism is the solution – you simply need to “demand” that other people conform to your vision and *poof* done. See? No power or power fantasies required.

          • Hidden Author says:

            I suppose that a demand is a power grab of sorts. However mine allows people peace who give me peace. Yours involves subjugating the whole world to the white man just to disprove those rumors about blacks having the big-penis men.

  26. […] as a thinker is that he says things that I wouldn’t. For example, his latest post is called how to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner. Good stuff, but not […]

  27. Ahote says:

    The other day I was reading FN’s post as it occurred to me that the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the like were the only examples that could be called colonial success stories. Other colonies were also successful, until they weren’t, and that’s the point – to find out why they failed. Obviously, the thing in common for the successful colonies was the suppression, and sometimes even proper genocide of indigenous peoples (like you say). Elsewhere, where human trash was allowed to take over, it went bad for both the colonists and the indigenous. So, with this in mind I propose A Simple Step-By-Step Colonization Program.

    TRIGGER WARNING: extreme LARPing ahead

    1. Come in with guns blazing, offer conversion to the indigenous. Those who apply for conversion and pass the conversion conditions get the same rights as all the common royal subjects. Those that refuse conversion are enslaved and then sterilized, while their children are taken away to be indoctrinated and made into janissaries. Slaves are to be treated as well as possible.

    2. Use slave labor to build a high quality infrastructure in new province.

    3. Move in the settlers from the home country to the new province.

    4. Profit.

    This program makes sure that:
    a) the current generation of indigenous is most likely the last; and
    b) prevents the problem with slavery that happened in America.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      I don’t think that’s how U.S.A., _Anglo_ Canada, Australia and New Zealand were made successful though. But I like your spirit.

      • Ahote says:

        I’m not saying that it was. It’s a propositional programme. However, Indians, Aborigines, etc. have no power, whereas Mestizos, Bantus, etc. hold power… so countries like Congo, South Africa, and Zimbabwe are hell on Earth, whereas countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are some of the best countries on Earth (fully pozzed now, but noughtwithstanding).

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          “Ahote”, the reason why I like the above blogpost so much is because it plays into man’s need for security. While perhaps to some, others, whoever, reads it it might seem like the un-defended women and children are being eused as bait for an expansionist trap,

          (not saying you are doing this but your plan does appear to be “playing it safe”, and scorning any consideration for the high level of labour intensiveness it would require, so maybe)

          the on-the-ground reality of the thing would be that the families that were making up the colonial settlment are really only living open lives, fearing God and not man

          “Put not your trust in princes, nor any child of man…Blessed is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help and whose hope is in the LORD his God”. This trust is not to be in getting help from man and also not to be in getting security from man, rather trust is to be in the LORD and His help, if he wills it.

          The vengeance is also the LORD’s and the righteous retaliaton must also be in His name, because what mortal man wants to be held mostly responsible for all the memories of seeing such bloodshed, smells of burnt flesh and sounds of screaming and the emptiness from the lost lives of comerades that result from the battle which would indeed prevent deaths of future innocents like the poor souls who had been first killed? It’s for Him to deal with.

          The radio tells me that the dream of living in an idyllic and well-groomed society, “Ahote”, is indeed motivating for some, though not most. It tells me that the White Genocide meme is working because it puts the reality of forced disappearance of the white race in front of whites and demands they act NOW.

          Also on the radio, Mr Robert “Bob” Whitaker says, wisely I think, that one may not walk up to others ask for power and have them give it him. This is the reason to keep “hammering away” as “Ol’ Bob” puts it. White survival, white survival, white survival.

          Believe it or not, people want to live.

          Best regards,

          A.J.P.

  28. […] Christian approach to genocide. A call to sobriety. Cultural fragility. The enablers. Psychology of losing (plus […]

  29. […] Christian approach to genocide. A call to sobriety. Cultural fragility. The enablers. Psychology of losing (plus […]

  30. Lawrence D'Anna says:

    Yes: good is not suicidal. Good is powerful and fecund. But good is value-aligned power. All power which is not value-aligned is evil. So when you worship power and fecundity, you are mostly worshiping evil, not good.

    There are more ways to destroy value than there are to create it. Survival is not self-justifiying. There is no guarantee that good will prevail. It is perfectly possible for a powerful and fecund evil to consume the entire world and all the good contained in it.

  31. vxxc2014 says:

    Good stuff.

    Glad you got this past whatever NWO firewall was blocking it.

    It went the rounds faster perhaps because of NWO firewall.

    I’m not as racist or a big believer in genocide as the right tool as some, but we’d better start defending ourselves and kicking ass or we’re not going to make it.

    In about 49 mins Obu comes on to speak to us about Terrorism.

    What ever he says will be weak tea even as tyranny. Or so I suspect.

    I’d throw out Molon Labe but they won’t and can’t do it.

    They suck even at tyranny and treason.

  32. […] to whip some sense into the Dark Enlightenment audience, Jim makes some excellent points about the nature of the […]

    • jim says:

      Would you like a North America where, as in South America, the settlers did not genocide the Indians?

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        “Jim”,

        I don’t think it can be said that the Indians in North America were subject to genocide, as they ended up on reservations and genocide being defined as making a people disappear. In the case of White Genocide, for example, no reservations are allowed!

        It’s still a good point to bring up the way that South Americans were blended into the incoming European populations, and it gets better when one brings up that this was specifically done at the behest of disgusting Trentian bishops (following the religion originating at the Council of Trent, 16th Century) who called for “Assimilation, assimilation!”

        Assimilation is a code word for White Genocide.

        Best regards,

        A.J.P.

  33. […] also offers a few mild correctives of Jim in Some Applied Prudence/Property […]

  34. Wyrd says:

    Cartman: For my book report, I read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. It was very, very good. Have you read it, Mr. Garrison?

    Mr. Garrison: No, I can’t say I have.

    Cartman: Oh good. In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, a bunch of hippies walk around and paint stuff. They eat lunch, and then they find a magical camel, which they have to eat to stay alive. And that’s pretty much it. I give it a B-minus.

    Mr. Garrison: And I give you an F, Eric. Now sit down!

    Cartman: Goddammit!!

  35. […] Stevens follows up Jim’s magisterial “genocide” article with some additional […]

  36. […] all going to drown and no one is going to save us’ part. Whatever will happen, it will be ugly. Besides, the ultimate conclusion of neoreaction is inherently a  humbling one: it is not a […]

  37. […] Who is a neighbor? Jesus answered this too, in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Stripping away the rhetorical shaming component, and the deliberate intent to confuse with which Jesus cloaked his parables, the answer is simple: he who is likely to help you – he who is likely to be a good neighbor. […]

  38. Ben says:

    I’ve been reading this every couple of weeks. Fantastic.

  39. Brit says:

    I’m actual believer and have thought a lot about Jim’s interpretation of of The Good Samaritan.

    It occurred to me that the phrase “love your enemies” is part of the Sermon on the Mount. This is the part where he declares that entering heaven requires righteousness exceeding the pharisees, that whoever hates commits murder, whoever lusts commits adultery, to pluck out your eye, and and to be perfect as God is perfect

    He’s obviously asking impossible things. Hence the view that the sermon is actually about the sacrifice of Jesus and the fulfillment of the law, rather than something Christians can live up to themselves.

    Since love thy neighbor is outside of the mount, it is therefore one of the more reasonable commandments which we can be expected to follow.

    By the way, I do not think you would say that Christianity is dead if you had heard the hate-preacher Steven Anderson.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=typ2pl2L47k (On the Jews)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWXjuUbBfUc (On the homosexuals)

    He has a few 100 regular attendees, and there are more people like him out there.

    • jim says:

      The good Samaritan behaves as it is possible for men to behave, and the man set upon by robbers is not required to consider the priest who crossed to the other side to be his neighbor.

      The example set, and the specifics commanded, are well within the power of men to perform, and men routinely do perform to this standard, for though the human heart is not large enough to love the whole world, it is large enough to love our little part of the world.

  40. Alrenous says:

    the terminology of the Dark Enlightenment, means you should attempt to break out of defect/defect equilibrium when you have a chance of doing so, not regardless of whether you have a chance of doing so.

    Jesus would reply that humans normally don’t know if they can break out, and are far more apt to falsely decide they can’t, than to falsely decide they can.

    Suppose you find a homeless man in the street, or a black orphan, and you decide to take him in. What is going to happen?

    Every so often a Christian reads the story of the Good Samaritan, and in a conspicuous display of superior holiness decides to take in a homeless man, thereby outdoing the Good Samaritan. Invariably he concludes that this was a really bad idea.

    So if it does not mean you should take in the homeless man (and every single Christian who actually tries this rapidly comes to the conclusion that that is not what it means) what then does it mean?

Leave a Reply