The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
The Current Model of Western Civilization as Fundamentally Luciferian
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Wency on how entrepreneurial evangelicals have outhustled corporate Catholics. Profiting from (and for!) the prophet:

A disciplined denomination ought to be able to staff itself better than a collection of guys trying to outhustle one another for congregants and donations. But in practice you get better pastors with the Evangelical model — that hustling at least draws leaders who can lead and sermonize. The Catholic and Mainline models both seem to be almost totally without discipline; anyone who finishes seminary more or less gets a job for life despite being incompetent or a total misfit for the job, and perhaps despite breaking some denominational rules or even breaking the law.

It’s drying up for both. A shame, for we could use as many good explications of how the new covenant meant an end to offering sacrifices as the country prepares to offer up a human sacrifice in another futile attempt to gain a fleeting spot of atonement for the perceived collective sins of white America.

Is the spirit of 1776 merely the cult of self by a different name? Dfordoom:

The cult of self is not only common, it’s the basis of the current model of western civilisation that began in the mid-18th century.

“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law” (which was formulated by Aleister Crowley) is not really much different from “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. The United States was the first nation to be established purely on the cult of self.

And capitalism is a system that is based on abandoning any concept of morality or transcendence.

So you could describe the current model of western civilisation as fundamentally luciferian. Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing depends on your point of view.

Chrisnonymous on why the expectation that a man’s wife will also be his best friend may be counterproductive:

If you are giving advice to a young man, I think “look for your best friend to marry” is bad advice. For one thing, it’s impossible for men and women to plumb the depths of their relationship fully without experiencing sex and co-habitation, both of which theoretically come after the decision to get married.

Much better than “friendship” as a criterion for marriage are things like (1) similar sense of humor, (2) similar family background, (3) stable family background, (4) similar expectations about the future, (5) similar attitudes to money and privacy…etc.

As for whether you should expect your wife to become your best friend, that also I would not say to a young man. Many men and women have dissimilar interests, and that is fine, but it also makes it very difficult to be “friends” in the way a man could be “friends” with a man of similar interests. In marriage, loyalty must be total and absolute. Friendships can suffer different degrees and contexts of loyalty. Interests, loyalty–there are many such differences between marriage and friendship that make the expectation of your wife being your best friend not very realistic or necessary.

The excerpt is part of a discussion thread in which the reliably astute Twinkie offers a different perspective in a series of highly recommended comments.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, History, Ideology • Tags: COTW 
Hide 54 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Just a suggestion, cut the lithium dose in half or wait at least 4 hours before trying to write something.

  2. And capitalism is a system that is based on abandoning any concept of morality or transcendence.

    So you could describe the current model of western civilisation as fundamentally luciferian. Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing depends on your point of view.

    Any strict interpretation of Christian doctrine will preclude usury (and hence debt), and capital investment as avarice. And that isn’t even remotely the first time anyone come to this realization, since the critique is there from day one.

    https://mikefrost.net/5-reasons-capitalism-is-not-christian/

    So the question for defenders and detractors of capitalism and liberal ideology: is there any ground for a reconciliation for capitalism and moral ethics, like what libertarians and especially Bionic Mosquito purport to be, or should capitalism and liberal ideology abandoned and traditionalism restored, per Dugin?

  3. In regards to the entire marriage thing – one of the best possible pieces of advice was given to me (and the rest of the class) by our religious education teacher: that the foundation of marriage, and all romantic relationships in general, is respect. Mutual respect is necessary for a long and stable relationship. Infatuation? Attraction? Completely irrelevant – those are just aids to establish the said respect.

    • Agree: Enemy of Earth
  4. When it comes to marriage I believe in this Chateau Heartiste quote…

    “If you want to know whether a man is happy in his marriage just ask yourself one question:Would you fuck her? If the answer is “Yes”, then you can be assured he is happy.”

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    @martin_2

    That's a very stupid short-term view of marriage that you'd expect someone like Heartiste to have...

    This might go well with serial monogamy (affordable only to rich people), not marriage for life.

    No one can keep the same lust for a partner after 10, 20 years of marriage.

    Andp eople who are more interested in sex than in a relationship will always have lovers - "why buy when you can rent'.

    No, Nietazche was probably the one who was right:



    When entering into a marriage one ought to ask oneself: do you believe you are going to enjoy talking with this woman up into your old age? Everything else in marriage is transitory, but most of the time you are together will be devoted to conversation.
     
    https://uncoy.com/2013/06/nietzsche-and-marriage.html

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Truth
    @martin_2


    “If you want to know whether a man is happy in his marriage just ask yourself one question:Would you fuck her? If the answer is “Yes”, then you can be assured he is happy.”
     
    LOL, yes, if the married man is under 27. If he is over 45 you have to ask a second question; "is he still living in the home for which he spent 20 years paying the mortgage. "

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Targaleto
    @martin_2

    I really doubt Heartiste said that. There's a lot wrong with it, starting from the fact that it assumes that a man being married to a woman means he's effing her.

  5. Self interest, capitalism and liberty are only bad if taken to extremes. Something the average citizen has no opportunity to do. This can only happen in a society devoid of morality, ethics and a sense of self worth derived from more than “how much money do you have?”.

  6. There not being much, if any, of this:

    with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

    is the problem, not this:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

  7. In Presbyterianism, pastors are only expected to preach and counsel. The government of the church is run by elders who are elected for life. Pastors are elders, but even the smallest churches are expected to have at least two elders on the board, so the pastor has neither the responsibility nor power to run everything by himself.

    Catholics expect their pastors to handle everything. They have ultimate responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the church, including finances and hiring decisions. Some have finance councils or business managers, but from what I’ve seen this is far from the norm. And you only have those things when the pastor is semi-competent to begin with. A competent business pastor may give crappy homilies, or vice versa. The pool of people who are good at everything is small, and made smaller still since they are not allowed to marry. What excuse do Catholics of all people have for such a poor division of labor? In such circumstances, is it any wonder that incompetence or evil personalities are often overlooked?

    • Agree: Wency
    • Replies: @Wency
    @Catdog

    I'll say more generally: involvement of the laity is the lifeblood of any church. Interestingly, with our oft-cited example of one of the healthiest Christian churches, the Amish, there basically is no full-time clergy. The whole system is kept running by the laity. I do think good clergy can make good things happen, but I'd argue you're probably better off with no clergy than bad clergy. With no clergy, the laity are forced to step up.

    Now, there are clearly Catholic parishes where the laity are very involved and Protestant congregations where they slack. But I would agree that Catholicism tends to create barriers to lay participation compared to Protestant churches, particularly elder-led Protestant churches.

  8. With respect to whom to marry, there’s the old adage, “Date a Porsche, marry the station wagon.”

    In a marriage, a lot of stuff gets hauled out and trucked around in the cargo bay of life. You can’t make it work with a temperamental, high maintenance-cost two-seater. Both you and your wife will bring a lot of baggage to the relationship and any working relationship itself develops burdens that need to be borne. You’ll need a vessel that can handle a fair amount of abuse. I agree with others on the comment thread, loyalty is foremost. But so is the ability to bear a fair share of the actual burden of living. An ideal mate needs to be strong as an ox. Fragility and susceptibility to disease, mental or physical, undermine a solid, working partnership.

    Speaking personally, and after having explored the field, I would rather marry a woman who has an attractive figure (which she maintains through exercise and hard physical work) and a mediocre face than a woman blessed with an attractive face but an uninspiring figure. Of course, the best of both worlds is a woman with a beautiful face and a striking figure, but such creatures, rare to begin with, are difficult to break to the plow because they have been placed upon a pedestal their whole lives and live ever in the knowledge that if married life becomes distasteful, they have a myriad of salivating suitors to turn to and fall back upon. This is why, often, they don’t settle down until their second or third marriage by which time their attractiveness has lost some of its luster and their market value declined.

    Sobriety is key as well. A couple cannot accumulate wealth if one of them is drinking, smoking or snorting up all the profits.

    Marriage is ultimately about wealth creation. Some say it is all about raising children but a couple cannot do this in a household that has zero wealth generating capability. The dysfunctional black family illustrates this well as do the current anti-white family policies adopted by today’s Democratic Party. If a couple cannot form a viable, wealth-creating partnership, they won’t marry, won’t stay together long enough to raise children. Today’s Democratic Party hates marriage and whites because the Democrats are fundamentally flawed people. They are cracked pots; gay, trans, morbidly ugly, lonely antisocials etc., vessels which cannot carry water because of some essential flaw. Ruinously flawed themselves, they labor to deny the good things in life to their more fortunate peers.

  9. anon[114] • Disclaimer says:

    There’s a very simple reason why a man should not look for a best friend to marry: it cuts against seductive frisson.

    A woman wants a dominant man. A man with state control. A man in charge of himself, and to a degree, in charge of her. These are not the characteristic foundations of “best friendship”.

    And yes that Chateau Heartiste quote above still stands. The Chateau continues to be the most reliably astute outpost of thought.

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
    @anon


    A woman wants a dominant man. A man with state control. A man in charge of himself, and to a degree, in charge of her. These are not the characteristic foundations of “best friendship”
     
    A woman who wants a man to be in charge of her will, equally and oppositely, seek to be in charge of him. That's just what it is and may be the choice you need right now. Best to note in what way you are signing up to be dominated though, so that it doesn't come as a surprise.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Jay Fink
    @anon

    I am a fan of Chateau and miss his blog but that quote is too simplistic. Just having a wife other men are attracted to does not necessarily mean happiness. She could have a difficult personality, be cheating on you...there are all kinds of possibilities. Couples often times grow apart and it can reach the point where you don't especially care about your partner's good looks anymore, especially knowing there are other pretty women out there.

  10. @Catdog
    In Presbyterianism, pastors are only expected to preach and counsel. The government of the church is run by elders who are elected for life. Pastors are elders, but even the smallest churches are expected to have at least two elders on the board, so the pastor has neither the responsibility nor power to run everything by himself.

    Catholics expect their pastors to handle everything. They have ultimate responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the church, including finances and hiring decisions. Some have finance councils or business managers, but from what I've seen this is far from the norm. And you only have those things when the pastor is semi-competent to begin with. A competent business pastor may give crappy homilies, or vice versa. The pool of people who are good at everything is small, and made smaller still since they are not allowed to marry. What excuse do Catholics of all people have for such a poor division of labor? In such circumstances, is it any wonder that incompetence or evil personalities are often overlooked?

    Replies: @Wency

    I’ll say more generally: involvement of the laity is the lifeblood of any church. Interestingly, with our oft-cited example of one of the healthiest Christian churches, the Amish, there basically is no full-time clergy. The whole system is kept running by the laity. I do think good clergy can make good things happen, but I’d argue you’re probably better off with no clergy than bad clergy. With no clergy, the laity are forced to step up.

    Now, there are clearly Catholic parishes where the laity are very involved and Protestant congregations where they slack. But I would agree that Catholicism tends to create barriers to lay participation compared to Protestant churches, particularly elder-led Protestant churches.

  11. The idea that your wife should be your best friend is meant in the context that she should be someone that will stand by you no matter what, you should like each other’s company and it would be good if you have some common interests but not totally compulsory. It isn’t saying your wife should be the equivalent of your best guy friend because she can’t because she isn’t a guy. It’s strange that the author can’t see that obvious fact.

    • Agree: Not Only Wrathful
    • Replies: @Wency
    @Joe Paluka

    Eh, part of what's happening here is that people are using different meanings for "best friend".

    At one extreme is the man who is looking for a woman that will actually do male friend things with him that most women aren't into, demanding too much from the "common interest" column. Two of the most common pitfalls: gamers looking for gamer girls, and intellectually-inclined men looking for women that possess their same intellectual curiosity. It's not impossible for these to work out, but men seem to get hung up on this idea in a mate far out of proportion to the number of women who could meet that need.

    The other extreme is probably what you're describing -- it sounds like you're just describing a wife. Others have ideas somewhere in the middle.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Joe Paluka

    A term like "life partner" fits better than "best friend".

  12. If your wife is your best friend, chances are that another man is filling the role of lover.

    • LOL: iffen
  13. Capitalism causes problems in part because humans have not fully adapted to the Wealth Revolution over the last 200 years, just like most of us haven’t fully adapted to the death of god since Nietzsche recognized and announced it in the 1880’s. After a few more generations, the selection forces of reality will produce people who can flourish with both a god-minus world view and with high levels of wealth.

    After all, both wealth and atheism show implicit arrows of time. We had nearly nonexistent atheists in the past, numerous atheists now and possibly nearly universal atheists in the future. In other words, the growing visibility of atheists gives Christians the creeps (probably for reasons of Terror Management) because we look like like an invasion of time travelers from an advanced civilization in the future when Christianity and other religions have disappeared.

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
  14. TG says:

    I’m not really sure what to make about most of this post, but one thing did resonate with me.

    “But in practice you get better pastors with the Evangelical model — that hustling at least draws leaders who can lead and sermonize. The Catholic and Mainline models both seem to be almost totally without discipline; anyone who finishes seminary more or less gets a job for life despite being incompetent or a total misfit for the job…”

    My grandfather came here at the beginning of the 20 century from Sweden, and it always struck me how despite his fundamental personal decency, he was really down on organized religion. In Sweden at the time apparently Lutheranism was the state religion, and priests were basically civil servants, and my grandfather had nothing but contempt for them, he said they were lazy hypocrites that mostly just hung around and chased woman and drank.

    So yeah, maybe there’ something to be said for an organized religion that, one way or the other, places some demands on its leadership other than finishing seminary…

    • Replies: @Wency
    @TG

    Yeah, I'll admit that as an American I have no experience with them, but the "Protestant state church" models of Europe strike me as the most cursed of all ecclesiastical configurations. There doesn't seem to be such thing as reform or renewal within such a model -- the thing just becomes more and more ossified with every passing generation, unable or unwilling to adapt, yet lacking regard for tradition and entirely liberal with regards to values. These churches seem to combine all the worst characteristics of Catholicism/Orthodoxy and American-style Protestantism.

    Replies: @A123

  15. @TG
    I'm not really sure what to make about most of this post, but one thing did resonate with me.

    "But in practice you get better pastors with the Evangelical model — that hustling at least draws leaders who can lead and sermonize. The Catholic and Mainline models both seem to be almost totally without discipline; anyone who finishes seminary more or less gets a job for life despite being incompetent or a total misfit for the job..."

    My grandfather came here at the beginning of the 20 century from Sweden, and it always struck me how despite his fundamental personal decency, he was really down on organized religion. In Sweden at the time apparently Lutheranism was the state religion, and priests were basically civil servants, and my grandfather had nothing but contempt for them, he said they were lazy hypocrites that mostly just hung around and chased woman and drank.

    So yeah, maybe there' something to be said for an organized religion that, one way or the other, places some demands on its leadership other than finishing seminary...

    Replies: @Wency

    Yeah, I’ll admit that as an American I have no experience with them, but the “Protestant state church” models of Europe strike me as the most cursed of all ecclesiastical configurations. There doesn’t seem to be such thing as reform or renewal within such a model — the thing just becomes more and more ossified with every passing generation, unable or unwilling to adapt, yet lacking regard for tradition and entirely liberal with regards to values. These churches seem to combine all the worst characteristics of Catholicism/Orthodoxy and American-style Protestantism.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Wency

    Even the English distrust the Church of England.

    PEACE 😇

    https://youtu.be/qUSTKisEgTo?t=1

  16. Free market capitalism = Do what thou wilt = Satanism is a trope of Mencius Moldbug from quite a while back and he most likely took it from somebody else. I would be very interested in the original citation for this.

    * Free here is obviously arguable but who wants to open up that can of worms?

  17. @Wency
    @TG

    Yeah, I'll admit that as an American I have no experience with them, but the "Protestant state church" models of Europe strike me as the most cursed of all ecclesiastical configurations. There doesn't seem to be such thing as reform or renewal within such a model -- the thing just becomes more and more ossified with every passing generation, unable or unwilling to adapt, yet lacking regard for tradition and entirely liberal with regards to values. These churches seem to combine all the worst characteristics of Catholicism/Orthodoxy and American-style Protestantism.

    Replies: @A123

    Even the English distrust the Church of England.

    PEACE 😇

  18. There is no current model of Western Civilization. Only the death of Western Civilization.

    Wency has a point (and AE also) regarding the state of American Cristendom. My crystal ball however, sees a time of privation among the American people. When the people are in want and the government does not save them there will be a Christian Revival. Unless of course, if by then, we are governed by China.

    And there is the story of the very eligible man who decided it was time to marry. He had all of three prospects to become his bride. As a test he gave each a thousand dollars. One spent the money on herself. One spent the money on him. One spent half on herself and half on him. Which did he marry?

    The one with the big tits.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @WorkingClass


    There is no current model of Western Civilization. Only the death of Western Civilization.
     
    Western Civilisation certainly isn't dying. It's never been more arrogant and aggressive. It now dominates most of the globe and its global dominance is steadily increasing.

    Western Civilisation radically transforms itself at regular intervals. The Western Civilisation of the 17th century was very very different from the pre-Reformation Western Civilisation. The Western Civilisation of the 19th century (the version that lasted until 1914) was very very different from the Western Civilisation of the 17th century. The version of Western Civilisation that replaced the 19th century version was different again.

    It could be argued that the end of the Cold War created yet another version of Western Civilisation.

    All that "Western Civilisation" means is the model of civilisation currently dominant in the West.

    You might intensely dislike the current version of Western Civilisation (and if you do then I'd agree with you that it's in many ways a very nasty and deeply unpleasant civilisation. But it exists, it's been very successful in destroying other civilisations and it shows no signs of dying.

    Replies: @WorkingClass, @Dumbo, @anon

    , @Wency
    @WorkingClass

    To be clear, I was never implying that there won't be an eventual Christian revival in the West. I think it could go either way. Demographics will probably be more important than conversions for the next few decades as religion maintains an exclusive monopoly on pro-natal cultural memes, but it's possible that, if Wokeness and social atomization proceed apace, Christian subcultures will provide models for community and clean family living that start to draw more converts than they lose in apostates.

  19. @WorkingClass
    There is no current model of Western Civilization. Only the death of Western Civilization.

    Wency has a point (and AE also) regarding the state of American Cristendom. My crystal ball however, sees a time of privation among the American people. When the people are in want and the government does not save them there will be a Christian Revival. Unless of course, if by then, we are governed by China.

    And there is the story of the very eligible man who decided it was time to marry. He had all of three prospects to become his bride. As a test he gave each a thousand dollars. One spent the money on herself. One spent the money on him. One spent half on herself and half on him. Which did he marry?

    The one with the big tits.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Wency

    There is no current model of Western Civilization. Only the death of Western Civilization.

    Western Civilisation certainly isn’t dying. It’s never been more arrogant and aggressive. It now dominates most of the globe and its global dominance is steadily increasing.

    Western Civilisation radically transforms itself at regular intervals. The Western Civilisation of the 17th century was very very different from the pre-Reformation Western Civilisation. The Western Civilisation of the 19th century (the version that lasted until 1914) was very very different from the Western Civilisation of the 17th century. The version of Western Civilisation that replaced the 19th century version was different again.

    It could be argued that the end of the Cold War created yet another version of Western Civilisation.

    All that “Western Civilisation” means is the model of civilisation currently dominant in the West.

    You might intensely dislike the current version of Western Civilisation (and if you do then I’d agree with you that it’s in many ways a very nasty and deeply unpleasant civilisation. But it exists, it’s been very successful in destroying other civilisations and it shows no signs of dying.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    @dfordoom

    It could be argued that the end of the Cold War created yet another version of Western Civilisation.

    I remember it well. I was born male, American and working class in 1944. A Cold Warrior from birth. I knew from the very begining that I would serve in the US Army. My time came in 1965. When the Cold War ended, even though I hated it, I felt a profound sense of loss.

    Your point is well taken. Hensforth I will refer to Western Civilization as transformed. It has a bit of "living document" feel but I am comfortable trusting better educated people than myself with such distinctions.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Dumbo
    @dfordoom


    Western Civilisation certainly isn’t dying. It’s never been more arrogant and aggressive. It now dominates most of the globe and its global dominance is steadily increasing.
     
    Not really... Well, I guess it depends what you mean by "Western Civilization"... But even if you reduce it just to a geographical entity, it's not going anywhere... The U.S. and Europe are decaying demographically, intellectually, even militarily. Global dominance? Only in its promotion of trashy culture and things such as "equality" and "gay rights"... But also this can't last forever (or, at least, that's the hope).

    Also, we should talk of "U.S. Empire" more than "Western Civilization", which hasn't been a reality since at least 1945 (I'd actually say 1789, but...). It's all about U.S. culture, U.S. power, U.S. wars, U.S. money.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @anon
    @dfordoom


    Western Civilisation certainly isn’t dying.
     
    No, it's dying. What you're seeing is the red giant phase of Western Civdeath, to be followed shortly by the white dwarf phase, or rather, brown dwarf phase.

    It’s never been more arrogant and aggressive.
     
    Western colonialism is from a bygone era. The modern version of it -- drone strikes -- are a pale facsimile of the real thing from yesteryear.
    Yeah, Western Civ -- helmed by the US -- has a loud shofar it uses to blow its globohomo propaganda in every direction, but that is not a sign of civilizational dominance. It is, instead, a sign of anxiety, of intensifying insecurity, and of internal discord*.
    *A ruling elite delegitimized at home will try to shore up its perception of power by turning its guns, rhetorical and actual, in a narratively unified assault against manufactured enemies foreign and domestic.

    It now dominates most of the globe and its global dominance is steadily increasing.
     
    Not so. WesternCiv aka Globohomo dominates the Anglosphere and its Inner Hajnal satellites. Outside of that realm of dominance, its influence is in retreat. Eastern Europe is peeling away from American hegemony and its exported degeneracy. Russia marvels at our internal divisions while Russians return to their Orthodox religion in numbers not seen since before the Iron Curtain descended over Europe. China will likely own the 21st Century in its own peculiarily Chinese way. Africa remains Africa, with cell phones. India is becoming more provincial, persecuting Christians and recommitting to their Hinduism and their particular traditions.

    And even within the sphere of American dominance, you see omens of collapse. The Inner Hajnalites are being done in by their own ethnomasochistic empathobesity. The natives are getting restless. Denmark has recently passed a law that effectively limits the number of nonWhites from settling in the country. Whites are evolving, culturally at first and then genetically, away from Cuckishness and toward Clannishness. This was inevitable if the Darwinian calculus of species survival has any merit.

    If you want to know the truth, Western Civ's dominance is teetering on the brink. Why do you think the Globohomo ruling trash have embraced censorship and thuggish political persecution of disobedient Whites? It's not because their power is unquestioned.

    It's because it IS questioned. Our underlords have experienced the first salvos of revolt, and it scared the hell out of them, because they know their empire is built on a foundation of lies and malice and treachery. They cannot AFFORD even an iota of criticism, lest the tinest scratch on their paint job exposes the rotted wood underneath. These last few years have seen the race question, the sex question, and the judaic industrial complex question asked and answered like never before while globohomoism supposedly marched across the world in unstoppable conquest.

    That was always a lie. Leper Colony America flexes now because she is fearful; she is about to be stripped of her legitimacy, her "coolness", her world currency, and finally her pulpit. This is the reason for her arrogance and sadism. She lashes out like a stuck pig.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  20. @dfordoom
    @WorkingClass


    There is no current model of Western Civilization. Only the death of Western Civilization.
     
    Western Civilisation certainly isn't dying. It's never been more arrogant and aggressive. It now dominates most of the globe and its global dominance is steadily increasing.

    Western Civilisation radically transforms itself at regular intervals. The Western Civilisation of the 17th century was very very different from the pre-Reformation Western Civilisation. The Western Civilisation of the 19th century (the version that lasted until 1914) was very very different from the Western Civilisation of the 17th century. The version of Western Civilisation that replaced the 19th century version was different again.

    It could be argued that the end of the Cold War created yet another version of Western Civilisation.

    All that "Western Civilisation" means is the model of civilisation currently dominant in the West.

    You might intensely dislike the current version of Western Civilisation (and if you do then I'd agree with you that it's in many ways a very nasty and deeply unpleasant civilisation. But it exists, it's been very successful in destroying other civilisations and it shows no signs of dying.

    Replies: @WorkingClass, @Dumbo, @anon

    It could be argued that the end of the Cold War created yet another version of Western Civilisation.

    I remember it well. I was born male, American and working class in 1944. A Cold Warrior from birth. I knew from the very begining that I would serve in the US Army. My time came in 1965. When the Cold War ended, even though I hated it, I felt a profound sense of loss.

    Your point is well taken. Hensforth I will refer to Western Civilization as transformed. It has a bit of “living document” feel but I am comfortable trusting better educated people than myself with such distinctions.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @WorkingClass


    When the Cold War ended, even though I hated it, I felt a profound sense of loss.
     
    The Cold War was a positive thing. It kept American insanity in check. It kept Woke Capitalism in check. It kept American aggression in check. It kept the crazier aspects of American culture under some sort of control.

    Once the Cold War ended America descended into full-blown craziness. The agendas of the crazies in American culture became more and more extreme.

    Vladimir Putin was right when he said that the break-up of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the past century. Had the USSR abandoned communism but remained intact as a rival super-power America would not have been able to descend into full-blown insanity. Wokeism would not have been possible.

    The Soviet Union was necessary as a balance to prevent America from becoming ludicrously over-confident and culturally hyper-aggressive.

    Replies: @WorkingClass, @Dumbo

  21. @martin_2
    When it comes to marriage I believe in this Chateau Heartiste quote...

    "If you want to know whether a man is happy in his marriage just ask yourself one question:Would you fuck her? If the answer is "Yes", then you can be assured he is happy."

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Truth, @Targaleto

    That’s a very stupid short-term view of marriage that you’d expect someone like Heartiste to have…

    This might go well with serial monogamy (affordable only to rich people), not marriage for life.

    No one can keep the same lust for a partner after 10, 20 years of marriage.

    Andp eople who are more interested in sex than in a relationship will always have lovers – “why buy when you can rent’.

    No, Nietazche was probably the one who was right:

    When entering into a marriage one ought to ask oneself: do you believe you are going to enjoy talking with this woman up into your old age? Everything else in marriage is transitory, but most of the time you are together will be devoted to conversation.

    https://uncoy.com/2013/06/nietzsche-and-marriage.html

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Dumbo


    That’s a very stupid short-term view of marriage that you’d expect someone like Heartiste to have…
     
    Heartiste offers a broad, creative, harsh, thoughtful antidote to feminism. One can disagree with various of his details, but the man is anything but stupid.

    Having been happily married more than 25 years, I have a pretty good idea by now what works in my marriage, so am fortunately not in the market for relationship advice by Heartiste or anyone else; but if recent threads have demonstrated anything, it is that every couple is different. Heartiste's advice in the present matter at least shadows a sound point. Maybe more than shadows.


    This might go well with serial monogamy (affordable only to rich people), not marriage for life.
     
    I agree with you, of course.
  22. @dfordoom
    @WorkingClass


    There is no current model of Western Civilization. Only the death of Western Civilization.
     
    Western Civilisation certainly isn't dying. It's never been more arrogant and aggressive. It now dominates most of the globe and its global dominance is steadily increasing.

    Western Civilisation radically transforms itself at regular intervals. The Western Civilisation of the 17th century was very very different from the pre-Reformation Western Civilisation. The Western Civilisation of the 19th century (the version that lasted until 1914) was very very different from the Western Civilisation of the 17th century. The version of Western Civilisation that replaced the 19th century version was different again.

    It could be argued that the end of the Cold War created yet another version of Western Civilisation.

    All that "Western Civilisation" means is the model of civilisation currently dominant in the West.

    You might intensely dislike the current version of Western Civilisation (and if you do then I'd agree with you that it's in many ways a very nasty and deeply unpleasant civilisation. But it exists, it's been very successful in destroying other civilisations and it shows no signs of dying.

    Replies: @WorkingClass, @Dumbo, @anon

    Western Civilisation certainly isn’t dying. It’s never been more arrogant and aggressive. It now dominates most of the globe and its global dominance is steadily increasing.

    Not really… Well, I guess it depends what you mean by “Western Civilization”… But even if you reduce it just to a geographical entity, it’s not going anywhere… The U.S. and Europe are decaying demographically, intellectually, even militarily. Global dominance? Only in its promotion of trashy culture and things such as “equality” and “gay rights”… But also this can’t last forever (or, at least, that’s the hope).

    Also, we should talk of “U.S. Empire” more than “Western Civilization”, which hasn’t been a reality since at least 1945 (I’d actually say 1789, but…). It’s all about U.S. culture, U.S. power, U.S. wars, U.S. money.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Dumbo


    Not really… Well, I guess it depends what you mean by “Western Civilization”… But even if you reduce it just to a geographical entity, it’s not going anywhere… The U.S. and Europe are decaying demographically, intellectually, even militarily. Global dominance? Only in its promotion of trashy culture and things such as “equality” and “gay rights”… But also this can’t last forever (or, at least, that’s the hope).

    Also, we should talk of “U.S. Empire” more than “Western Civilization”, which hasn’t been a reality since at least 1945 (I’d actually say 1789, but…). It’s all about U.S. culture, U.S. power, U.S. wars, U.S. money.
     
    I think it is true that the latest version of Western Civilisation could be described as the American version of Western Civilisation. And it's essentially the endpoint of American progressivism, which was the creation of American WASPs.

    But I disagree that it's decaying. It's going from strength to strength. Unfortunately.

    The trash culture is one of the key ingredients of this version of Western Civilisation and that trash culture has been successfully spread across the entire planet. Homosexuals and trannies are the shock troops of modern Western Civilisation. They're pushing Woke Capitalism onto every nation on Earth. The Trump Administration was particularly aggressive in imposing the LGBT agenda onto Third World nations.

    It would be nice to believe that it can't go on forever but at the moment there's no end in sight. The decadent Western/American Civilisation becomes more self-confident and aggressive by the day.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Mark G.

  23. @Dumbo
    @dfordoom


    Western Civilisation certainly isn’t dying. It’s never been more arrogant and aggressive. It now dominates most of the globe and its global dominance is steadily increasing.
     
    Not really... Well, I guess it depends what you mean by "Western Civilization"... But even if you reduce it just to a geographical entity, it's not going anywhere... The U.S. and Europe are decaying demographically, intellectually, even militarily. Global dominance? Only in its promotion of trashy culture and things such as "equality" and "gay rights"... But also this can't last forever (or, at least, that's the hope).

    Also, we should talk of "U.S. Empire" more than "Western Civilization", which hasn't been a reality since at least 1945 (I'd actually say 1789, but...). It's all about U.S. culture, U.S. power, U.S. wars, U.S. money.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Not really… Well, I guess it depends what you mean by “Western Civilization”… But even if you reduce it just to a geographical entity, it’s not going anywhere… The U.S. and Europe are decaying demographically, intellectually, even militarily. Global dominance? Only in its promotion of trashy culture and things such as “equality” and “gay rights”… But also this can’t last forever (or, at least, that’s the hope).

    Also, we should talk of “U.S. Empire” more than “Western Civilization”, which hasn’t been a reality since at least 1945 (I’d actually say 1789, but…). It’s all about U.S. culture, U.S. power, U.S. wars, U.S. money.

    I think it is true that the latest version of Western Civilisation could be described as the American version of Western Civilisation. And it’s essentially the endpoint of American progressivism, which was the creation of American WASPs.

    But I disagree that it’s decaying. It’s going from strength to strength. Unfortunately.

    The trash culture is one of the key ingredients of this version of Western Civilisation and that trash culture has been successfully spread across the entire planet. Homosexuals and trannies are the shock troops of modern Western Civilisation. They’re pushing Woke Capitalism onto every nation on Earth. The Trump Administration was particularly aggressive in imposing the LGBT agenda onto Third World nations.

    It would be nice to believe that it can’t go on forever but at the moment there’s no end in sight. The decadent Western/American Civilisation becomes more self-confident and aggressive by the day.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    And it’s essentially the endpoint of American progressivism, which was the creation of American WASPs.

    But I disagree that it’s decaying. It’s going from strength to strength. Unfortunately.

    The trash culture is one of the key ingredients of this version of Western Civilisation and that trash culture has been successfully spread across the entire planet.
     

    Abuse. Calumny. I am admittedly not much in a mood these days to defend the dignity of Old Glory and the American patriot, but fail to see the connection between trash culture and American WASPs.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Mark G.
    @dfordoom


    I think it is true that the latest version of Western Civilisation could be described as the American version of Western Civilisation. And it’s essentially the endpoint of American progressivism, which was the creation of American WASPs.
     
    The dissident right puts a lot of emphasis on Jewish influence here but you are correct that WASPs were probably the major influence. The sometimes exclusive focus on Jews obscures that and lets WASPs off the hook for being a major contributor.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

  24. @WorkingClass
    @dfordoom

    It could be argued that the end of the Cold War created yet another version of Western Civilisation.

    I remember it well. I was born male, American and working class in 1944. A Cold Warrior from birth. I knew from the very begining that I would serve in the US Army. My time came in 1965. When the Cold War ended, even though I hated it, I felt a profound sense of loss.

    Your point is well taken. Hensforth I will refer to Western Civilization as transformed. It has a bit of "living document" feel but I am comfortable trusting better educated people than myself with such distinctions.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    When the Cold War ended, even though I hated it, I felt a profound sense of loss.

    The Cold War was a positive thing. It kept American insanity in check. It kept Woke Capitalism in check. It kept American aggression in check. It kept the crazier aspects of American culture under some sort of control.

    Once the Cold War ended America descended into full-blown craziness. The agendas of the crazies in American culture became more and more extreme.

    Vladimir Putin was right when he said that the break-up of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the past century. Had the USSR abandoned communism but remained intact as a rival super-power America would not have been able to descend into full-blown insanity. Wokeism would not have been possible.

    The Soviet Union was necessary as a balance to prevent America from becoming ludicrously over-confident and culturally hyper-aggressive.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    @dfordoom

    The Cold War was a positive thing.

    That's some serious ivory tower bullshit. Tell it to the dead, maimed, disabled orphaned and displaced from the Veitnam War.

    , @Dumbo
    @dfordoom

    The Cold War wasn't good in itself, and the Soviet Union was bad, but it helped to reduce the influence of American trash cultural hegemony (for a while).

    Not surprisingly, the regions still today less receptive to American propaganda (massive immigration, gay rights) are the regions which were before behind the Iron Curtain.

    But, in the end, both the Soviet Union and the American Empire were bad. If the Soviet Union had "won", it would have been bad as well or worse, only in a different way. But since America "won", then it became bad too, but in a different way.

    So it wasn't good vs evil, or slavery vs freedom, it was two types of evil that counterbalanced each other.

    Of course, now America is sort of becoming like the Soviet Union in many ways, so the point is moot.

    Or perhaps you could argue that the "Cold War" was not just America vs Soviet Union in the global stage, but was also happening inside America - and here, the "Soviet Union" won.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

  25. @Dumbo
    @martin_2

    That's a very stupid short-term view of marriage that you'd expect someone like Heartiste to have...

    This might go well with serial monogamy (affordable only to rich people), not marriage for life.

    No one can keep the same lust for a partner after 10, 20 years of marriage.

    Andp eople who are more interested in sex than in a relationship will always have lovers - "why buy when you can rent'.

    No, Nietazche was probably the one who was right:



    When entering into a marriage one ought to ask oneself: do you believe you are going to enjoy talking with this woman up into your old age? Everything else in marriage is transitory, but most of the time you are together will be devoted to conversation.
     
    https://uncoy.com/2013/06/nietzsche-and-marriage.html

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    That’s a very stupid short-term view of marriage that you’d expect someone like Heartiste to have…

    Heartiste offers a broad, creative, harsh, thoughtful antidote to feminism. One can disagree with various of his details, but the man is anything but stupid.

    Having been happily married more than 25 years, I have a pretty good idea by now what works in my marriage, so am fortunately not in the market for relationship advice by Heartiste or anyone else; but if recent threads have demonstrated anything, it is that every couple is different. Heartiste’s advice in the present matter at least shadows a sound point. Maybe more than shadows.

    This might go well with serial monogamy (affordable only to rich people), not marriage for life.

    I agree with you, of course.

  26. @dfordoom
    @Dumbo


    Not really… Well, I guess it depends what you mean by “Western Civilization”… But even if you reduce it just to a geographical entity, it’s not going anywhere… The U.S. and Europe are decaying demographically, intellectually, even militarily. Global dominance? Only in its promotion of trashy culture and things such as “equality” and “gay rights”… But also this can’t last forever (or, at least, that’s the hope).

    Also, we should talk of “U.S. Empire” more than “Western Civilization”, which hasn’t been a reality since at least 1945 (I’d actually say 1789, but…). It’s all about U.S. culture, U.S. power, U.S. wars, U.S. money.
     
    I think it is true that the latest version of Western Civilisation could be described as the American version of Western Civilisation. And it's essentially the endpoint of American progressivism, which was the creation of American WASPs.

    But I disagree that it's decaying. It's going from strength to strength. Unfortunately.

    The trash culture is one of the key ingredients of this version of Western Civilisation and that trash culture has been successfully spread across the entire planet. Homosexuals and trannies are the shock troops of modern Western Civilisation. They're pushing Woke Capitalism onto every nation on Earth. The Trump Administration was particularly aggressive in imposing the LGBT agenda onto Third World nations.

    It would be nice to believe that it can't go on forever but at the moment there's no end in sight. The decadent Western/American Civilisation becomes more self-confident and aggressive by the day.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Mark G.

    And it’s essentially the endpoint of American progressivism, which was the creation of American WASPs.

    But I disagree that it’s decaying. It’s going from strength to strength. Unfortunately.

    The trash culture is one of the key ingredients of this version of Western Civilisation and that trash culture has been successfully spread across the entire planet.

    Abuse. Calumny. I am admittedly not much in a mood these days to defend the dignity of Old Glory and the American patriot, but fail to see the connection between trash culture and American WASPs.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    but fail to see the connection between trash culture and American WASPs.
     
    The connection is between American progressivism and American WASPs. American progressivism played a role in creating what passes for western civilisation today.

    Progressivism led to the gradual abandonment of traditional values. Which is ironic since Christians played a key role in the early days of progressivism. Christians did not intend that to happen.

    It was the old law of unintended consequences coming into play. The early progressivists were very moralistic (frighteningly moralistic in fact) but they created a civilisation that would eventually abandon Christian moral values.

    Ideologies have a habit of mutating. Liberalism a hundred years ago was nothing like liberalism today. Modern progressives are not like early 20th century progressives.

    Once civilisations start to metamorphose the end results cannot be predicted.

    The one thing that progressives of a hundred years ago have in common with modern progressives is a conviction that what they are doing is positive, even when it's not.

    It's worth remembering that when the Reformation began the early reformers had no idea that their actions would eventually lead to the destruction of Christendom.
  27. @anon
    There's a very simple reason why a man should not look for a best friend to marry: it cuts against seductive frisson.

    A woman wants a dominant man. A man with state control. A man in charge of himself, and to a degree, in charge of her. These are not the characteristic foundations of "best friendship".

    And yes that Chateau Heartiste quote above still stands. The Chateau continues to be the most reliably astute outpost of thought.

    Replies: @Not Only Wrathful, @Jay Fink

    A woman wants a dominant man. A man with state control. A man in charge of himself, and to a degree, in charge of her. These are not the characteristic foundations of “best friendship”

    A woman who wants a man to be in charge of her will, equally and oppositely, seek to be in charge of him. That’s just what it is and may be the choice you need right now. Best to note in what way you are signing up to be dominated though, so that it doesn’t come as a surprise.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Not Only Wrathful


    A woman who wants a man to be in charge of her will, equally and oppositely, seek to be in charge of him. That’s just what it is and may be the choice you need right now. Best to note in what way you are signing up to be dominated though, so that it doesn’t come as a surprise.
     
    @anon's advice earns extra merit for its political incorrectness, for it offends a legion of neurotics (few or none of whom are present in this comment column) who richly deserve offense. Nevertheless, it seems to me that your own advice is equally true.

    @anon: the advice you have given is a fine antidote to feminism. I am for it, and if you are not interested in reading contrary advice for leavening, then you can stop reading right here. However, Heartiste's counsel is a strategically necessary overreaction to feminism—and it is just that: an overreaction. At your discretion, you can afford to take Heartiste's counsel less than completely literally.

    The surprising variety of contradictory good advice regarding women and wives in the blog's recent threads makes me reluctant to offer my own. Women differ much from one another. What works with my wife might not work with yours. But yes, follow Heartiste's counsel, but just don't expect to be able to follow it too far.

    Oh, and go to church, even if you don't like to. Church is a mess, but it's worth going just to see the opposite kind of woman to the kind you find in a bar.

  28. @Joe Paluka
    The idea that your wife should be your best friend is meant in the context that she should be someone that will stand by you no matter what, you should like each other's company and it would be good if you have some common interests but not totally compulsory. It isn't saying your wife should be the equivalent of your best guy friend because she can't because she isn't a guy. It's strange that the author can't see that obvious fact.

    Replies: @Wency, @Audacious Epigone

    Eh, part of what’s happening here is that people are using different meanings for “best friend”.

    At one extreme is the man who is looking for a woman that will actually do male friend things with him that most women aren’t into, demanding too much from the “common interest” column. Two of the most common pitfalls: gamers looking for gamer girls, and intellectually-inclined men looking for women that possess their same intellectual curiosity. It’s not impossible for these to work out, but men seem to get hung up on this idea in a mate far out of proportion to the number of women who could meet that need.

    The other extreme is probably what you’re describing — it sounds like you’re just describing a wife. Others have ideas somewhere in the middle.

  29. What is called Luciferian here, might also be seen as Quakerism.

    One difficulty of egalitarianism is that philosophies and institutions are very one size fits all.

    Some people need dogmatic and rigid religion. Others can follow their inner light. Some people need to strengthen their ego, others need to allow it to loosen.

    A different set of social values which could recognise, without judgement, the facticity of different needs and different stages of spiritual development, would accord people more appropriate social support.

    Perhaps, in the past, we were judgemental and that created too fixed a society with too much of people being held in stasis; while now we are learning the opposite lesson, in that we have banned even noticing the obvious?

    We might be better served by noticing difference and understanding it. A trick that requires both an exceptionally strong and receptive ego.

  30. @Not Only Wrathful
    @anon


    A woman wants a dominant man. A man with state control. A man in charge of himself, and to a degree, in charge of her. These are not the characteristic foundations of “best friendship”
     
    A woman who wants a man to be in charge of her will, equally and oppositely, seek to be in charge of him. That's just what it is and may be the choice you need right now. Best to note in what way you are signing up to be dominated though, so that it doesn't come as a surprise.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    A woman who wants a man to be in charge of her will, equally and oppositely, seek to be in charge of him. That’s just what it is and may be the choice you need right now. Best to note in what way you are signing up to be dominated though, so that it doesn’t come as a surprise.

    ’s advice earns extra merit for its political incorrectness, for it offends a legion of neurotics (few or none of whom are present in this comment column) who richly deserve offense. Nevertheless, it seems to me that your own advice is equally true.

    : the advice you have given is a fine antidote to feminism. I am for it, and if you are not interested in reading contrary advice for leavening, then you can stop reading right here. However, Heartiste’s counsel is a strategically necessary overreaction to feminism—and it is just that: an overreaction. At your discretion, you can afford to take Heartiste’s counsel less than completely literally.

    The surprising variety of contradictory good advice regarding women and wives in the blog’s recent threads makes me reluctant to offer my own. Women differ much from one another. What works with my wife might not work with yours. But yes, follow Heartiste’s counsel, but just don’t expect to be able to follow it too far.

    Oh, and go to church, even if you don’t like to. Church is a mess, but it’s worth going just to see the opposite kind of woman to the kind you find in a bar.

    • Thanks: Not Only Wrathful
  31. @WorkingClass
    There is no current model of Western Civilization. Only the death of Western Civilization.

    Wency has a point (and AE also) regarding the state of American Cristendom. My crystal ball however, sees a time of privation among the American people. When the people are in want and the government does not save them there will be a Christian Revival. Unless of course, if by then, we are governed by China.

    And there is the story of the very eligible man who decided it was time to marry. He had all of three prospects to become his bride. As a test he gave each a thousand dollars. One spent the money on herself. One spent the money on him. One spent half on herself and half on him. Which did he marry?

    The one with the big tits.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Wency

    To be clear, I was never implying that there won’t be an eventual Christian revival in the West. I think it could go either way. Demographics will probably be more important than conversions for the next few decades as religion maintains an exclusive monopoly on pro-natal cultural memes, but it’s possible that, if Wokeness and social atomization proceed apace, Christian subcultures will provide models for community and clean family living that start to draw more converts than they lose in apostates.

  32. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    And it’s essentially the endpoint of American progressivism, which was the creation of American WASPs.

    But I disagree that it’s decaying. It’s going from strength to strength. Unfortunately.

    The trash culture is one of the key ingredients of this version of Western Civilisation and that trash culture has been successfully spread across the entire planet.
     

    Abuse. Calumny. I am admittedly not much in a mood these days to defend the dignity of Old Glory and the American patriot, but fail to see the connection between trash culture and American WASPs.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    but fail to see the connection between trash culture and American WASPs.

    The connection is between American progressivism and American WASPs. American progressivism played a role in creating what passes for western civilisation today.

    Progressivism led to the gradual abandonment of traditional values. Which is ironic since Christians played a key role in the early days of progressivism. Christians did not intend that to happen.

    It was the old law of unintended consequences coming into play. The early progressivists were very moralistic (frighteningly moralistic in fact) but they created a civilisation that would eventually abandon Christian moral values.

    Ideologies have a habit of mutating. Liberalism a hundred years ago was nothing like liberalism today. Modern progressives are not like early 20th century progressives.

    Once civilisations start to metamorphose the end results cannot be predicted.

    The one thing that progressives of a hundred years ago have in common with modern progressives is a conviction that what they are doing is positive, even when it’s not.

    It’s worth remembering that when the Reformation began the early reformers had no idea that their actions would eventually lead to the destruction of Christendom.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  33. @martin_2
    When it comes to marriage I believe in this Chateau Heartiste quote...

    "If you want to know whether a man is happy in his marriage just ask yourself one question:Would you fuck her? If the answer is "Yes", then you can be assured he is happy."

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Truth, @Targaleto

    “If you want to know whether a man is happy in his marriage just ask yourself one question:Would you fuck her? If the answer is “Yes”, then you can be assured he is happy.”

    LOL, yes, if the married man is under 27. If he is over 45 you have to ask a second question; “is he still living in the home for which he spent 20 years paying the mortgage. ”

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Truth


    If he is over 45 you have to ask a second question; “is he still living in the home for which he spent 20 years paying the mortgage.”
     
    In the unlikely event I ever acquire the influence to do anything about it, this outrage is one of the first things I'll fix.

    If she insists on divorcing him, she can't have the house.

    I have never been anywhere near divorce court, thankfully. I have been fortunate. However, the gross injustice U.S. divorce court does to mortgage-paying men who have been dragged through it is obvious. It's a scandal. Every such man is said to be an abusive adulterer in court, to the extent to which state law demands the establishment of fault. How convenient.

    I wonder how many divorces would be prevented if the state seized the house, sold it at auction, and deposited the proceeds in the state treasury.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  34. @Truth
    @martin_2


    “If you want to know whether a man is happy in his marriage just ask yourself one question:Would you fuck her? If the answer is “Yes”, then you can be assured he is happy.”
     
    LOL, yes, if the married man is under 27. If he is over 45 you have to ask a second question; "is he still living in the home for which he spent 20 years paying the mortgage. "

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    If he is over 45 you have to ask a second question; “is he still living in the home for which he spent 20 years paying the mortgage.”

    In the unlikely event I ever acquire the influence to do anything about it, this outrage is one of the first things I’ll fix.

    If she insists on divorcing him, she can’t have the house.

    I have never been anywhere near divorce court, thankfully. I have been fortunate. However, the gross injustice U.S. divorce court does to mortgage-paying men who have been dragged through it is obvious. It’s a scandal. Every such man is said to be an abusive adulterer in court, to the extent to which state law demands the establishment of fault. How convenient.

    I wonder how many divorces would be prevented if the state seized the house, sold it at auction, and deposited the proceeds in the state treasury.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    In view of @dfordoom's recent observations, it occurs to me that the outrage of today's divorce court is a knock-on consequence of the progressivism @dfordoom decries.

  35. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Truth


    If he is over 45 you have to ask a second question; “is he still living in the home for which he spent 20 years paying the mortgage.”
     
    In the unlikely event I ever acquire the influence to do anything about it, this outrage is one of the first things I'll fix.

    If she insists on divorcing him, she can't have the house.

    I have never been anywhere near divorce court, thankfully. I have been fortunate. However, the gross injustice U.S. divorce court does to mortgage-paying men who have been dragged through it is obvious. It's a scandal. Every such man is said to be an abusive adulterer in court, to the extent to which state law demands the establishment of fault. How convenient.

    I wonder how many divorces would be prevented if the state seized the house, sold it at auction, and deposited the proceeds in the state treasury.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    In view of ’s recent observations, it occurs to me that the outrage of today’s divorce court is a knock-on consequence of the progressivism decries.

  36. @dfordoom
    @Dumbo


    Not really… Well, I guess it depends what you mean by “Western Civilization”… But even if you reduce it just to a geographical entity, it’s not going anywhere… The U.S. and Europe are decaying demographically, intellectually, even militarily. Global dominance? Only in its promotion of trashy culture and things such as “equality” and “gay rights”… But also this can’t last forever (or, at least, that’s the hope).

    Also, we should talk of “U.S. Empire” more than “Western Civilization”, which hasn’t been a reality since at least 1945 (I’d actually say 1789, but…). It’s all about U.S. culture, U.S. power, U.S. wars, U.S. money.
     
    I think it is true that the latest version of Western Civilisation could be described as the American version of Western Civilisation. And it's essentially the endpoint of American progressivism, which was the creation of American WASPs.

    But I disagree that it's decaying. It's going from strength to strength. Unfortunately.

    The trash culture is one of the key ingredients of this version of Western Civilisation and that trash culture has been successfully spread across the entire planet. Homosexuals and trannies are the shock troops of modern Western Civilisation. They're pushing Woke Capitalism onto every nation on Earth. The Trump Administration was particularly aggressive in imposing the LGBT agenda onto Third World nations.

    It would be nice to believe that it can't go on forever but at the moment there's no end in sight. The decadent Western/American Civilisation becomes more self-confident and aggressive by the day.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Mark G.

    I think it is true that the latest version of Western Civilisation could be described as the American version of Western Civilisation. And it’s essentially the endpoint of American progressivism, which was the creation of American WASPs.

    The dissident right puts a lot of emphasis on Jewish influence here but you are correct that WASPs were probably the major influence. The sometimes exclusive focus on Jews obscures that and lets WASPs off the hook for being a major contributor.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Mark G.


    The dissident right puts a lot of emphasis on Jewish influence here but you are correct that WASPs were probably the major influence. The sometimes exclusive focus on Jews obscures that and lets WASPs off the hook for being a major contributor.
     
    This may be. However, a weakness of the WASP is that he thinks like a juror when he himself is in the dock.

    White Gentiles have interests. Such interests do not depend on whether white Gentiles are abstractly in the right.

    Besides, one pays little social penalty for openly deploring WASPs. A college instructor in the United States, for instance, will not lose his job for saying what you have just said. On the contrary, he'll probably get a promotion. That alone should tell you that WASPs are probably the wrong target.

    I hasten to add, though: I completely agree with you and @dfordoom about letting WASPs off the hook. If we never admit the degree to which we have caused our own troubles, then how shall we expect to overcome those troubles?

    , @dfordoom
    @Mark G.


    The dissident right puts a lot of emphasis on Jewish influence here but you are correct that WASPs were probably the major influence.
     
    I should clarify that just because I think WASPs were responsible for progressivism does not imply that I hate white people in general or WASPs in particular. Like everyone else WASPs have their good points and their bad points.

    The chief bad point about WASPs is their tendency to see everything in moral terms, and to see political ideology as a moral issue. Which means that they see anyone who doesn't agree with their ideology as a bad evil person. It also means that they think they have not only the right but the duty to impose their ideology on everyone.

    That's the really pernicious legacy of Protestantism - a narrow intolerance for dissent. And WASPs who have abandoned Christianity have retained that narrow intolerance for dissent.

    I think it's a huge mistake to view politics through a moral prism. Politics should be about pragmatism. A policy that works is a good policy. A policy that doesn't work is a bad policy. Morality doesn't come into it.
  37. @Mark G.
    @dfordoom


    I think it is true that the latest version of Western Civilisation could be described as the American version of Western Civilisation. And it’s essentially the endpoint of American progressivism, which was the creation of American WASPs.
     
    The dissident right puts a lot of emphasis on Jewish influence here but you are correct that WASPs were probably the major influence. The sometimes exclusive focus on Jews obscures that and lets WASPs off the hook for being a major contributor.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    The dissident right puts a lot of emphasis on Jewish influence here but you are correct that WASPs were probably the major influence. The sometimes exclusive focus on Jews obscures that and lets WASPs off the hook for being a major contributor.

    This may be. However, a weakness of the WASP is that he thinks like a juror when he himself is in the dock.

    White Gentiles have interests. Such interests do not depend on whether white Gentiles are abstractly in the right.

    Besides, one pays little social penalty for openly deploring WASPs. A college instructor in the United States, for instance, will not lose his job for saying what you have just said. On the contrary, he’ll probably get a promotion. That alone should tell you that WASPs are probably the wrong target.

    I hasten to add, though: I completely agree with you and about letting WASPs off the hook. If we never admit the degree to which we have caused our own troubles, then how shall we expect to overcome those troubles?

  38. @anon
    There's a very simple reason why a man should not look for a best friend to marry: it cuts against seductive frisson.

    A woman wants a dominant man. A man with state control. A man in charge of himself, and to a degree, in charge of her. These are not the characteristic foundations of "best friendship".

    And yes that Chateau Heartiste quote above still stands. The Chateau continues to be the most reliably astute outpost of thought.

    Replies: @Not Only Wrathful, @Jay Fink

    I am a fan of Chateau and miss his blog but that quote is too simplistic. Just having a wife other men are attracted to does not necessarily mean happiness. She could have a difficult personality, be cheating on you…there are all kinds of possibilities. Couples often times grow apart and it can reach the point where you don’t especially care about your partner’s good looks anymore, especially knowing there are other pretty women out there.

  39. @dfordoom
    @WorkingClass


    When the Cold War ended, even though I hated it, I felt a profound sense of loss.
     
    The Cold War was a positive thing. It kept American insanity in check. It kept Woke Capitalism in check. It kept American aggression in check. It kept the crazier aspects of American culture under some sort of control.

    Once the Cold War ended America descended into full-blown craziness. The agendas of the crazies in American culture became more and more extreme.

    Vladimir Putin was right when he said that the break-up of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the past century. Had the USSR abandoned communism but remained intact as a rival super-power America would not have been able to descend into full-blown insanity. Wokeism would not have been possible.

    The Soviet Union was necessary as a balance to prevent America from becoming ludicrously over-confident and culturally hyper-aggressive.

    Replies: @WorkingClass, @Dumbo

    The Cold War was a positive thing.

    That’s some serious ivory tower bullshit. Tell it to the dead, maimed, disabled orphaned and displaced from the Veitnam War.

  40. @dfordoom
    @WorkingClass


    When the Cold War ended, even though I hated it, I felt a profound sense of loss.
     
    The Cold War was a positive thing. It kept American insanity in check. It kept Woke Capitalism in check. It kept American aggression in check. It kept the crazier aspects of American culture under some sort of control.

    Once the Cold War ended America descended into full-blown craziness. The agendas of the crazies in American culture became more and more extreme.

    Vladimir Putin was right when he said that the break-up of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the past century. Had the USSR abandoned communism but remained intact as a rival super-power America would not have been able to descend into full-blown insanity. Wokeism would not have been possible.

    The Soviet Union was necessary as a balance to prevent America from becoming ludicrously over-confident and culturally hyper-aggressive.

    Replies: @WorkingClass, @Dumbo

    The Cold War wasn’t good in itself, and the Soviet Union was bad, but it helped to reduce the influence of American trash cultural hegemony (for a while).

    Not surprisingly, the regions still today less receptive to American propaganda (massive immigration, gay rights) are the regions which were before behind the Iron Curtain.

    But, in the end, both the Soviet Union and the American Empire were bad. If the Soviet Union had “won”, it would have been bad as well or worse, only in a different way. But since America “won”, then it became bad too, but in a different way.

    So it wasn’t good vs evil, or slavery vs freedom, it was two types of evil that counterbalanced each other.

    Of course, now America is sort of becoming like the Soviet Union in many ways, so the point is moot.

    Or perhaps you could argue that the “Cold War” was not just America vs Soviet Union in the global stage, but was also happening inside America – and here, the “Soviet Union” won.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Dumbo


    But, in the end, both the Soviet Union and the American Empire were bad. If the Soviet Union had “won”, it would have been bad as well or worse, only in a different way. But since America “won”, then it became bad too, but in a different way.
     
    The Cold War was a good thing in the sense that a bipolar or multipolar world is much healthier than a unipolar world. If we must have superpowers then it's better to have two or more super-powers rather than just one. If you have just one super-power then that super-power will become more and more evil and dangerous because there will be nothing to limit its ambitions and nothing to keep its behaviour within reasonable bounds.

    It's also much healthier to have multiple competing political/economic/ideological systems rather than just one. If you have just one system then that system will become more extreme and more deranged because there's nothing to stop it from becoming more extreme. You need healthy competition.

    The Cold War was a good thing as long as neither side won. Actually the best situation was the situation we had in the 70s - detente. And it was working. It really looked like peaceful co-existence was going to become a reality - competing political systems recognising each other's right to exist.

    And there was never any real danger that the Cold War would become a hot war because in a bipolar world you tend to have grown-ups in charge because it's too dangerous to let the children take charge. You tend to have fairly sane people in charge because it's too dangerous to let the crazies take charge.

    The end of the Cold War meant that the grown-ups and the sane people lost control in the US. The neocons are now in charge and they are definitely not sane and they are definitely not grown-ups.
    , @dfordoom
    @Dumbo


    But, in the end, both the Soviet Union and the American Empire were bad.
     
    They were both bad but as long as they balanced each other the results were something the world could live with.

    If the Soviet Union had “won”, it would have been bad as well or worse, only in a different way.
     
    Yes. Any super-power that gains complete ascendancy will become crazy and evil.

    The best we can hope for is multiple super-powers balancing each other's destructive tendencies.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  41. @Dumbo
    @dfordoom

    The Cold War wasn't good in itself, and the Soviet Union was bad, but it helped to reduce the influence of American trash cultural hegemony (for a while).

    Not surprisingly, the regions still today less receptive to American propaganda (massive immigration, gay rights) are the regions which were before behind the Iron Curtain.

    But, in the end, both the Soviet Union and the American Empire were bad. If the Soviet Union had "won", it would have been bad as well or worse, only in a different way. But since America "won", then it became bad too, but in a different way.

    So it wasn't good vs evil, or slavery vs freedom, it was two types of evil that counterbalanced each other.

    Of course, now America is sort of becoming like the Soviet Union in many ways, so the point is moot.

    Or perhaps you could argue that the "Cold War" was not just America vs Soviet Union in the global stage, but was also happening inside America - and here, the "Soviet Union" won.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    But, in the end, both the Soviet Union and the American Empire were bad. If the Soviet Union had “won”, it would have been bad as well or worse, only in a different way. But since America “won”, then it became bad too, but in a different way.

    The Cold War was a good thing in the sense that a bipolar or multipolar world is much healthier than a unipolar world. If we must have superpowers then it’s better to have two or more super-powers rather than just one. If you have just one super-power then that super-power will become more and more evil and dangerous because there will be nothing to limit its ambitions and nothing to keep its behaviour within reasonable bounds.

    It’s also much healthier to have multiple competing political/economic/ideological systems rather than just one. If you have just one system then that system will become more extreme and more deranged because there’s nothing to stop it from becoming more extreme. You need healthy competition.

    The Cold War was a good thing as long as neither side won. Actually the best situation was the situation we had in the 70s – detente. And it was working. It really looked like peaceful co-existence was going to become a reality – competing political systems recognising each other’s right to exist.

    And there was never any real danger that the Cold War would become a hot war because in a bipolar world you tend to have grown-ups in charge because it’s too dangerous to let the children take charge. You tend to have fairly sane people in charge because it’s too dangerous to let the crazies take charge.

    The end of the Cold War meant that the grown-ups and the sane people lost control in the US. The neocons are now in charge and they are definitely not sane and they are definitely not grown-ups.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  42. Luciferianism is about Progress, social and technological.
    The Zion Pigs are pushing Anti-Life Terrorism.
    Lowest common denominator SLAVERY.

    That’s not about Progress.
    Its their own egotism and GREED.

    Bad for Everyone including them really.
    A suicidal death cult of ghey unreality.

    Its an inversion of the Truth. Worse than a Lie.
    Anti-Life Suicidal Narcissism dressed up as “social justice”.

    Garbage people. Garbage art. Garbage culture.
    That rat analogy is appropriate. Only a rat would appreciate and promote GARBAGE.

  43. @Mark G.
    @dfordoom


    I think it is true that the latest version of Western Civilisation could be described as the American version of Western Civilisation. And it’s essentially the endpoint of American progressivism, which was the creation of American WASPs.
     
    The dissident right puts a lot of emphasis on Jewish influence here but you are correct that WASPs were probably the major influence. The sometimes exclusive focus on Jews obscures that and lets WASPs off the hook for being a major contributor.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    The dissident right puts a lot of emphasis on Jewish influence here but you are correct that WASPs were probably the major influence.

    I should clarify that just because I think WASPs were responsible for progressivism does not imply that I hate white people in general or WASPs in particular. Like everyone else WASPs have their good points and their bad points.

    The chief bad point about WASPs is their tendency to see everything in moral terms, and to see political ideology as a moral issue. Which means that they see anyone who doesn’t agree with their ideology as a bad evil person. It also means that they think they have not only the right but the duty to impose their ideology on everyone.

    That’s the really pernicious legacy of Protestantism – a narrow intolerance for dissent. And WASPs who have abandoned Christianity have retained that narrow intolerance for dissent.

    I think it’s a huge mistake to view politics through a moral prism. Politics should be about pragmatism. A policy that works is a good policy. A policy that doesn’t work is a bad policy. Morality doesn’t come into it.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  44. anon[114] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom
    @WorkingClass


    There is no current model of Western Civilization. Only the death of Western Civilization.
     
    Western Civilisation certainly isn't dying. It's never been more arrogant and aggressive. It now dominates most of the globe and its global dominance is steadily increasing.

    Western Civilisation radically transforms itself at regular intervals. The Western Civilisation of the 17th century was very very different from the pre-Reformation Western Civilisation. The Western Civilisation of the 19th century (the version that lasted until 1914) was very very different from the Western Civilisation of the 17th century. The version of Western Civilisation that replaced the 19th century version was different again.

    It could be argued that the end of the Cold War created yet another version of Western Civilisation.

    All that "Western Civilisation" means is the model of civilisation currently dominant in the West.

    You might intensely dislike the current version of Western Civilisation (and if you do then I'd agree with you that it's in many ways a very nasty and deeply unpleasant civilisation. But it exists, it's been very successful in destroying other civilisations and it shows no signs of dying.

    Replies: @WorkingClass, @Dumbo, @anon

    Western Civilisation certainly isn’t dying.

    No, it’s dying. What you’re seeing is the red giant phase of Western Civdeath, to be followed shortly by the white dwarf phase, or rather, brown dwarf phase.

    It’s never been more arrogant and aggressive.

    Western colonialism is from a bygone era. The modern version of it — drone strikes — are a pale facsimile of the real thing from yesteryear.
    Yeah, Western Civ — helmed by the US — has a loud shofar it uses to blow its globohomo propaganda in every direction, but that is not a sign of civilizational dominance. It is, instead, a sign of anxiety, of intensifying insecurity, and of internal discord*.
    *A ruling elite delegitimized at home will try to shore up its perception of power by turning its guns, rhetorical and actual, in a narratively unified assault against manufactured enemies foreign and domestic.

    It now dominates most of the globe and its global dominance is steadily increasing.

    Not so. WesternCiv aka Globohomo dominates the Anglosphere and its Inner Hajnal satellites. Outside of that realm of dominance, its influence is in retreat. Eastern Europe is peeling away from American hegemony and its exported degeneracy. Russia marvels at our internal divisions while Russians return to their Orthodox religion in numbers not seen since before the Iron Curtain descended over Europe. China will likely own the 21st Century in its own peculiarily Chinese way. Africa remains Africa, with cell phones. India is becoming more provincial, persecuting Christians and recommitting to their Hinduism and their particular traditions.

    And even within the sphere of American dominance, you see omens of collapse. The Inner Hajnalites are being done in by their own ethnomasochistic empathobesity. The natives are getting restless. Denmark has recently passed a law that effectively limits the number of nonWhites from settling in the country. Whites are evolving, culturally at first and then genetically, away from Cuckishness and toward Clannishness. This was inevitable if the Darwinian calculus of species survival has any merit.

    If you want to know the truth, Western Civ’s dominance is teetering on the brink. Why do you think the Globohomo ruling trash have embraced censorship and thuggish political persecution of disobedient Whites? It’s not because their power is unquestioned.

    It’s because it IS questioned. Our underlords have experienced the first salvos of revolt, and it scared the hell out of them, because they know their empire is built on a foundation of lies and malice and treachery. They cannot AFFORD even an iota of criticism, lest the tinest scratch on their paint job exposes the rotted wood underneath. These last few years have seen the race question, the sex question, and the judaic industrial complex question asked and answered like never before while globohomoism supposedly marched across the world in unstoppable conquest.

    That was always a lie. Leper Colony America flexes now because she is fearful; she is about to be stripped of her legitimacy, her “coolness”, her world currency, and finally her pulpit. This is the reason for her arrogance and sadism. She lashes out like a stuck pig.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @anon



    Western Civilisation certainly isn’t dying.
     
    No, it’s dying. What you’re seeing is the red giant phase of Western Civdeath, to be followed shortly by the white dwarf phase, or rather, brown dwarf phase.
     
    Western civilisation is diseased but it may take centuries to die. Those are going to be increasingly unpleasant centuries.

    Yeah, Western Civ — helmed by the US — has a loud shofar it uses to blow its globohomo propaganda in every direction, but that is not a sign of civilizational dominance. It is, instead, a sign of anxiety, of intensifying insecurity, and of internal discord*.
     
    American civilisation has always been a weird mix of anxiety and arrogance, of insecurity and ludicrous over-confidence.

    But anxiety, insecurity and internal discord are not enough to end a civilisation. Rome was afflicted by internal discord for more than half a millennium before the western empire finally collapsed.

    Eastern Europe is peeling away from American hegemony and its exported degeneracy. Russia marvels at our internal divisions while Russians return to their Orthodox religion in numbers not seen since before the Iron Curtain descended over Europe.
     
    If only that were true. The young and the urban elites in eastern Europe are enthusiastically embracing American decadence. The Christian revival in Russia is largely wishful thinking.

    You're underestimating the appeal of western decadence and liberalism. Western decadence and liberalism are steamrollering social conservatism across the globe. Social conservatism is in full retreat and the retreat is turning into a rout. Social conservatism and religion have been unable to find any way to counter the appeal of decadence and liberalism to the young.

    The unpleasant fact is that social conservatism is, to most people, very unattractive. Social conservatism seem like humourless killjoys, which to a large extent (unfortunately) is what they are.

    The only hope is that the increasingly obnoxious foreign policy of the US will eventually trigger a wave of anti-American revulsion.

    Replies: @Wency

  45. @Dumbo
    @dfordoom

    The Cold War wasn't good in itself, and the Soviet Union was bad, but it helped to reduce the influence of American trash cultural hegemony (for a while).

    Not surprisingly, the regions still today less receptive to American propaganda (massive immigration, gay rights) are the regions which were before behind the Iron Curtain.

    But, in the end, both the Soviet Union and the American Empire were bad. If the Soviet Union had "won", it would have been bad as well or worse, only in a different way. But since America "won", then it became bad too, but in a different way.

    So it wasn't good vs evil, or slavery vs freedom, it was two types of evil that counterbalanced each other.

    Of course, now America is sort of becoming like the Soviet Union in many ways, so the point is moot.

    Or perhaps you could argue that the "Cold War" was not just America vs Soviet Union in the global stage, but was also happening inside America - and here, the "Soviet Union" won.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    But, in the end, both the Soviet Union and the American Empire were bad.

    They were both bad but as long as they balanced each other the results were something the world could live with.

    If the Soviet Union had “won”, it would have been bad as well or worse, only in a different way.

    Yes. Any super-power that gains complete ascendancy will become crazy and evil.

    The best we can hope for is multiple super-powers balancing each other’s destructive tendencies.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Yes. Any super-power that gains complete ascendancy will become crazy and evil.
     
    The Roman Empire is overinvoked for purpose of political analogy, but there are too few other examples. It amply illustrates your point.

    The best we can hope for is multiple super-powers balancing each other’s destructive tendencies.
     
    If, in net, in the long run, hegemony by a single power benefits even the ordinary citizens or subjects of the hegemon, I am unaware of it.

    One of the truths of the fallen world is that the armed balance of power, punctuated from time to time by deadly, terrifying wars, is probably as good as it gets for the common man, short of the Millennium.

  46. @anon
    @dfordoom


    Western Civilisation certainly isn’t dying.
     
    No, it's dying. What you're seeing is the red giant phase of Western Civdeath, to be followed shortly by the white dwarf phase, or rather, brown dwarf phase.

    It’s never been more arrogant and aggressive.
     
    Western colonialism is from a bygone era. The modern version of it -- drone strikes -- are a pale facsimile of the real thing from yesteryear.
    Yeah, Western Civ -- helmed by the US -- has a loud shofar it uses to blow its globohomo propaganda in every direction, but that is not a sign of civilizational dominance. It is, instead, a sign of anxiety, of intensifying insecurity, and of internal discord*.
    *A ruling elite delegitimized at home will try to shore up its perception of power by turning its guns, rhetorical and actual, in a narratively unified assault against manufactured enemies foreign and domestic.

    It now dominates most of the globe and its global dominance is steadily increasing.
     
    Not so. WesternCiv aka Globohomo dominates the Anglosphere and its Inner Hajnal satellites. Outside of that realm of dominance, its influence is in retreat. Eastern Europe is peeling away from American hegemony and its exported degeneracy. Russia marvels at our internal divisions while Russians return to their Orthodox religion in numbers not seen since before the Iron Curtain descended over Europe. China will likely own the 21st Century in its own peculiarily Chinese way. Africa remains Africa, with cell phones. India is becoming more provincial, persecuting Christians and recommitting to their Hinduism and their particular traditions.

    And even within the sphere of American dominance, you see omens of collapse. The Inner Hajnalites are being done in by their own ethnomasochistic empathobesity. The natives are getting restless. Denmark has recently passed a law that effectively limits the number of nonWhites from settling in the country. Whites are evolving, culturally at first and then genetically, away from Cuckishness and toward Clannishness. This was inevitable if the Darwinian calculus of species survival has any merit.

    If you want to know the truth, Western Civ's dominance is teetering on the brink. Why do you think the Globohomo ruling trash have embraced censorship and thuggish political persecution of disobedient Whites? It's not because their power is unquestioned.

    It's because it IS questioned. Our underlords have experienced the first salvos of revolt, and it scared the hell out of them, because they know their empire is built on a foundation of lies and malice and treachery. They cannot AFFORD even an iota of criticism, lest the tinest scratch on their paint job exposes the rotted wood underneath. These last few years have seen the race question, the sex question, and the judaic industrial complex question asked and answered like never before while globohomoism supposedly marched across the world in unstoppable conquest.

    That was always a lie. Leper Colony America flexes now because she is fearful; she is about to be stripped of her legitimacy, her "coolness", her world currency, and finally her pulpit. This is the reason for her arrogance and sadism. She lashes out like a stuck pig.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Western Civilisation certainly isn’t dying.

    No, it’s dying. What you’re seeing is the red giant phase of Western Civdeath, to be followed shortly by the white dwarf phase, or rather, brown dwarf phase.

    Western civilisation is diseased but it may take centuries to die. Those are going to be increasingly unpleasant centuries.

    Yeah, Western Civ — helmed by the US — has a loud shofar it uses to blow its globohomo propaganda in every direction, but that is not a sign of civilizational dominance. It is, instead, a sign of anxiety, of intensifying insecurity, and of internal discord*.

    American civilisation has always been a weird mix of anxiety and arrogance, of insecurity and ludicrous over-confidence.

    But anxiety, insecurity and internal discord are not enough to end a civilisation. Rome was afflicted by internal discord for more than half a millennium before the western empire finally collapsed.

    Eastern Europe is peeling away from American hegemony and its exported degeneracy. Russia marvels at our internal divisions while Russians return to their Orthodox religion in numbers not seen since before the Iron Curtain descended over Europe.

    If only that were true. The young and the urban elites in eastern Europe are enthusiastically embracing American decadence. The Christian revival in Russia is largely wishful thinking.

    You’re underestimating the appeal of western decadence and liberalism. Western decadence and liberalism are steamrollering social conservatism across the globe. Social conservatism is in full retreat and the retreat is turning into a rout. Social conservatism and religion have been unable to find any way to counter the appeal of decadence and liberalism to the young.

    The unpleasant fact is that social conservatism is, to most people, very unattractive. Social conservatism seem like humourless killjoys, which to a large extent (unfortunately) is what they are.

    The only hope is that the increasingly obnoxious foreign policy of the US will eventually trigger a wave of anti-American revulsion.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @dfordoom


    If only that were true. The young and the urban elites in eastern Europe are enthusiastically embracing American decadence. The Christian revival in Russia is largely wishful thinking.
     
    My sense of the non-Soviet Warsaw Pact countries is they still live in fear of Russia and don't want to become Russian vassals again, which drives them into the American sphere. When it comes to LGBT/CRT Wokeness, Karlin has been documenting this and showing they are resisting it to varying degrees, with Poland caving in much faster than the others. But they are all basically decadent like the rest of us, with no children, low religious conviction, full acceptance of the Sexual Revolution, and big brain drain problems as their best and brightest leave for Western EU countries and mostly assimilate to those values.

    Russia seems to be settling in to a situation where weekly church attendance is about the same as very secular Western European countries, but the church is intertwined with nationalism and has higher status than in those places, which leads to higher goodwill and identification towards the ROC among people who basically never attend. Though around 50-60% of the population shows up to services at least once or twice a year. But I wonder how shallow this is and how quickly Russia would shift back to or even below the Western European norm if the government and elites (who in Russia are mostly tied to the government) distanced themselves from the ROC.

    I've long been curious and never been able to find Russian church attendance stats from pre-1914, and to have a better feel for pre-Soviet Russian religiosity, but I have read that the 1914 Russian Church had roughly 3x the number of priests (in absolute numbers) as the 21st century church.

    In my limited experience, Orthodox services are fascinating but they seem like they would be kind of an ordeal for most people to get through on a weekly basis. The enjoyability of American church services due to the high level of religious competition (per the quote from me on the top of this post) is probably a big factor in keeping American church attendance high.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  47. @dfordoom
    @anon



    Western Civilisation certainly isn’t dying.
     
    No, it’s dying. What you’re seeing is the red giant phase of Western Civdeath, to be followed shortly by the white dwarf phase, or rather, brown dwarf phase.
     
    Western civilisation is diseased but it may take centuries to die. Those are going to be increasingly unpleasant centuries.

    Yeah, Western Civ — helmed by the US — has a loud shofar it uses to blow its globohomo propaganda in every direction, but that is not a sign of civilizational dominance. It is, instead, a sign of anxiety, of intensifying insecurity, and of internal discord*.
     
    American civilisation has always been a weird mix of anxiety and arrogance, of insecurity and ludicrous over-confidence.

    But anxiety, insecurity and internal discord are not enough to end a civilisation. Rome was afflicted by internal discord for more than half a millennium before the western empire finally collapsed.

    Eastern Europe is peeling away from American hegemony and its exported degeneracy. Russia marvels at our internal divisions while Russians return to their Orthodox religion in numbers not seen since before the Iron Curtain descended over Europe.
     
    If only that were true. The young and the urban elites in eastern Europe are enthusiastically embracing American decadence. The Christian revival in Russia is largely wishful thinking.

    You're underestimating the appeal of western decadence and liberalism. Western decadence and liberalism are steamrollering social conservatism across the globe. Social conservatism is in full retreat and the retreat is turning into a rout. Social conservatism and religion have been unable to find any way to counter the appeal of decadence and liberalism to the young.

    The unpleasant fact is that social conservatism is, to most people, very unattractive. Social conservatism seem like humourless killjoys, which to a large extent (unfortunately) is what they are.

    The only hope is that the increasingly obnoxious foreign policy of the US will eventually trigger a wave of anti-American revulsion.

    Replies: @Wency

    If only that were true. The young and the urban elites in eastern Europe are enthusiastically embracing American decadence. The Christian revival in Russia is largely wishful thinking.

    My sense of the non-Soviet Warsaw Pact countries is they still live in fear of Russia and don’t want to become Russian vassals again, which drives them into the American sphere. When it comes to LGBT/CRT Wokeness, Karlin has been documenting this and showing they are resisting it to varying degrees, with Poland caving in much faster than the others. But they are all basically decadent like the rest of us, with no children, low religious conviction, full acceptance of the Sexual Revolution, and big brain drain problems as their best and brightest leave for Western EU countries and mostly assimilate to those values.

    Russia seems to be settling in to a situation where weekly church attendance is about the same as very secular Western European countries, but the church is intertwined with nationalism and has higher status than in those places, which leads to higher goodwill and identification towards the ROC among people who basically never attend. Though around 50-60% of the population shows up to services at least once or twice a year. But I wonder how shallow this is and how quickly Russia would shift back to or even below the Western European norm if the government and elites (who in Russia are mostly tied to the government) distanced themselves from the ROC.

    I’ve long been curious and never been able to find Russian church attendance stats from pre-1914, and to have a better feel for pre-Soviet Russian religiosity, but I have read that the 1914 Russian Church had roughly 3x the number of priests (in absolute numbers) as the 21st century church.

    In my limited experience, Orthodox services are fascinating but they seem like they would be kind of an ordeal for most people to get through on a weekly basis. The enjoyability of American church services due to the high level of religious competition (per the quote from me on the top of this post) is probably a big factor in keeping American church attendance high.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Wency


    My sense of the non-Soviet Warsaw Pact countries is they still live in fear of Russia and don’t want to become Russian vassals again, which drives them into the American sphere. When it comes to LGBT/CRT Wokeness, Karlin has been documenting this and showing they are resisting it to varying degrees, with Poland caving in much faster than the others. But they are all basically decadent like the rest of us, with no children, low religious conviction, full acceptance of the Sexual Revolution, and big brain drain problems as their best and brightest leave for Western EU countries and mostly assimilate to those values.
     
    Yes. And even in the eastern European countries that appear to be resisting the decadence you'll find that the young (and urban-dwellers) are eagerly embracing the decadence - the resistance is coming almost entirely from the older generations. Within one more generation all the eastern European countries will have fully embraced western decadence.

    But I wonder how shallow this is and how quickly Russia would shift back to or even below the Western European norm if the government and elites (who in Russia are mostly tied to the government) distanced themselves from the ROC.
     
    Yes. I suspect that the supposed Christian revival in Russia is very shallow indeed, and is mostly cultural rather than genuinely religious. It's mostly a marker of nationalist sentiments. And I suspect that the religious revival is mostly driven by the elderly.

    I don't honestly think that it's possible for Christianity to win back the young in any significant numbers. Decadence and liberalism have enormous appeal to the young.
  48. @Wency
    @dfordoom


    If only that were true. The young and the urban elites in eastern Europe are enthusiastically embracing American decadence. The Christian revival in Russia is largely wishful thinking.
     
    My sense of the non-Soviet Warsaw Pact countries is they still live in fear of Russia and don't want to become Russian vassals again, which drives them into the American sphere. When it comes to LGBT/CRT Wokeness, Karlin has been documenting this and showing they are resisting it to varying degrees, with Poland caving in much faster than the others. But they are all basically decadent like the rest of us, with no children, low religious conviction, full acceptance of the Sexual Revolution, and big brain drain problems as their best and brightest leave for Western EU countries and mostly assimilate to those values.

    Russia seems to be settling in to a situation where weekly church attendance is about the same as very secular Western European countries, but the church is intertwined with nationalism and has higher status than in those places, which leads to higher goodwill and identification towards the ROC among people who basically never attend. Though around 50-60% of the population shows up to services at least once or twice a year. But I wonder how shallow this is and how quickly Russia would shift back to or even below the Western European norm if the government and elites (who in Russia are mostly tied to the government) distanced themselves from the ROC.

    I've long been curious and never been able to find Russian church attendance stats from pre-1914, and to have a better feel for pre-Soviet Russian religiosity, but I have read that the 1914 Russian Church had roughly 3x the number of priests (in absolute numbers) as the 21st century church.

    In my limited experience, Orthodox services are fascinating but they seem like they would be kind of an ordeal for most people to get through on a weekly basis. The enjoyability of American church services due to the high level of religious competition (per the quote from me on the top of this post) is probably a big factor in keeping American church attendance high.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    My sense of the non-Soviet Warsaw Pact countries is they still live in fear of Russia and don’t want to become Russian vassals again, which drives them into the American sphere. When it comes to LGBT/CRT Wokeness, Karlin has been documenting this and showing they are resisting it to varying degrees, with Poland caving in much faster than the others. But they are all basically decadent like the rest of us, with no children, low religious conviction, full acceptance of the Sexual Revolution, and big brain drain problems as their best and brightest leave for Western EU countries and mostly assimilate to those values.

    Yes. And even in the eastern European countries that appear to be resisting the decadence you’ll find that the young (and urban-dwellers) are eagerly embracing the decadence – the resistance is coming almost entirely from the older generations. Within one more generation all the eastern European countries will have fully embraced western decadence.

    But I wonder how shallow this is and how quickly Russia would shift back to or even below the Western European norm if the government and elites (who in Russia are mostly tied to the government) distanced themselves from the ROC.

    Yes. I suspect that the supposed Christian revival in Russia is very shallow indeed, and is mostly cultural rather than genuinely religious. It’s mostly a marker of nationalist sentiments. And I suspect that the religious revival is mostly driven by the elderly.

    I don’t honestly think that it’s possible for Christianity to win back the young in any significant numbers. Decadence and liberalism have enormous appeal to the young.

  49. @martin_2
    When it comes to marriage I believe in this Chateau Heartiste quote...

    "If you want to know whether a man is happy in his marriage just ask yourself one question:Would you fuck her? If the answer is "Yes", then you can be assured he is happy."

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Truth, @Targaleto

    I really doubt Heartiste said that. There’s a lot wrong with it, starting from the fact that it assumes that a man being married to a woman means he’s effing her.

  50. It’s drying up for both. A shame, for we could use as many good explications of how the new covenant meant an end to offering sacrifices as the country prepares to offer up a human sacrifice in another futile attempt to gain a fleeting spot of atonement for the perceived collective sins of white America.

    Suppose you’re debating an important issue of the day, the war in Afghanistan, abortion, illegal immigration, etc. Someone starts explicating about Polynesian God Uhwappan’o and Polynesian Goddess Ato’Bolofoo and how the oral traditions of the Polynesian people are totally relevant to that issue. I don’t think you’re gonna be very interested. For the same reason, I don’t want to hear about how ancient Judea relates to this George Floyd crap.

  51. I correspond with a young woman who lives in Ukraine near the Russian border. I asked her opinion on religiosity in Russia. She says young people in Moscow and St. Petersburg are not religious but the rest of the country is devoutly Christian, especially the older generation. She says Muslims have increasing influence. I would love for her to post here because she has such an interesting perspective on many of the things we discuss.

    • Thanks: Wency
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Jay Fink


    She says young people in Moscow and St. Petersburg are not religious but the rest of the country is devoutly Christian, especially the older generation.
     
    That was pretty much true of the West a few generations ago. When a religion is reliant on rural populations and the elderly then that religion faces a grim future.

    And that's even more true today, with urban culture having an even greater capacity for inexorably spreading to the whole population.

    So as I said earlier, the Russian religious revival is mostly wishful thinking.
  52. @dfordoom
    @Dumbo


    But, in the end, both the Soviet Union and the American Empire were bad.
     
    They were both bad but as long as they balanced each other the results were something the world could live with.

    If the Soviet Union had “won”, it would have been bad as well or worse, only in a different way.
     
    Yes. Any super-power that gains complete ascendancy will become crazy and evil.

    The best we can hope for is multiple super-powers balancing each other's destructive tendencies.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Yes. Any super-power that gains complete ascendancy will become crazy and evil.

    The Roman Empire is overinvoked for purpose of political analogy, but there are too few other examples. It amply illustrates your point.

    The best we can hope for is multiple super-powers balancing each other’s destructive tendencies.

    If, in net, in the long run, hegemony by a single power benefits even the ordinary citizens or subjects of the hegemon, I am unaware of it.

    One of the truths of the fallen world is that the armed balance of power, punctuated from time to time by deadly, terrifying wars, is probably as good as it gets for the common man, short of the Millennium.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  53. @Jay Fink
    I correspond with a young woman who lives in Ukraine near the Russian border. I asked her opinion on religiosity in Russia. She says young people in Moscow and St. Petersburg are not religious but the rest of the country is devoutly Christian, especially the older generation. She says Muslims have increasing influence. I would love for her to post here because she has such an interesting perspective on many of the things we discuss.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    She says young people in Moscow and St. Petersburg are not religious but the rest of the country is devoutly Christian, especially the older generation.

    That was pretty much true of the West a few generations ago. When a religion is reliant on rural populations and the elderly then that religion faces a grim future.

    And that’s even more true today, with urban culture having an even greater capacity for inexorably spreading to the whole population.

    So as I said earlier, the Russian religious revival is mostly wishful thinking.

  54. @Joe Paluka
    The idea that your wife should be your best friend is meant in the context that she should be someone that will stand by you no matter what, you should like each other's company and it would be good if you have some common interests but not totally compulsory. It isn't saying your wife should be the equivalent of your best guy friend because she can't because she isn't a guy. It's strange that the author can't see that obvious fact.

    Replies: @Wency, @Audacious Epigone

    A term like “life partner” fits better than “best friend”.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS