Tag Archives: christianity

Kissing God’s Ass So He Won’t Torture You & Jesus Is My Girlfriend

A comment for Hazelshade about nature’s religion:

@Hazelshade

It’s not so much “the religious instinct” I have a problem with, it’s the modern American Christian church that is the problem. I’m sure that the inborn religious instinct can be compatible with science, nature, and reality. I’m a little hesitant about “worshipping” anything though. (Except you should “worship” your wife, it’s in the traditional marriage vows, but in context “worship” means foreplay, both verbal and physical!)

When most Christians “worship” God/Jesus they use the same language (sometimes word-for-word, see Psalm 104) that slaves used when worshipping Oriental kings – literally, over the top obsequious ass-kissing that is almost a self-parody, like something out of a Monty Python skit. They did this not out of any real sense of awe, but to placate a sociopathic monster and avoid being tortured to death, or having their children tortured in front of them.

Let us praise God. Oh Lord, oooh you are so big. So absolutely huge. Gosh, we’re all really impressed down here I can tell you. Forgive us, O Lord, for this dreadful toadying and barefaced flattery. But you are so strong and, well, just so super. Fantastic. Amen.

Does the Almighty Creator of the Universe really desire such ass-kissing? Or is this a left-over from the era of Oriental God-Kings and the Roman Empire that ruled through mass murder, torture, and baby-snatching? To ask the question answers it.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp

The modern American evangelicals have a criticism of modern worship called “Jesus is my girlfriend” because a lot of their “worship” songs are really just pop songs sung, instead of to a girl, to Jesus. Of course their “criticism” is just meant to socially signal how much more “spiritual” they are then their rivals at church, their alternatives aren’t any better, in many cases worse.

I just can’t find anything in American Christianity that has any worth. Sure, their teachings on sexual morality are solid but it’s like how you teach a baby to not stick their fingers in a light socket – “NO! BAD! SHOCK HURT BABY!” Once you get into the “intellectual” parts of the religion it’s hardly different than Scientology.

I’ve read some pretty heavy duty Catholic stuff and it’s not any better. Typically, the “pre-Vatican II” Catholics are even worse with their absolutely insane “Judeo-Masonic” conspiracy theories and the typical little old Catholic lady’s beliefs are just one step above voodoo, clutching rosary beads like a middle ages peasant clutched magical amulets, the “Evil Eye” and seeing literal demons everywhere.

Truly, I’ve tried to find something good in it but I’m at a loss. I’m far from ignorant, either, I’m actually extremely over-educated in the subject matter.

Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104

Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104

O Lord, please don’t burn us,
Don’t grill us or toast your flock,
Don’t put us on a barbecue,
Or simmer us in stock,
Don’t braise or bake or boil us,
Or stir-fry us in a wok.
Oh please don’t lightly poach us,
Or baste us with hot fat,
Don’t fricassee or roast us,
Or boil us in a vat,
And please don’t stick thy servants, Lord,
In a Rotissomat.

Conservatives Are Losing The “Transgender War” Because They Are Sexually Obsessed, Stupid And Easily Fooled

When the “transgender” thing started a few years ago, presumably with the Bruce Jenner “transition” it caused a huge dust-up among the “right wing” from “Conservative Inc.” to the “Alt Right.” Everyone jumped right on it and many said it would be a winning issue for the “right” because who wants bearded men in dresses stalking little girls in the ladies’ restroom?

I demurred. I didn’t really know much about the issue and I figured that the right was being suckered, as it always is. Conservatives tend to be stupid and have a near-perfect record of LOSING, especially on sexual issues.

I blame religion, in a sense. The thing is, Christian (i.e., classical Stoic) sexuality morality is great, and is pretty much obviously the most healthy sexual lifestyle. Monogamy, fertility, family. If women and men married as virgins, and didn’t cheat, there would be no STDs. If motherhood was promoted in our culture, we’d have lots of White babies, fulfilled mothers, and responsible fathers.

Pornography, masturbation, female – and male – genital mutilation (“circumcision”) promiscuity, homosexuality – all these are vices that have traditionally been proscribed to one degree or another.

But religion can’t explain WHY this kind of sexual morality is healthy, because Western religion/Christianity doesn’t believe in biology or nature. So they have to come up with “spiritual” reasons which are false and mostly imaginary.

Even worse, Western religion – Christianity – can’t accept vice as vice – vice has to be “sin.” So instead of a socially effective form of “vice control” – suppressing vice, punishing vice when it harms society, Christianity has to eradicate it, which doesn’t work. You always have the return of the suppressed.

For the religious, there has to be a “zero tolerance” approach to vice, because vice is a “sin” meriting eternal punishment in hell. Instead of the natural truth – vice is bodily unhealthy, religion has to make it a “sin” that is deadly to the soul.

And of course those people who want to “fight sin” can find “sin” anywhere. Since Christiainty always follows the culture, NEVER leads it, all it can do is rear guard actions. So that means right wing religious types want to “eradicate homosexuality” while left wing religious types want to corral homosexuality into “gay marriage.”

Neither really works.

In any case, when it came to the “transgender” thing, of course the religious people went straight to the “won’t somebody thing of the CHILDREN!” angle and assumed that the “transgender” thing was about sexual perverts perving on little girls in the restroom.

But of course it wasn’t about that at all. What is the “trans” movement – a VERY well funded movement, promoted by the richest and most powerful corporations in the world – what is “trans” really about?

It’s not about SEX at all – it’s about DRUGS. “Trans” is, essentially, a drug cartel.

View story at Medium.com

Religious people jumped on the sex angle, and made themselves look like the sexually obsessed church ladies they are. And the “trans” movement loved every minute of it, because they know that religious people ALWAYS LOSE on sexual issues – they can’t even keep themselves sexually normal, they can’t even stop divorce and remarriage (or the Catholic equivalent) in their own churches.

So by baiting the religious conservatives into obsessing over SEX – the trans movement has successfully slipped their actual agenda – DRUGS – right under the radar.

CONSERVATIVES ALWAYS LOSE. Don’t be a conservative – it’s unhealthy.

Reaction is ‘Reverse Psychology’ That Works on Children

The original Mencius Moldbug essays were great; very interesting stuff, thought provoking, broke a lot of taboos.

There must be something about Jewish verbal intelligence that just captivates the goyim, in the same way that ancient primitive tribes got high off of a small dose of the venom of snakes or various parasites. It figures that conservatives, right wingers, and reactionaries – i.e., the low IQ, low intelligence, low imagination, low executive functioning segment of Whites – get so enthralled by Jewish verbal venom. The same way dumb Whites smoke weed or take some drug and think they are having “deep thoughts.”

So these clever, thought provoking essays by Moldbug, essentially just some “devil’s advocate” push back against modern, post-industrial era “Enlightenment” philosophy, were turned into a bona fide religious cult by former Catholics (and it is mostly Catholics, Catholicism being the religion of the dumbest Whites and half-White Westerners.)

So Moldbug says, hey, we all assume that monarchy is worse than democracy, but is it? Here’s some advantages that monarchy had over democracy.

What do the cultists do? They immediately take all this as not an intellectual exercise to re-think some of our cherished assumptions – oh, no. They take this as a literal command and start declaring themselves “monarchists” and even clever goys like Blog.Jim.com start picking apart Donald Trump’s tie colors and Victorian era British fashion for clues to the “soul” of monarchy.

And just like bored White housewives who are really into hiring “past lives consultants” to tell them they all are the reincarnation of Cleopatra, ALL – 100% – of these neo-reactionaries automatically assume they are the new Brahmins, the new priest class, if not monarchist pretenders themselves. Not a single one of them thinks, “hey, if we restore the monarchy, I’ll be a pig farming peasant like 95% of my fellow Whites.” Oh, no, not these Big Brained Brads, they are just sure that in a restored monarchy they will get pride of place.

It’s all so much like “Reverse Psychology” you used to trick your kid brother into giving you an extra helping of dessert. “You didn’t really want that ice cream anyway, did you?” Like Tom Sawyer and white-washing the fence, these neo-reactionaries all buy it, hook, line, and sinker. “Well, democracy is bad, therefore, we need to find a literal king, with a robe and bejeweled crown, and some bald headed “celibate priest” to restore “Throne and Altar.”

The religious ones are the worst of all. I hate to be one of those types – athiests annoy me as much as anyone – but let’s not beat around the bush here. If you were born in Mosul, you’d be a Muslim and you’d believe the Koran. If you were born in Bangalore, you’d be a Hindu praying to Vishnu. But you went to Catholic school or some Protestant church, so therefore you’re a Christian. You didn’t investigate all the religions and them decide that Christianity was the right one. Of course not. You were brainwashed as a child to believe in Christianity and now you have an emotional attachment to it. If you had NOT been emotionally conditioned, you’d find the Bible, the Old Testament stories – and especially the New Testament stories – to be a third-rate bunch of fairy tales without even the positive, heroic spirit of Hercules.

I personally find the English of the King James absolutely profound, but at least I’m self-aware enough to know it’s due to my childhood conditioning. You can take the most trite statements – even absurd and self-contradictory statements, and rephrase them into the King James English and to me it sounds utterly profound.

When the Beatles’ Paul McCartney smoked pot for the first time, he had some of his paid flunkies follow him around and write down all of his “profound” thoughts and “brilliant lyrics” but the next day – after the weed wore off – it was all just stoner gibberish. Have any of you religious people ever actually sobered up long enough to THINK about the trite and often nonsensical crap your religion teaches you? Typically, it’s either just obvious truisms (that are only profound to children learning them for the very first time) or “koans” that are actually just artifacts of human language and typically you grow out of that “profound” feeling once you’ve grown out of freshman year university classes.

Just a typical example: I’m sure that the sexual promiscuity – and resultant STDs – of the ancient era caused a serious backlash when sexual restraint all of a sudden seemed like an important spiritual discipline. You can see this in the Stoics, who were just as sexually conservative as the most conservative Catholics – sex was only within marriage, for reproduction.

Yet take a reactionary and they think, “well, if sexual indulgence is bad, then complete denial of sexuality must be good!” “If democracy is bad, then monarchy must be good!”

“If people aren’t actually completely ‘equal’ in every way, that means the best society is a totalitarian dictatorship, and OF COURSE I’ll be part of the ruling class, after all, I’m such an intellectual I read brilliant Jews like Curtis Yarvin, I will surely be a famous priest in the court of the new monarch and rule over the peasant pig farmer, not a slave to a syphilitic dictator who rules through genocide and violence while wearing robes and claiming a divine mandate from a vision he had while tripping on the fungus from moldy bread!”

I mean, have you people ever actually read the book of Daniel in the Bible? It’s not “profound” at all, it’s the ravings of a madman. It’s even worse with those people into “mysticism” that think the Jew Kaballah is somehow interesting. Hell, the smartest Jew even pointed out that that the author of the Kaballah was likely suffering from dementia – he called it “the product of neurological degeneration.”

The worse, most awful pop song of the 1990s was “Mister Jones and Me” where the skinny White wrote a love song to some old Black drunk blues musician he met at a bar, and this old Negro’s drunken rambling was turned into profound and poetic “wisdom.”

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away. Reactionaries are even most easily manipulated than liberals or hoi polloi. Reactionaries are the “goth” in high school, the Adam’s Family types. Whatever the mainstream believes, the react against it and believe the exact opposite.

But of course “each thing evokes its opposite” which means that “reactionaries” are the least interesting, and the least thoughtful, people of all.

They think they are fighting priests, dissident intellectuals, and restorers of tradition, when in reality, they are just that stupid kid that got fooled by Tom Sawyer into white washing the fence.

Isn’t Christianity Just Stoicism Plus Hebrew Superstitions?

All the smart Christians like E. Michael Jones talk about Logos as opposed to a carpenter named Jesus. Take out the New Testament narrative, and what is left is just old fashioned classical Stoicism. St. Paul is indistinguishable from the Stoics of his time and from what I recall literally name checks them.

Christianity appears at the exact same time as Vespasian, Titus, and Domition are conquering the Jewish rebels in Palestine. The Jewish rebels believe in a proto-Zionism where a Messiah will liberate them from the kittim. Josephus, being a modern man, realizes that Vespasian is going to win, switches sides and declares his loyalty to Rome, and declares Vespasian the Messiah and attributes the Star Prophecy from Numbers to Titus. Vespasian becomes the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. The New Testament shows the Romans as the ones who accept “Christ” and the Jews as the ones who reject them. Also the Gospels tell the Jews to submit to Rome and pay their taxes – the very thing the Zionists refused to do.

Take the Cult of Divine Caesar of Julius and Augustus, add in Vespasian becoming the “Messiah of the Jews” per Jospehus and the family of Philo of Alexandria – rich Jews who rejected the rebel Zionists and embraced loyalty to Rome – and after three major Roman-Jewish wars when Rome finally defeats the Zionist Jews and you get the descendant of Vespasian and Titus – Constantine – officially establishing the Church which “just happens” to be a mix of:

1. Stoic philosophy

2. a “Hebrew-ized” version of the Divine Julius cult with themes and history representing the Roman-Jewish war, where the “good Jews” become “Christians” and accept a Hellenized Messiah and pay taxes to Rome.

And what do you know, there’s a bunch of “Christian Flavians” buried under the Vatican.

This might be just interesting history, except we have these “Rightists” like the Social Pathologist telling us we can’t actual take the side of White people until we “restore the West” and “fight modernity” and in order to do that we have to re-embrace Christianity.

But none of these “neo-reactionaries” like Social Patholigist (https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-religious-dissident-right.html) and Social Matter (https://www.socialmatter.net/2018/06/27/week-reaction-2018-06-24/) are actually interested in Hebrew carpenters, virgin births, and literal nail holes in hands.

They are really only interested in Logos and Stoic philosophy.

So, maybe we can stop privileging Jewish superstitions and 2,000 year old Roman war propaganda and just embrace our actual Western heritage – classical Greco-Roman Stoicism.

Sounds like a win-win to me. We get to keep all that art and architecture while getting rid of pedophile priests and religious whack-jobs obsessed with desert real estate in the Levant.

Athena, Minerva, or Mary: A Rose By Any Other Name …

Which Way, White Man?

https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Kallikak_Family

The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness was a 1912 book by the American psychologist and eugenicist Henry H. Goddard. The work was an extended case study of Goddard’s for the inheritance of “feeble-mindedness,” a general category referring to a variety of mental disabilities including mental retardation, learning disabilities, and mental illness. Goddard concluded that a variety of mental traits were hereditary and society should limit reproduction by people possessing these traits.

More On Moore: The Evangelical Cult’s Denial Of Basic Human “Sin” Nature And Its Cost To White Culture

When the Washington Post article came out, I actually read it. Of the four women, three just said that Moore dated, or tried to date them, when they were 16-18. Frankly, I find the idea of a 30 year old man courting – for marriage – an 18 year old woman to be a big “meh.” It may not be something the culture should encourage, as it’s a pretty big age difference, but there’s nothing biologically strange about it and there are plenty of strong, healthy and fertile marriages that have such an age gap.

The only accusation that mattered was that of the 14 year old girl, and her story was somewhat corroborated by two other women, who said she told them at the time that she was “dating” Moore.

For the next 48 hours, Roy Moore issued a bunch of “non-denial denials” which frankly made him seem guilty. Hipster Racist isn’t a court of law, and I frankly could not care less about the Republican party or the Alabama elections, so I’m just calling it as I see it. The woman’s claims seemed quite credible to me, because I’ve had numerous women tell me stories of exactly such behavior on the part of men – yes, even men in socially conservative, Evangelical subcultures. In fact, that is exactly the sort of behavior I expect of men in that culture. No, of course, not all, nor even the majority or a large minority, of Evangelical men are rapists, or chase jailbait, but neither does Christianity or the Evangelical subculture change the nature of men. In fact, I thought that was an important part of Christianity – the idea that we are “born in sin” – and it’s particularly true of the Reformed/Calvinist theology.

Eventually, on Sean Hannity’s show, Moore specifically and categorically denied the accusations of the woman, said he didn’t know her, and I figured that was that. I did expect – and warned – that there were likely to be other accusers, but 40 year old “he said, she said” accusations can’t really be judged.

I wasn’t particularly surprised to see fans of Moore denying everything and suggesting the women were lying, but I have been somewhat surprised by the reaction of many so-called “Christian” conservatives. At least now three times, on Twitter and this blog, so-called “conservative Christians” have suggested that anyone giving any credence to the accusations, or suggesting that Evangelical men aren’t always angels, either:

1. Hates Jesus

or

2. are sexual perverts and want sexual anarchy, promiscuity, and only believe these women because they don’t want a sexually conservative society.

I think some are protesting too much. I also noted, here and on Twatter, that these reactions are EXACTLY THE SAME as the reactions of Jews and Scientologists. Anytime anyone says anything negative about Jews, the Jewish religion, Jewish power in America, or the Israel lobby, 100% of the time they are met with essentially the same accusation:

“You are just jealous of Jews because of your personal failures.”

Scientologists are trained to ALWAYS respond to any negative critique of Scientology with accusations that the critic is a “suppressive person” and Scientology has a “counter attack” strategy, laid out by L. Ron Hubbard himself, that is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

(1) Spot who is attacking us.
(2) Start investigating them promptly for felonies or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.
(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
(4) Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.

I was a little bit surprised to see otherwise normal seeming conservative Christians doing the same thing to me, for the “crime” of believing a bunch of Southern, conservative, Christian women that claimed Roy Moore, the GOP politician from Alabama, sexually assaulted them. All of a sudden it was ME on trial – even though it’s not ME accusing Roy Moore, it’s a bunch of conservative, Christian, southern White women from Alabama – most of them, in fact, Republican Trump voters.

But it’s all so telling that his partisans, instead of dealing forthrightly with the accusations against Moore, or even having the decency to look at their own culture and accept maybe there is some dysfunction, to immediately start accusing others of having immoral motives or … “hating Jesus.”

It’s pathetic, it’s un-Christian, and it really says more about them than it does about the people they are attacking.

Well, what do you know, another woman has stepped forward and gave a detailed allegation of Roy Moore sexually assaulting her as a 15 year old girl. Unlike the 14 year old, Moore cannot claim he’s never met her, because he SIGNED HER HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK.

I find Beverly Young Nelson’s accusations to be VERY credible, because I have heard this story, from numerous women, for my entire life. Including and especially from women from the Christian and/or Evangelical subculture.

Not only have I heard stories, for my entire life, that match Nelson’s story, I practically witnessed it personally, myself, at a church meeting. Once, at a night time event, a young woman, about 16, came running into the church building, crying and hysterical, saying that she was attacked by one of the other church attendees, who was about 18. I knew both of them. The girl was an extremely beautiful and very sexy young woman – to be clear, I don’t believe she went out of her way to be “sexy” or “seductive” – she was just a beautiful and blossoming young woman and even I, at about the age of 12, was utterly mesmerized by her. She accused a young man, of 18, of offering her a ride to the church function, then he parked the car in a dark spot and assaulted her.

The boy was expelled from the church and the church school, although I don’t believe the incident was ever made into a legal case. I heard, through the grapevine, what happened, and it was virtually exactly the scenario that Nelson says happened to her. As far as I can tell, this is a very typical, very common, way that men sexually assault women. I knew the alleged attacker, and was in fact quite fond of him, even though he was much older than me. He was a “sincere Christian,” seemed somewhat like a “leader” to us younger boys, seemed quite serious about Christianity and the Bible, and it was shocking news to us.

But, now, as an older man with some experience under my belt, I think I can figure out what happened. He had a crush on this girl for a year, found her extremely sexy (as we all did) and one night he just “snapped” and made very aggressive sexual moves on her, and when she wouldn’t cooperate, became somewhat violent. His “Christianity” went out the window because his lizard brain – his testosterone, and his evolved biology, took over. Why? Because he was a human man with a strong, overpowering sexual drive and the naive culture he was a part of somehow thought that “Jesus” would prevent young horny teenagers from doing what comes naturally. I do also suspect that the Christian subculture simply had no way of dealing with the realities of sex, simply expecting that “faith in Jesus” would stop him from “lusting” after a highly lust-worthy young woman his age.

I also heard NUMEROUS TIMES of older men – adult men – doing very similar things to young teenage girls in that culture. Women and girls that I knew. They certainly had no reason to lie to me. I witnessed on NUMEROUS occasions very obvious strong sexual tension between adult men and teenage girls – the kind of sexual tension that you can cut with a knife. To my mind, the problem was that adult men simply shouldn’t be in positions of power over teenage girls. In fact, I think co-ed education itself is basically asking for trouble.

I attended an upper-middle-class Christian high school based around a very mainstream, but very conservative, Protestant church. I remember at 15, sitting next to 15 year old girls, in those little school girl outfits, absolutely unable to concentrate on my school work because the slightest flash of leg, the slightest scent of “girl,” the tiniest hint of curves, flooded me with testosterone. It was often PURE TORTURE and it somewhat amazes me that these Christians, supposedly well aware of “sin nature” and lust, nevertheless, forced young horny teenagers together and then expected us to NOT “lust” after each other.

I don’t think at all that Christians are “worse” than the secular world, and I don’t think that the “answer” is “sexual liberation” or the promotion of promiscuity or “safe sex” for teenagers. I think, in fact, what old fashioned and traditional (even Christian) culture did is best for everyone – sexual segregation, a frank understanding of human nature and sexuality, and a restoration of old fashioned courting and young marriage – and by young marriage, I mean that 16-20 year old girls should be married off to 20-24 year old boys. That sort of marriage worked quite well for a thousand years and it can work again.

To accuse me of wanting “sexual license” because I have zero respect for some grand-standing GOP political hack like Roy Moore – and I find the stories of White, conservative, Southern, Christian women to be credible because it’s a completely observed pattern of behavior on the part of men – just shows how morally bankrupt the GOP, as well as the Evangelical subculture, really is.

It’s not ME accusing Roy Moore, it’s White, conservative, Southern Christian women accusing Moore. It’s not the Washington Post, the liberal media, or the Democrats accusing Moore – it’s White, conservative, Southern Christian women accusing Moore.

It’s just that the Evangelical subculture can’t deal with biological reality because they have their heads in the clouds, expecting “Jesus” to fix everyone’s problems and keep everyone “free of lust.”

Which is, of course, highly ironic because Jesus Christ himself, in the Bible, said the exact opposite of that. The Evangelical cult, and “conservative” American culture, lost the culture war, and lost their culture to the sexual revolution, precisely because they didn’t even read their own Bible.

Why The Accusations Against Roy Moore Are Probably True

Of course they are politically timed, and of course his political enemies are the ones promoting the story, but that doesn’t change the fact they are almost certainly true.

According to the story, at around 30 years of age Roy Moore courted a number of young women from 16-18. He eventually married a woman 12 years his junior. This is normal male behavior and it’s clearly a pattern for him.

One of the women, 16, wanted to date him but her mother forbade it because he was too old for her. Another of the women, 17, did date him, described him as “romantic” and her mother said she was “lucky” to have his interest. Moore was an up and coming politician, a home town boy made good, and was described as handsome. There’s another incident of him chatting up a girl at 14 then asking her out later at 16.

The real scandal is the 14 year old girl at the center of the scandal. He meets her when her mother is waiting for a child custody hearing at the courthouse: in other words, the alleged 14 year old victim came from a broken home. Exactly the sort of girl that would be a target for predation.

She claims he picked her up “around the corner” from her parent’s house. Unlike the girls he was actually courting and considering for marriage, he allegedly drives the 14 year old girl straight to his house, gives her alcohol, strips her down to her bra and panties, feels her up and tries to get her to feel him up. He does not rape her, he doesn’t go “below her underwear” and drives her home when she asks.

This makes the story much more believable because “heavy petting” would be exactly the “line” that someone in that culture wouldn’t necessarily cross. Two other women, friends of the alleged victim, went on the record saying that she told them she was “seeing” an “older man” and at least one said she named him: Roy Moore.

We have no problem believing all the stories about the Hollywood moguls like Weinstein, the “male feminists” and their bizarre and passive aggressive behavior towards women, and no one is at all surprised that Kevin Spacey likes “chicken” and is aggressive and engages in assault – and years ago an internet commenter on reddit claims to have witnessed him engaging in sexual behavior with very young “pubescent” boys in Thailand. Spacey was also on Jeffrey Epstein’s “Lolita Express” plane.

Few have expressed doubt that Bill Clinton may have been having sex with Epstein’s teenage prostitutes/”sex slaves” – we’ve seen the picture of Prince Edwards with the then 16 year old Virginia at the center of the Epstein case. Few expressed doubts about this because it fits exactly the profile of these people. This is exactly how we expect “male feminists” to behave and it’s how we expect wealthy sociopaths like Bill Clinton to behave.

Well, this behavior fits the Christian conservative subculture that Moore is a part of. The choice of targets, the fact that it didn’t escalate beyond “heavy petting.” The fact is that Moore’s entire political shtick has been using a particular version of “Christian” sexual “repression” – that is virtually a mirror image of the “male feminists” the “Jewish moguls” and the “liberal’s” version of “sexual liberation.

Watch this famous video of an Evangelical preacher in Alabama named Paul Washer. Notice that sexual shaming used against teenagers just on the cusp on adolescence when they are first starting to develop a serious sex drive.

There is no healthy sexuality here. There is no promotion of marriage. There is no acknowledgement of the sex drive as “God’s plan for marriage.” Instead, it’s literally making horny teenagers feel bad for being horny teenagers. In fact, after watching a number of Paul Washer videos, my impression is that he is a typical sociopath, a high functioning emotional “abuser” (for lack of a better word.) He’s highly emotive but in way that seems clearly feigned – and highly practiced. Remember, sociopaths are often far more charismatic – and far more “sexy” – than emotionally normal people. They do not have normal emotions and no empathy for others, but highly functioning sociopaths are often quite good at feigning normal emotions.

Roy Moore’s pattern of behavior – and the behavior he is being accused of – matches PRECISELY with the negative sexual patterns of conservative Christian subcultures. It is not the same as the negative sexual patterns of feminists, homosexuals, the “sexual liberated” nor Jews with hostility to “shiksas.” No, this is the negative sexual patterns that are common to conservative subcultures.

Growing up, I have not only witnessed this exact same pattern of behavior of conservative religious men towards teenage girls, I’ve heard numerous stories from teenage girls and older women from that subculture describing this pattern of behavior from older conservative Christian men.

If she had claimed he took it out and jerked off into a potted plant – that would totally be unbelievable. If she said he held her down and raped her, that wouldn’t have been believable. If she was, say, a black prostitute that claimed Moore had paid her to pee on him, that would sound like a political hit.

But an up and coming powerful man with a pattern of courting teenage girls and women, who engages in “heavy petting” with a particularly vulnerable girl – but doesn’t actually rape her and won’t even take it to the level of sex (only “above the underwear”) – that fits the pattern.

Monogamy was always a balance of the sexual and reproductive interests of men and women. Young marriage is a good and healthy social practice – and a man like Moore marrying a woman a decade younger than him is not particularly scandalous to my mind.

But the problem with Christians (and considering the previous post, I’ll include Mormons here) is that they often can only rely on shame to repress young sexuality. They have no way of discussing sexuality and thus revert to a very simplistic mechanisms to keep teenagers from doing what comes naturally. It typically worked – when you have segregation of the sexes and young, companionate marriages.

But add in a power imbalance and an inability to deal forthrightly with biological reality, and you have just the situations that Moore is accused of engaging in. It’s understandable too that Moore is being attacked by the people most opposed to his conservative sexual morals, but that doesn’t change the fact that what he is being accused of is precisely the type of behavior one would expect of just such a man.

Catholic priests were able to get away with buggering the altar boys for close to ONE THOUSAND YEARS, and despite dozens of reformers, dissidents, and actually chaste Catholics complaining about it, it was only AFTER the “gay liberation movement” forced the uncomfortable issue into the public discussion that the victims could, in fact, complain about it, be heard, and believed.

Strom Thurmond had a black daughter. Of COURSE plenty of Southern plantation masters had sex with the prettiest of their black slaves. The power imbalance makes the sex ULTRA-HOT.

Of course Weinstein liked to humiliate “shiksas” that needed him to help their careers. Of COURSE some goofball like Louis CK likes to jerk off in front of women. Of COURSE “male feminists” are some of the biggest creeps – and rapiest rapers – of all.

And of course powerful men in sexually closed religious subcultures are going to be attracted like moths to a flame to vulnerable young girls – the power difference makes it all so ultra-hot.

The solution is NOT “sexual liberation” nor is it “sexual repression.” The solution is a frank recognition of biological reality, and a civil society that recognizes that biological reality, and can steer these natural biological forces into socially productive – and biologically reproductive – ways.

If the Christian sexual repression was a workable system, it wouldn’t have been overturned so easily by the sexual revolutionaries and the pornographers. And if sexual liberation was a workable system, we wouldn’t see the barely 50 years old sexual liberation movement collapsing on itself over and over again.

Radical Feminists Are The Only Interesting Feminists

Reddit.com is going through another bout of censorship and it’s typical – “Nazi” subreddits are being banned, the minority of “right wing” and some principled types are complaining that Communist and other radical left subs and comments – often openly encouraging violence – are still being allowed.

But one new development is rather interesting, some transgender activists are demanding a radical feminist sub, https://reddit.com/r/gendercritical, be banned for “transphobia.” GenderCritical is a “radical feminist” sub that does not accept that “transwomen” are real women, rejects the entire “trans” movement, and posits that “transwomen” are really just men, dressing up or otherwise mimicking women, in order to invade women’s spaces.

The intersection of radical feminism and traditional (Western, Christian) morality has always fascinated me. In the 1970s, feminists and Christians both fought against pornography and the sex/prostitution industry.

Another interesting development: in England, a feminist conference was violently “protested” by transsexual activists that have weaponized the term “TERF” – Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. The trans activists made the simple comparison: TERFs are “Nazis” and since it’s ok to punch a “Nazi” it’s ok to punch a “TERF.” One proceeded to do just that – a man wearing a dress punched an elderly woman feminist in the face, and the trans activists justified it because TERF=Nazi and it’s ok to “punch a Nazi.”

Reading the GenderCritical subreddit is fascinating, you have the same bizarre mix you typically see with feminism. On the one hand, there are silly girls being bitchy and obvious man-hating shrews moaning about the patriarchy, and the ever present leftists trying to pair Black men and “women-as-a-class” as being “oppressed” by the White Male Patriarchy.

But you also have some quite sensible women making quite sensible points – why is it that “liberal feminists” are siding with radical Islamics, perhaps the most openly “misogynist” culture there is? You have quite sensible women decrying prostitution and the sex industry, the recently deceased (bisexual CIA lackey) Hugh Hefner, and very legitimate normal seeming women decrying boorish behavior on the part of men. All perfectly understandable and even a “right wing” liberal racist sexist like this author finds myself nodding in agreement with half of what these women are saying.

I came across a fascinating site, https://trustyourperceptions.wordpress.com/ which is a radical lesbian separatist feminist site that has some very interesting biological analyses about sex – literally, on the cellular level. In this analysis, maleness itself, the Y-chromosome, is a sort of parasite. I don’t know enough biology to properly judge how much of this is true or false, but some things that stuck out for me:

– Semen: Men’s Chemical War Against Women. Past Evolutionary Context for Seminal Engineering: how females not signaling estrus trumped males.

It’s been discussed that semen has “calming” – or in this analysis, paralyzing, effects on women. Semen is a way for the y-chromosome to inject itself into women, turn off one of the x-chromosomes, and actually inhibits parthenogenesis – the creation of a baby without a male “sperm donor.”

– The invention of the birth control pill coincided with the mainstreaming of oral sex

This seems to be somewhat of E. Michael Jones style coincidence-shopping, but it’s still rather interesting. Spermicides and birth control and other ways of killing sperm/preventing impregnation of women were followed quickly by men figuring out other ways of getting semen into women. The vagina can be a very sperm hostile place and “sperm competition” is an evolutionary explanation for a lot of seemingly unintuitive aspects of human sexuality. The author notes that injecting sperm into a woman’s throat is a way of getting semen into a woman’s body which, while not making her pregnant, does in fact have some of the “calming”/”paralyzing” effect on women. It makes women “docile” – it’s like a species that has a toxin that paralyzes its prey, but in this case, it perpetuates the y-chromosome.

The author also notes that anal sex is now being mainstreamed, another way of getting semen into a woman’s body that, while obviously not getting a woman pregnant or perpetuating the y-chromosome, does allow semen into a woman’s body to work its paralyzing effect. We’ve seen studies showing that genetic material from sperm shows up in women’s brains.

She also notes that the porno mainstreaming of “facials” and otherwise ejaculating on women is yet another way to get the chemicals and hormones found in semen into women through their pores! For these lesbian separatists, semen itself is a sort of toxin – talk about “toxic masculinity!” There’s also some interesting discussing of female/males of other animal species. To her, semen itself is toxic (it certainly is a carrier of disease) and the “male hormone” testosterone is the obvious “cause” of violence. Feminists are completely correct that women are – “as a class” – at the mercy of male violence (as are other men, of course.) Testosterone makes men fight other men and then they inject that “toxic masculinity” into women, perpetuating the y chromosome.

This is sort of a futurist “evolutionary end of men” type thing, but it would be pointless – and rather girlish – of “manosphere” types to get angry or outraged by this stuff; I find it really quite interesting and as a “race and sex realist” and someone who thinks evolutionary biology can likely explain the human condition more than anything else (religion, metaphysics, etc.) I’m looking forward to reading her new posts:

* The Chicken IS the Egg. Parthenogenesis and the Mysterious Evolution of Males.

* Testosterone: What it Does.

* X-Inactivation: How Dudes’ Dying-Y-Asses Get Saved as One of Women’s Two X-Chromosomes is Turned Off for Life.

* Female Bonding/Female Trashing: Chimps, Bonobos and Homo Sapiens

I also found out that the first “manosphere” post that I ever made – the one that had me libeled by the male feminist manboobz.com and made me a two year long hit on the reddit.com manosphere subs – actually has scientific proof for what I posited: it’s called the “Cheerleader Effect.”

I suggested that men in groups – the “mannerbund” – made men more attractive to women, and what do you know – it does. And women in groups – like a cheerleading squad – also makes women more attractive to men.

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

To finish off, here’s a kind of interesting “male feminist” media analysis of the “Born Sexy Yesterday” trope. It’s Beta Male Geek Fantasy – some alien/robot with a woman’s body but the naive mind of a girl falls in love with geek boy who gets to introduce her to the wonders of sex – and he’s the Alpha Male for her because she knows nothing of the world. It’s really just the male version of 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight. In 50SOG and Twilight, Alpha Male CEO Businessman – or Sexy Supernatural Vampire with Magical Powers – falls head over heels in love with Average Everygirl.

But of course the purpose of the “deconstruction” of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope is simply to sell cuckoldry to men, the male feminist ends with demanding that sci-fi media creators stop selling youth and virginity and chastity as sexy, and instead tell men that “experience is sexy” – i.e., Man Up And Marry Those Sluts – and that any man who wants the youth, chastity, virginity (and by extension, fertility) of a woman is just “fearful” and “scared” and “insecure” – he’s just afraid that her former lovers may have had a bigger dick and be better in bed.

Both sides – the radical feminists and the liberal male feminists – as well as the “dudebros” and pornographers and Hugh Hefner Playboy PUAs – want to continue to destroy monogamy, thus the nuclear family, thus humanity itself – but they always “just happen” to only target Whites, of course. Monogamy – patriarchy – is a delicate balance of women’s and men’s evolutionary interests that preserves the recessive traits of Northwestern Europeans and gives men an incentive to invest in their children (and the mothers of their children) – thus creating White civilization. So of course it is constantly attacked. Kevin MacDonald’s analysis of the European Catholic Church comes into play here (and it’s not at all a completely pro-Catholic analysis either) – but for 1000 years it was Christianity that spread the monogamy of the Roman Empire to Europeans generally, thus had a significant impact of the genetics of the White race.

Born Sexy Yesterday

Riffing On Usury

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

Some of the earliest known condemnations of usury come from the Vedic texts of India. Similar condemnations are found in religious texts from Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (the term is riba in Arabic and ribbit in Hebrew). At times, many nations from ancient Greece to ancient Rome have outlawed loans with any interest. Though the Roman Empire eventually allowed loans with carefully restricted interest rates, the Catholic Church in medieval Europe banned the charging of interest at any rate (as well as charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change).

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/07/24/putting-shylock-to-shame-the-moneylender-portrayed-as-hero/

@John Walton

Usury, in essence, is making money from having money, by lending to people who are naïve or have suffered reversals. The lender, like the capitalist, takes some risk and has some overhead, but to the extent one can separate the lender/investor’s contribution of useful expertise from the effect of merely having money at his disposal, to that extent one may raise the issues of undeserved profit and exploitation. Savings and loan associations and mutual insurance companies are collectives where the profit returns to the members. In recent decades many of these companies were taken public by greedy investors who became members and were often in league with management, who invoked spurious reasoning to justify the transition, which works to the detriment of the majority of depositors or policy-holders. The before/after contrast illustrates my idea of profit beyond what is appropriate or necessary. It was not unusual for ‘professional depositors’ to open as many as two hundred accounts around the country to qualify for participation in stock offerings that were (nearly) sure things, but not seen as such by the small fry, some of whom, in any case, could not afford to risk savings even on a sure thing. Peter Lynch has written about this process, which is likely not as profitable for investors today as back when few people understood it.

@John Walton

I agree with your second point but not your first. Defenders of capitalism may cite libertarian premises like yours, in which case they need to explain why people coming newly into the world have a duty to respect the claims of people who amassed land before they were born. Other defenders point to capitalism’s superior productivity, which is a way of appealing to an ethical norm, namely that we should prefer capitalism because it produces a greater level of material well-being for the average person. But most of us distinguish between more and less deserved well-being. We think a doctor deserves his wealth more than a pornographer or an idle rich person who sits back and lets a hired manager invest for him. Libertarians think free exchanges between adults should be beyond the scope of ethical assessment but I don’t see why. Their own view is itself an ethical position. Why is it wrong to interfere with any voluntary exchange? We don’t hesitate where children are parties (nor do we hesitate to regulate drugs and dangerous products), but some adults are as naïve and vulnerable as children, and these are targeted by the archetypal usurer. Nor does looking out for such people automatically ‘infantilize’ the society and lead to communism. At least, I don’t see that it must.

@Hipster Racist

An excellent comment and it’s great to see someone else pointing out the differences between credit unions and mutual companies with collective ownership and private banks. In the former, the owners of the enterprise are the customers, while in the later, an outside group is the owner while the customers are a different group.

The lender, like the capitalist, takes some risk

This isn’t particularly true in the modern financial system and in practice it has never been true in the transactions people decried as “usury.” When a speculator lent money on a shipping excursion the speculator may well have suffered losses when the ship went down. The usurers that people complained about often had the backing of the state to “make them whole” – the borrowers who could not repay the compound interest and fees were often then enslaved. The distinction between “usury” and “investment” is something the Church, despite a heroic effort, never really got right for all sorts of reasons, a primary one being the Church didn’t particular care about the practical effects, they were more interested in their incoherent ideology and their own political power.

E. Michael Jones, a valuable cultural critic, despite being an anti-white fanatic, has at the least tried to come to grips with this in the modern world and tries to retrofit Catholic anti-usury ideas as not being specifically about interest rates, or compounding, but instead a power balance.

I suggest one might try to understand the concept of “barren metal” not with confused analogies of biological reproduction but instead understand “usury” as what we now refer to as “economic rent.”

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

The Jews were allowed to benefit from “economic rent” on money. There is no economic reason why this should be so:

In classical economics, economic rent is any payment made (including imputed value) or benefit received for non-produced inputs such as location (land) and for assets formed by creating official privilege over natural opportunities (e.g., patents). In neoclassical economics, economic rent also includes income gained by beneficiaries of other contrived exclusivity, such as labor guilds and unofficial corruption.

The Church, in practice, gave the Jews a monopoly on certain kinds of finance, which greatly hurt Europeans. Whether or not the Church even understood what it was doing, or if they were in fact “in league” with the Jews is open to historical interpretation, and frankly the Church doesn’t come out looking good either way.

It seem obvious that neither the Church, not libertarian ideologues, have any idea nor any motivation to do something about the modern problems of usury/economic rent, but fortunately, it looks like White/European technology will once again save the day. We are already seeing a revolution in our understanding of economics and money.

Here’s my prediction: both Catholic and libertarian ideologues will go out of their way to squash the revolution in economics as both ideologies are once again trumped by European ingenuity.

But expect both to type countless words online to try to maintain some sort of relevance.

@John Walton

Thanks for the compliment and thanks for pointing out that the objection to usury is at bottom an objection to (excessive?) rents. The ‘barren metal’ objection seems wrong, in that money is a proxy for non-barren capital goods. But I wonder if another ‘biological’ objection might have some validity. I am ignorant of the literature but I would guess that if the money supply doesn’t change then the usurers as a group own a larger and larger portion of the wealth over time, provided they can keep their own consumption costs below the usurious profits. But I suppose the entrepreneurial borrowers as a class will charge their customers, including the usurers, enough so that the entrepreneurs come out ahead. So, who loses? I guess the non-entrepreneurial ‘defensive’ borrowers lose and drift into destitution. Interesting. What is this ‘new economics’ you refer to? You have piqued my curiosity!

@Hipster Racist

We do not need to ignore our traditional moral instinct that “usury” is wrong, nor do we have to rely on medieval misunderstandings of monetary systems to explain why it’s always been considered wrong.

For the last 20 years or so, “Islamic banking” has been a regular topic in the financial literature as Western banks seek to incorporate all that oil money into the system.

Sharia prohibits riba, or usury, defined as interest paid on all loans of money (although some Muslims dispute whether there is a consensus that interest is equivalent to riba).

Here we see the same argument over whether riba/usury is any sort of interest on money or something else. Consider the alternatives in Islamic banking:

Some of the modes of Islamic banking/finance include Mudarabah (Profit and loss sharing), Wadiah (safekeeping), Musharaka (joint venture), Murabahah (cost plus), and Ijar (leasing).

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

Notice that Islamic banking accepts various financial transactions when the interests of the borrow and lender are the same, when the risks are aligned the same way.

If a lender stands to gain more from a default than a repaid loan, that is an obvious conflict of interest – in that situation the lender wants the borrower to default, presumably in order to claim the collateral.

If the money supply doesn’t change then the usurers as a group own a larger and larger portion of the wealth over time

Yes, if in the historical case, Jews as a class have a monopoly on finance, then in the aggregate Jews will wind up with Christian wealth. Actually figuring out the absolute quantity of money is difficult and practically impossible in a decentralized system. In practical terms, whatever class controls the money can always hold back supply of money to force defaults, and this appears to have happened.

Like pornography, it’s likely that many have simply thrown up their hands and said “I know usury when I see it.” “Usury” has traditionally been considered a sin, a moral crime, an evil. Libertarians will try to simply punt on the moral issues and demand you define usury by a specific number, so they can say, “well if 10% is usury, is 5% ok?” “If 0% is the only acceptable interest rate then there will be no lending at all.” By making it a math problem they are ignoring whatever moral instinct that has existed throughout history in many cultures that declares “usury” – however defined – as morally wrong.

“Money,” as in currency, what is used instead of simple barter, is a “social construct” and various forms of money have proved practical in various cases because it’s a decentralized way to coordinate trade. With modern communication technology, “the internet” etc., decentralized coordination can provide alternative to coordinating trade.

Of course there is the crypto-currencies like Bitcoin, but even that relies on traditional ideas of money. There are already thought experiments about decentralized money creation, why give banks a monopoly on money creation? Why can’t money be created and destroyed as needed by individuals?

The path forward for money and banking is not to prevent people from creating money out of thin air but to allow everyone to create money out of thin air.

https://hackernoon.com/beyond-bitcoin-truly-decentralized-banking-d7793edc7d99

Counter Currents once published a great article about various non-libertarian ideas of money and other aspects of the economy.

https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/12/money-for-nothing-3/

I’m suggesting that there is a reason why “usury” has always been considered a sin and that “usury” may be best defined as something other than simple compound interest.

Another good work to read on the topic is “Debt: The First 5000 Years.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

Are Blacks The Only People That Still Believe In The Devil?

It’s a terrible remix of one of the greatest rock and roll songs of all times. The little mini-film itself is ruined by the fact that it keeps cutting to some random Black guy, presumably a rapper or DJ, for no apparent reason.

But if you could take the mini-film and put it to the original Sympathy for the Devil song, it would make one of the best old fashioned MTV music videos of all time.

It’s classic Christianity but from a Black/People of Color perspective. Let’s go through the symbolism:

1. The Devil is a curly haired, snarl-lipped Jew.

2. The first temptation – nice Preppy Church Black girl is dating Hipster Christian White boy, the devil turns into a sexy Barrio Mestizo and she can’t help herself. The Black actress and the video editor do a great job here, she can’t help putting the straw in her mouth and pursing her lips, then catches herself and gives a “nice girl” smile to White Hipster boy before he realizes she’s flirting behind his back.

3. Second temptation: Usury. Nice, trying to be responsible Black guy is about to settle for the affordable but reliable car, until the car salesman offers him a loan – at interest of course – so he can get himself in a pimpin’ ride.

4. Respectable White nerdy businessman puts his wedding ring in his pocket to follow in the young Russian-looking stripper – bonus points for the Devil turning into the sexy woman, adds a whole new level of evil – then the Devil slips the wedding ring out of the man’s pocket while he’s in the throes of sexual arousal. We can see him distraught as he realizes what he’s done.

5. The Devil turns into a Mexican drug lord and delivers a briefcase full of money to the old White politician. In another excellent edit, you can see the respectable light-skinned Hispanic businessman looking embarrassed and uncomfortable with his racial/ethnic counterpart walks in the room clearly fulfilling the stereotype. The young Irish politician, Fanning, sees the older politician taking the money, smiles with almost innocent realization that this is just “how it’s done” and shakes hands with the devil to step in line as the new politician backed by drug kingpins.

This is all very classic Christian and it’s also great folk art (the video, not the shitty remix.)

Now compare and contrast what Whites put out: shitty derivative “Satanic heavy metal” that is essentially easy listening Musak compared to, say, AC/DC, and not even as transgressive as a classic song like Highway to Hell was way back in the 1970s.

Scandinavian Black Metal has actually put out “Satanic” music that is far less scandalous than the actual Catholic Church they are trying to parody. Even with a chorus singing “Hail Satan” it doesn’t have the deep sense of dread that the Neptunes video has. While adultery, temptation, usury and drug gangs are real evils – real Satanism – even the censored titties of the Ghost video aren’t sexy, much less scandalous, and the black and white horror “goth” style video as a stand-in for evil was kind of hokey way back during the hey days of horror. Omen little Antichrist boy was creepy, but in Ghost’s video it’s just a symbol, just a stand in. Young innocent-looking European children juxtaposed with some weather and gothic cathedrals = creepy Satanic music?

Even Ghost’s Tried-And-True attempt at the old formula is more self-parody than anything genuinely creepy, more 80s satan-schlock than real horror. So, super-pretty teenage girl on the cusp of sexuality is sort of “goth” and “misunderstood” so hold hands with the devil who is the only one that understands her, and she the only one that understands him. It’s West Side Story plus the Addam’s Family.

White people can’t be convincingly scary anymore because they stopped believing in Satan.