( I hate conflict. I hate gender conflict. I fk–ing hate race conflict. And most of all I hate religious conflict. Competition, particularly signal competition creates conflict. the only solutions are nation states or regression to the bottom. empires are self destructive. They give opportunity to the worst of everything. )
Form: Short Note
-
( I hate conflict. I hate gender conflict. I fk–ing hate race conflict. And mos
( I hate conflict. I hate gender conflict. I fk–ing hate race conflict. And most of all I hate religious conflict. Competition, particularly signal competition creates conflict. the only solutions are nation states or regression to the bottom. empires are self destructive. They give opportunity to the worst of everything. )
-
The Pseudo-Scientific Attack on Civilization.
The curse of postmodern pseudoscience in most of the other answers. Postmodernism like Marxism was designed, like Abrahamic Religions, as an attack on European Peoples (civilization), to eradicate our civlization in the modern world just as Abrahamic religion was used to eradicate the five great civilizations of the ancient world: Roman New Europe), Byzantine (old europe), Anatolian, Persian (Iranic), Egyptian, and North African. All those civilizations were destroyed by the last attempt at cultural destruction. Why? Marxism/Postmodernism in the modern world, and Abrahamic Religion in the ancient world foster dysgenic rapid reproduction of the underclasses reversing genetic domestication under small farm mixed agrarianism, effectively weaponizing reproduction and ignorance and superstition against civilization. There are reasons that the Han, Koreans,Japanese and Europeans succeeded and other civilizations failed to maintain rates of innovation. The reason is that the Han, Koreans and Japanese remained insular and homogeneous, and whites succeed as long as they also remain homogeneous and practice eugenic reproduction through manorialism (meritocracy). The rest of the world did the opposite and the sizes of their underclasses pose such a burden that they cannot produce sufficient middle and upper classes to produce high trust commercially successful political orders.
-
The Reason for Jesus’ Action at The Temple
Again. Let me help you. A TEMPLE was a BANK. That’s why. Don’t be daft. Moneychanging (converting between currencies, storing money, lending money at interest), was a terribly important function given the diversity of monies used – today that function is provided by central banks and larger commercial banks, and travel currency exchanges. In the ancient world the roman treasury used ‘agents’ the way we use these banks. (I prefer the agents model and want to eliminate consumer banks as they are known today.) The problem was that the people at some temples took abusive advantage of the poor. When Romans invaded Judea they established their temples and their money changers. This competition prevented the Jewish priests from charging high rates at their temples. And so they sought marginal cases to charge usurious rates. This is what jesus was rebelling against: the abuse of the poor. The complete story is never stated. The fact that Jews specialize in usurious lending to those who cannot afford, or lend into moral hazard, predates their introduction to europe – it is the original occupation of their priesthood. https://www.ancient.eu/article/974/banking-in-the-roman-world/
-
The Reason for Jesus’ Action at The Temple
Again. Let me help you. A TEMPLE was a BANK. That’s why. Don’t be daft. Moneychanging (converting between currencies, storing money, lending money at interest), was a terribly important function given the diversity of monies used – today that function is provided by central banks and larger commercial banks, and travel currency exchanges. In the ancient world the roman treasury used ‘agents’ the way we use these banks. (I prefer the agents model and want to eliminate consumer banks as they are known today.) The problem was that the people at some temples took abusive advantage of the poor. When Romans invaded Judea they established their temples and their money changers. This competition prevented the Jewish priests from charging high rates at their temples. And so they sought marginal cases to charge usurious rates. This is what jesus was rebelling against: the abuse of the poor. The complete story is never stated. The fact that Jews specialize in usurious lending to those who cannot afford, or lend into moral hazard, predates their introduction to europe – it is the original occupation of their priesthood. https://www.ancient.eu/article/974/banking-in-the-roman-world/
-
Collective Rituals Invoke the Pack Response
If I teach you to stand at attention, put your hand over your heart, and speak the pledge of allegiance to our flag, or teach you to speak the lords prayer (a pledge of allegiance) while kneeling, hands clasped, and both actions, once habituated, fill us with ‘a sense of peace’ when performed as a group, what is the difference? The central issue is this: we need those collective rituals to invoke the pack response which generates intuitionistic trust among superpredators who do not necessarily trust one another, and who compete in all other walks of life OTHER than the ritual. Those oaths to a proxy of each other are useful to associate with that response.
-
No. Rome Had No ‘priests’ as We Understand It
1) “Priests” had no doctrine only obligatory rituals (the japanese ritual model). The monarchy originally performed the rituals, then appointed patricians, but the duty was separated under the republic because of scale. All that I know of were a variation on sacrifice (contract). 2) To equate “the performance of ritual”, when it was not required they even understand the words they spoke, only that they performed the ritual precisely, with ‘priesthood’ as ‘a competitor to the state’ or means of state sponsored deception, is more than a mischaracterization. 3) A professional priesthood in the sense I use it (education in doctrine under pretense of divine authority) as a competitor to the state (see Huntington’s history mesopotamia) rather than archetypes and anthropomorphic instantiations of nature, was an import. 4) Alexander should be heralded for his techniques and cursed for his introduction of semitism and supernaturalism to old europe. Thankfully the romans were as skeptical of those religions as they were of greek sophisms. 5) once you start looking at history as the battle between western truth and law for aristocracy and it’s domestication of animal man, and semitic occultism and sophism for the expansion of production by the underclasses, the cycles of history are much more obvious. 6) Masculine western truth, duty, reciprocity, and empirical law, eastern masculine hierarchical and empirical bureaucracy, and semitic feminine fictional rule of flood river production. Everything comes back to geography, climate, means of production, and degree of neoteny.
-
No. Rome Had No ‘priests’ as We Understand It
1) “Priests” had no doctrine only obligatory rituals (the japanese ritual model). The monarchy originally performed the rituals, then appointed patricians, but the duty was separated under the republic because of scale. All that I know of were a variation on sacrifice (contract). 2) To equate “the performance of ritual”, when it was not required they even understand the words they spoke, only that they performed the ritual precisely, with ‘priesthood’ as ‘a competitor to the state’ or means of state sponsored deception, is more than a mischaracterization. 3) A professional priesthood in the sense I use it (education in doctrine under pretense of divine authority) as a competitor to the state (see Huntington’s history mesopotamia) rather than archetypes and anthropomorphic instantiations of nature, was an import. 4) Alexander should be heralded for his techniques and cursed for his introduction of semitism and supernaturalism to old europe. Thankfully the romans were as skeptical of those religions as they were of greek sophisms. 5) once you start looking at history as the battle between western truth and law for aristocracy and it’s domestication of animal man, and semitic occultism and sophism for the expansion of production by the underclasses, the cycles of history are much more obvious. 6) Masculine western truth, duty, reciprocity, and empirical law, eastern masculine hierarchical and empirical bureaucracy, and semitic feminine fictional rule of flood river production. Everything comes back to geography, climate, means of production, and degree of neoteny.
-
It’s Because We CAN Produce Commons and Reduce Individual Costs
Whites CAN create commons so they prefer to create commons and live off them. Commons are difficult to produce but they are cheap given the returns. Producing a high trust civic polity does not require high income. it just requires truth, duty, trust, and reciprocity. Quality of life is not expensive. It just requires choice of commons rather than choice of material consumption.
-
It’s Because We CAN Produce Commons and Reduce Individual Costs
Whites CAN create commons so they prefer to create commons and live off them. Commons are difficult to produce but they are cheap given the returns. Producing a high trust civic polity does not require high income. it just requires truth, duty, trust, and reciprocity. Quality of life is not expensive. It just requires choice of commons rather than choice of material consumption.