Theme: Religion

  • If Natural Law, Physical Law and Gods Law are the same then yes, morals come fro

    If Natural Law, Physical Law and Gods Law are the same then yes, morals come from God. If morals are not the same as natural and physical law then men have erred in interpreting gods or nature’s law.

    I prefer christians, especially devoted christians over all other people – and the evidentiary reality is christianity ‘works’ to produce better people than all other religions and better than every secular alternative. I just prefer to maintain the separation between law(Truth) and faith(Wisdom) and so theology must defend wisdom claims (the good) not truth claims (the true or false).

    –“​I thought doolittle was anti religion”– Nathan Danner

    —“​I’m not sure his religious views. These two are bringing religion into propertarianism whether Kurt intended it to be there or not.”—Nate

    I have a job and I do my job. My job is to protect my people from the left’s lies, and another dark age – and part of that job is to discover a way to restore a religion to ‘the religion of the state’.

    I know it is hard for the faithful to tolerate my work on religion. It’s certainly hard on me. And I request only that while I work on law others work on faith, and hopefully I will someday discover a means of uniting them.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 20:21:00 UTC

  • OUR LAW Sovereigns cannot ‘give it up to god’ – that is an act of alienation of

    OUR LAW

    Sovereigns cannot ‘give it up to god’ – that is an act of alienation of responsibility. A sovereign can neither surrender his rights or his responsibilities without breaking the contract for reciprocal insurance of sovereignty. This is why we must have stoicism in mind, and epicureanism in life. One is sovereign or not. Aristocracy requires sovereignty – the cult of non-submission. So we may need to face our permanent inequality of those who are sovereign for who responsibility is inalienable, and those who are serfs for whom responsibility is alienated by submission.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 12:42:00 UTC

  • WHY REQUEST EXCHANGE OF TRIBAL LOYALTY BETWEEN EUROPEAN RELIGIOUS FACTIONS? —“

    WHY REQUEST EXCHANGE OF TRIBAL LOYALTY BETWEEN EUROPEAN RELIGIOUS FACTIONS?

    —“Upon what foundation then did the progenitors of civilisation, Greece then Rome, build itself?”—

    We evolve a means of production, and a means of military competition under that means of production, an organization to manage both, and a narrative to justify both, so that we can reduce the cost and opportunity for conflict in order to maintain those strategies. Every civilization’s strategy is fairly easy to express in those terms.

    European civilization in mediterranean, continental, north sea, and Atlantic eras continue the aristocratic egalitarian tripartite trifunctional organization, and the old military strategy, old law (legal), old myths (social), philosophical, and theological (political) varying little other than the replacement of the ancient warrior-hunter-farmer heroic religion with the medieval farmer-peasant submissive religion of christianity. But given tripartism and trifunctionalism the law and the military remains constant and the church rise and fell. Today the new church is again semitic, with islam, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism, in competition with our traditional masculine hierarchical markets and law.

    —“Are not their successes constituted of the virtues they upheld?”–

    Virtues are excuses for the group competitive strategy we rarely if ever know. Values persist because they persist the competitive strategy. values can be undermined. Judiasm, christianity, marxism, postmodernism, and feminism sought to undermine european values and succeeded because women are vulnerable to the false promise and men are vulnerable to satisfying the demands of women unless in continuous competition with other males.

    Our natural ancestral religion upon which our civilization is founded is one of chaotic gods we compete, cooperate, and trade with – not one we are submissive to. These gods of warriors, whether the greek, roman, germanic pantheons. The church sought to supplant them with submissive gods of slaves who were docile in their fear and ignorance – and who the church could extract revenue from by rent seeking.

    Submission to gods so that one is devoid of responsibility is a christian innovation, achieving its zenith in islam. This is why it is seductive. Devotion to gods so that one is free of status pressure is not a christian innovation. It is even more seductive. Submission to scripture so that one is free of continuous calculation for which one may fail or be subject to blame is semitic innovation. It is seductive as well. These seductions are successful and they are the opposite of the aryan demand for non submission and non-alienation of rights and responsibilities, including pursuit of status, achievement, and innovative reason.

    The church failed the aristocracy succeeded, and we have not yet found a means of accommodating christianity in its decline, while producing a non-false religion. We are in a time of transition. Either the second dark age of the jews will succeed, the second dark age of the muslims, or we will discover a means of combining our three religions chistian(feminine), heathen-nature(familial), pagan-hero(masculine), and aristotelian(judicial), or at least exchanging loyalty between the three, so that we are not subject to a second semitic dark age.

    So we are still and will always be a triparite people: Scientific and Legal and heroic (agency), Philosophical and practical for the able, theological and submissive for the less able or more sensitive to conflict and social pressure (or the dysfunctional who confuse their spiritual accommodation of reality with reality itself.

    —“What Christianity was there here?”–

    What “here” are you referring to?

    —“When you come to Christians asking not the renunciation of their faith but merely loyalty, remember that this is all the Romans first asked of the Christians too.”—

    Our ancestors came to jews. Who we were too tolerant of, just as we are too tolerant of islamists, jews, marxists, postmodernists, feminists and science denialists. And because of our tolerance the jews used false promise, to bait our people into hazard, causing a dark age of ignorance and poverty and disease and suffering only aristotelian thought reversed, and ended the centuries of corruption by the church. Corruption not seen by americans until the prosecution of the deviancy of catholic churches, because protestants have forgotten the corruption of the church prior to the reformation, and the personalization of the relationship between the individual and god first, and the individual and jesus second – due largely to american evangelical protestants.

    —“Remember, it wasn’t the strange and foreign beliefs of the Christians that first caught the attention of the Romans, but rather their abstention from community.”—

    It was the use of christianity to undermine greco roman civlization just as islam, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and their science denialism is used to undermine european civilzation for the past century and a half.

    Sol invictus was the migration of roman religion from zeus-jupiter. Mithras was the migration of the persian version of Mithra – the perfect man. Christianity was invented by using the victim-narrative and the promise of life after death, in stead of the Zeus-Sol-Mithra character we should aspire to be, and the jesus narrative invented so that it could replace the Epic Cycle (Homer) which had conquered and was about to erase the semitic world.

    Judaism, christianity, ad islam were invented by the poor ignorant desert peasantry as a means of using the female group strategy of undermining by gossip, to overthrow the invention of markets, law, reason, merit, and transcendence of man into gods.

    And I am, like my predecessors, trying once again to prevent another semitic dark age – by accommodating christians.

    Christians who have not yet converted christianity into a hearth religion. But are very close to having done so.

    If not for the invasion by jews, muslims, and the underclasses – because of christian tolerance – we would have had the time for christianity to evolve, and science to falsify the marxists, postmodernists feminists and difference-denialists.

    So we are in a position where I must, or at least, someone of ability must, try to discover a vehicle for unity at faster pace than would naturally evolve.

    If not for immigration I would not need to do this work. Because science has solved the lies.

    But false promise to the vulnerable is seductive and spreads more quickly than we can stop it.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 12:38:00 UTC

  • Robert Sephr is writing a fictional account of history from the pagan european’s

    Robert Sephr is writing a fictional account of history from the pagan european’s point of view. This is not a bad thing. But it is still a historical fiction. What you want to get from people like him is that it is possible to reinterpret history from our point of view. And that the *sentiment* he gets across to the audience is about right. And that’s a good thing. You can’t approach his reading of the history itself any more accurately than the pseudo history he’s countering. It’s emotionally rewarding historical fiction. And he weaves together absolute nonsense – obvious falsehoods, myths, and fantasies – with the evidence. If he stuck to the hard material and was a little more accurate then I’d regard it differently.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 09:12:00 UTC

  • WHY CHRISTIANITY (Religion) WORKS An obvious truth I don’t like: Europeans are n

    WHY CHRISTIANITY (Religion) WORKS

    An obvious truth I don’t like: Europeans are not only the youngest race (~10k ybp), and more neotenous than other races – except east asians who are more neotenous than we are – but our neoteny comes at the cost of greater emotional instability – which explains european women. We are in a middle range and east asians are off the neotenous cliff. And what does this mean? Neoteny has interesting consequences: not enough and you mature too early for agency except late in life and prevent lifelong learning. If you have enough you develop agency later and lifelong ability to learn, and too much you develop agency early at the cost of life long learning ability. (I might be one of the first people to discuss this, I’m not sure, but it’s obvious in the data.)

    We could test IQ, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability and then democracy might work. Or we could just restore property owning, married, european males and females employing any number of non-family members – which is demonstrated evidence of intelligence, conscientiousness and emotional stability rather than test evidence. And then a house of women and a house of men to negotiate differences between genders.

    The chinese used the former, for access to bureaucracy. I recommend the latter because we use markets for production. Evidence is evidence.

    So what’s my point? My point is that christianity is more necessary for europeans to stabilize the emotions than is obvious from our average intelligence. We tnd to link the two but that’s not really it. That’s why while there is a relationship between religiosity and intelligence, the chistian ethic remains constant across the population.

    I also understand that for those of us who are more pagan, we respect christians out of LOYALTY, like we respect the flag out of LOYALTY and our ancestors out of loyalty.

    As such I am loyal to my christian brothers, and observant out of loyalty. Even if my god is far closer to Thor-Tyr-Zeus, and my prophets are lawgivers: Odin and Aristotle.

    The solution is to request loyalty in exchange not that we seek to defeat the gods of dominance and submission to which the opposite cannot tolerate thanks (debt).


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-19 15:29:00 UTC

  • “It would also be cool to watch you debate theologians. Not pansy ones either bu

    —“It would also be cool to watch you debate theologians. Not pansy ones either but the few who are also high level scientists.”— A Friend

    It’s a very simple argument: What is a theologian claiming: Good and wisdom, or True and demonstrable? What can they testify to? How can they demonstrate it? How can they warranty it? What is their incentive? What are the costs if they lie? Why is the world of science good for man, and the world of religion devolutionary for man? Why is science of man good and the actions of god evil? Why did christians jews and muslims create a dark age? Why are the churches full of our least competent people? Why did the churches fail to reform? Why did Europe abandon christianity? Why did the evangelical movement succeed and why are Americans leaving the church and dividing half secular and half evangelical? What should the church have done when theology was continuously defeated by science and proven false? Why did the church resist literacy of the people. Why did the church resist the printing of the bible in the people’s language? Why did the monastic orders arise if not in response tot he corruption of the church? Why did the church need the vikings to fight the crusades? Was christianity adopted or was it enforced in the past as islam is still enforced today? Did the christians destroy the ancient world, it’s monuments, it’s arts and letters, its academies, its accumulated knowledge, and instead of restoring roman order, aristocracy, literacy, and greek knowledge, drag Europe and the pagan peoples into dark ages? Why is the abrahamic method of deceit used by jews, christians and muslims used again by marxists, postmodernists, and feminist to repeat the same destruction of the old world to destroy the new – this time with false promise of economic and political reward instead of life after death and political reward? Why do theologians use the same arguments as the marxists, postmodernists, and feminists who destroy this world.

    I have never found a theological argument I cannot defeat. We know too much now. Hence (a) there currently are, and have been, many gods. (b) all gods exist as information, (c) this information exists in the minds of man, (d) this information influences individual and group behavior (e) this behavior is often good, but vulnerable to conquest – which was the purpose of the church. (f) but as a consequence it produces an addiction response when threatened, and is defended by the abrahamic method of deceit rather than just the simple statement “I have faith that if I live my life by jesus’ teachings that my life, the life of those around me, the life of my polity, and of mankind, in this world, and in the next if there is one, will be better than if I did not.”

    If you must argue your faith. you have none. Faith needs no argument. That is what it means to have faith.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-18 16:54:00 UTC

  • GOING INTO DEPTH ON TRIFUNCTIONALISM VS COMPETING CIVILIZATIONS In the Proto-Ind

    GOING INTO DEPTH ON TRIFUNCTIONALISM VS COMPETING CIVILIZATIONS

    In the Proto-Indo-European mythology, each social group had its own god or family of gods to represent it and the function of the god or gods matched the function of the group.

    There are only three possible means of coercion (weapons of influence) available to humans, and we have developed genetic abilities, moral intuitions, and cultural institutions to reflect them:

    1) The Established Male: Defense/Force

    2) The Ascendent Male: Trade/Deprivation

    3) The Female: Advocacy/Undermining

    We have three sets of faculties

    1) The Physical and Performative : Science and evidence

    2) The Verbal and Rational : Reason and logic

    3) The Emotional and Intuitive: instincts and incentives

    There are also three methods of Fictionalisms (falsehoods)

    1) Override Physical Intuition Magic to Pseudoscience

    2) Override Verbal Intuition: Sophistry to Philosophy

    3) Override Emotional Intuition: Occult to Theology

    This specialization has led to three classes:

    1) Those who Fight (and judge) > Force/Defense

    2) Those who Pray (an teach) > Undermining/Advocacy

    3) Those who Produce (work) > Trade/Deprivation

    and

    4) … Slaves (farm and household labor)

    and

    5) … Animals (farm labor and foodstuffs)

    This pattern remains the same throughout western history until the possibility of the organization of complex production, distribution and trade, expands the influence of the middle class (elites) from those who produce, making them equal to those who fight and pray.

    The reason is simple, because of the division of labor between the material and spiritual elites, there was never the necessity for either to claim authority over the other. The result then was that during the age of transformation – the beginning of our religious traditions – the west developed a market of philosophy rather than a monopoly theology. it wasn’t until the intentional destruction of the western roman empire and the extermination of western thought by the jews christians and then muslims that we lost our philosophy to the semitic attempt at replicating supernatural equalitarian monopoly in Western tripartism and its markets.

    Semitic monotheism was not successful in europe because it was unable to displace the military aristocracy and instead evolved into a corrupt wing for second tier sons of wealthy families who could obtain politial position. By the end of the early middle ages the church was so corrupt that the monasteries took over – hence poverty – as a means of suppressing the parasitism of the church.

    So our aristocracy and our common law remained and the catholic church was an usuccessful competitor to the traditional european group strategy, and served only as administrative wing of the aristocracy and nobility.

    And then when Aristotle was restored to Europe, the legal profession advocated empiricism and once literacy returned then our ancient traditions were again expressed in wave after wave of reformation, resulting in the english constitution on one end, the protestant reformation, and the french attempt at preserving that feminine authoritarianism of the church first by killing the middle class – the protestants – and then by killing the aristocracy, and the by killing the church – all the most backward institutions in europe and instead of a protestant reformation and a middle class, napoleon’s conquest sought to achieve by arms what the church failed to do, and destroy the aristocratic heart of europe: the holy roman empire of the german states, that had governed the majority of europe from the 800’s onward – and defended europe against the dangers (hordes) of the east.

    The germans unified into a modern state in order to prevent yet another french conquest, and the french conspired with the rest of the world to keep german expansion in check – to continue the long running attempt by France to restore roman authoritarian order over Europe under the pretense of french enlightened view of man. But France’s enlightenment was a reaction AGAINST – a counter -revolution against – the british restoration of the european tradition of our Natural law, Sovereignty, and aristocracy and the meritocratic rather than elite government that results from meritocracy.

    Germany was suppressed and ‘de-prussianized’ by design by france’s dictate, and american self demagoguery not by anglo demand.

    So, today, because of increases in the complexity of production we have:

    1) Those who Fight: Military and

    … Judiciary (rules, order)

    2) Those who Pray: Priesthood(replaced), and

    … Politicians / Academy / Media / Entertainment

    3) Those who Produce: Finance and Entrepreneurs, and

    … Craftsmen, Engineers, Professionals, and Scientists

    and

    4)… “Slaves”: Labor, Service Labor,

    and

    5) … “Animals”: Machines

    And in our gods we still have:

    1) Fight: The Heroes of History and

    … Aristotle and the Law (rules, order)

    2) Pray: The Philosophers (and theologians – what is left of them)

    … and Writers and Artists (Verbal)

    3) Produce: The Economic Scientists, and Physical Scientists,

    … the Artisans (Material)

    and

    4) … Slaves: The Liars: pseudoscientists sophists and supernaturalists

    and

    5) … Machines: The Engineers

    And we see Civilizational Differences in Strategy:

    1) The West (Tri-Hierarchy: Fight, Pray, Produce) Markets in everything. We use Extend tolerance as long as we can in favor of developing markets. Solve Problems Quickly when they arise so that they do not escalate beyond our ability to correct them

    2) The Steppe (Russian) tries to balance the European tri-functionalism, with the Chinese mono-hierarchy, in an attempt to produce (unique) byzantine durability, and this balance has served them. And the west has not yet helped them. And this is yet another of our real crimes vs the false crimes of slavery and colonialism we have been criticized for.

    3) The Chinese use Mono-Hierarchy: Bureaucratic familial hierarchy – by contrast use ‘reasonableness’ rather than reason proper. They use Delay, Deceive, and Accumulate power sufficient that they cannot be fought.

    4) The Hindus use Caste Hierarchy: a “soft” military hierarchy – by contrast use myth and wisdom literature. They use their peninsular isolation, vast population, and lack of formal organization to make capture of rule possible but conquest impossible – only islam (the cancer) has been effective.

    5) The Semites(Equalitarian families) by contrast use monopoly conflation of law, history, mythology. The use social cultural institutional and civilizational undermining from the bottom up, and continuous raiding to destroy the economy and exhaust the military, as a means of competition. They then destroy knowledge arts and letters, and use dysgenic reproduction to destroy the gene pool.

    I solve for transcendence: Adaptability and rapid evolution by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Heroism, Adversarialism, and Markets in Everything, at the cost of the suppression of the production of the underclasses, so that proceeds can be devoted to the production of commons and the high returns therefrom. The only counter-claim is devolution – anti-evolution. This means it is always and everywhere decidable whether a claimed good is such.

    The west was not first, but fastest.

    And because fastest best.

    And best because of commons.

    That is what I seek to restore.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-18 11:11:00 UTC

  • i like this thesis. it think the structure of your religions is exceptional as w

    i like this thesis. it think the structure of your religions is exceptional as well so the cumulative consequences are not bad. the opposite. not true for monotheistic religions.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-18 08:36:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229686007160766471

    Reply addressees: @eruditenights

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229622481150865408

  • Curt Doolittle There are two priesthoods in our civilization, the material and t

    Curt Doolittle There are two priesthoods in our civilization, the material and the faithful. I did not realize that this is one of the secrets of our success until recently. I will work on faith when I am done with law. Law was very difficult. But faith that is true is an even greater test of my ability and I think it is possible I might solve it for all of those who want religion, whether spiritual, rational, or scientific, and whether submissive, practical, or aryan (heroic). It is possible. I dont know if I can do it

  • Curt Doolittle There are two priesthoods in our civilization, the material and t

    Curt Doolittle There are two priesthoods in our civilization, the material and the faithful. I did not realize that this is one of the secrets of our success until recently. I will work on faith when I am done with law. Law was very difficult. But faith that is true is an even greater test of my ability and I think it is possible I might solve it for all of those who want religion, whether spiritual, rational, or scientific, and whether submissive, practical, or aryan (heroic). It is possible. I dont know if I can do it