Saturday, July 19, 2014

From a Letter to a Syriac Christian Friend

If Christians in the region had their own political identity apart from the Muslims, I'd support them. But, as it is now, they seem to be shrinking (not having children & leaving) and the Muslims are absorbing the ones that are left.

In the contest between Muslims and Israelis, I support the Israelis. Christians should not be in alliance with the Muslims against the Jews. They should be neutral or in alliance with the Jews to drive the Muslims out. Jesus and the prophets came from the Jews not the Muslims. Mohammed is not a prophet I recognize.

Because the Christians are in the minority they will have to live with whatever regime takes power--or leave. Christians will not be in control any time soon unless many Muslims & many Jews convert to Christianity.

Killing is what happens in war and war is what you have right now. It was inevitable. They should have been allowed to fight it out to a conclusion a long time ago. War is how these things are decided, not ineffective "peace talks" and political solutions no one respects. Generals and armies make the borders, not politicians. They always have.

The people that bleeds, sacrifices, and most importantly--wins--earns the right to make the rules, nobody else. This is the only way peace can be achieved. I'm sorry.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Sluts and Sissies

Jim writes:
Sluts cause collective externalities far more serious than tobacco smokers. Because of the grave and great externalities produced by sluts, they should be taxed and penalized, like tobacco smokers, only at considerably higher rates, rather than subsidized, and subjected to official shaming and exclusion similar to that applied to tobacco smokers, only more severe.

I comment:

People are offended by the use of the word "slut" because they think it's demeaning to women in general.  They think it's an unjust word because it applies to women only.  They try to discredit the basic assumption behind the word by saying that, "it takes two to make a slut." 

But it takes many more than two to make a slut.  A slut is made by many encounters with many men.

Jim also writes:
For men, there is an equivalent to a girl being easy.  If a man who wants to marry young, reveals that he wants to marry young, no woman will want him.  Women despise men who are eager to have a relationship, even good women despise men who are eager to have a relationship, just as men despise women who are eager to have sex...
...Everyone admires the man who has sex with lots of women, because that is hard, while everyone despises the woman that has sex with lots of men, because that is easy.
The male equivalent of a slut is the emotionally promiscuous man who quickly shares his heart with every girl that comes along, whether he's able to be physically intimate with them or not.  Such men usually don't get any, because they are despised by everyone, including sluts.

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

Is NRx Antichristian?

I thought some statements Zippy Catholic made against the neoreactionaries on a comment thread here could be challenged fairly easily.  His original statements are in bold and are followed by my responses:

1. “[Neoreactionaries] don’t mean someone who is living off of the tattered remains of Christian patrimony while not being a believing Christian.”

[On the contrary:] This is almost exactly what Moldbug thinks; for him, the essential elements of the Puritan patrimony have carried over, except the elements aren’t tattered–they’ve never been stronger.

2. “NRx is so committed to its postmodern nominalism that Christian neoreactionaries literally blaspheme the name of Christ…”

“Christianity” is not the name of Christ. Anyone who is capable of understanding Moldbug knows he uses the term to say he thinks modern day Progressives are intellectual heirs of a specific type of Christian sectarianism.

3. “NRx expects to be able to resist cultural forces better than a millennia old notoriously reactionary institution.”

Similarly, “Christianity” is not the Catholic Church. No one is required to use the term to connote the “true beliefs and correct practices of the Christian faith.” It can be used to refer to the set of communities (either in whole or in part) who claim to follow the precepts of Jesus Christ, a very mixed bag indeed.

Jim would like to bring back the old Anglican system, which he thinks–with a few improvements–would make the most effective safeguard against progressivism, which he clearly understands to be evil. In this, he is not far from the Kingdom of God.

Jim wrongly thinks that biblical fundamentalism is the strength of true Christianity. Again, he is close to the Kingdom here because he senses that plenary inspiration is essential.

What Jim can’t see (because he lacks faith) is that the true Christian Religion, embodied by the Catholic Church will be preserved because of the divine promises and the sacraments. He thinks everything depends on the present [apparent] milquetoast leadership of the church.

It doesn’t. The novus ordo mass, despite its accidental deficiencies is more than enough to overcome the world.

4. “It is not considered acceptable for NRx to be a Christian movement or to develop into a Christian movement.”

It did not begin as a Christian movement. Why don’t we take a look at a list of the essential insights of NRx and then decide whether it’s compatible with the faith or not?