The Goddess Movement

Six years ago I wrote a post outlining what the PUA community referred to then as “Chick Crack“. It was a pretty straight forward post that I delved into just to explain why playing to women’s propensity to believe in the spiritual – or what women would consider spiritual – is an effective technique in Game. I always thought it was funny how accurate this presumption about women was when I came across it.

Of all the strippers I’d ‘dated’ in the past every one subscribed to some form of non-mainstream spiritualism. This girl Angie I used to bang kept Tarot cards in her pink lady’s devotional Bible, another professed to be a psychic; in fact the only people I’ve ever known who self-seriously wanted me to believe they were in fact psychic were all women.

[…] For the stripper set this seems to be par for the course, but I wish I could say this chick-crack phenomenon was limited to just women who had some vacuous spiritual/emotional hole in their lives to fill. No, all women (yes I said all) are predisposed to the intrigue that metaphysical imaginings sparks in them. If it smacks of secret, covert knowledge, privy only to a chosen few, then you’ve got an attentive listener in a woman. UFOs, palm reading (always a classic), psychic premonition, ‘gifts of prophecy’, really anything that hints at knowledge beyond the ordinary is fair game. Chick Crack is not just limited to off-brand spiritualisms either, you’ll find that far more women than men will develop (conveniently) an affinity for, and are more invested in, religion than men.

In the wake of the Anthony Bourdain “suicide“, and the scramble to absolve Asia Argento of any complicity in his decision to hang himself, I came across this post about Asia’s penchant for Witchcraft. Apparently Wicca is somewhat more than a hobby for her. As you look at these pictures it’s important to remember that this is a 42 year old woman (and her friends) who sincerely believes in this stuff.

In Chick Crack I also made reference as to why I believe women’s being predisposed to beliefs in the supernatural is a desire for secret power from an innate position of female powerlessness.

Feminine Mythology

Women’s natural pull towards the mysterious and metaphysical has its roots in the sex’s historical characterizations. In keeping with the very useful associations of women’s unknowability and feminine mystique, it’s perhaps unsurprising that we find most mythologized representations of women and femininity cast as brooding, fickle, rapacious and often as a temptress, possessing secret knowledge that foolish men (the mere mortals) are neither capable of, nor encouraged to understand. Sometimes childlike, often conveniently eroticized, women are literally cast as forces of nature – whether sexualized nymphs or tempestuous witches, each characterization relies on women possessing some form of secret or forbidden connection to the metaphysical. Even the commanding presence of Joan of Arc, while leading the armies of France, had a connection to something otherworldly. By their very nature, feminine mythology, by default, presumes women are more in tune with the nature of reality, while surpassing the ignorance of brutish men.

Women revel in their mythology. Since covert forms of communication are the preferred language of women, their affinity for secret information is a natural fit. Ever wonder why gossip seems to be uniquely endemic to women? Look no further than women’s innate impulse to acquire secret knowledge. Take away the Vampires and Werewolves – the metaphysical component – from the Twilight series and what you’re left with is a relatively bland romance novel. Add the otherworldly and you have a runaway hit popular with every female age demographic, from tweens to octogenarians.

In women’s evolutionary past, concealment meant everything. Confusing a man as to the true genetic heritage of his children was often a matter of life or death. Pursuing pluralistic sexual strategies depends upon creating a characterization of women as legitimately unknowable, thus the feminine mystique is instituted. Ergo, the sociological PR campaign over the course of millennia has been to perpetuate the mystery of woman.

From an evolutionary perspective it makes sense that physically weaker tribal women would seek some sort of mastery over the men in their lives who could punish or kill them and their offspring at will. As I’ve covered in many essays, women are biologically and psychologically more attuned to deeper communication and the emotive states of other people. Women have a far greater capacity to understand subcommunications and subcommunicate themselves among their own sex. This is borne out by multiple brain scan studies and research on the architecture of men and women’s brains.

To the blunt, overt, relatively nuance-less interpretive processes of men this subcommunication can be both frustrating and mysterious. It’s the mysterious part that women learned to reinforce and exploit in their dealings with men long ago. This is where we get the idea of the seductress or the ‘keeper of mysterious secrets’ archetype (witch, midwife, nature goddess) for women. It’s less important that women would actually be more in tune with the supernatural, but rather it’s more important that they believe it’s a general truth about all women. Men might be skeptical, or they may buy into that mystique, revere it and encourage other men to believe something similar. Usually how a man adopts or rejects that archetype is determined by his own self-understanding and his Game according to it and his sexual market value.

There are a lot of derivative character archetypes that stem from the basic ‘mysterious woman’ root. That might be anything from a healer, nurturer, mother type rooted in what used to be the mystery of women’s life-giving capacity, to the force of nature sorceress, to the eroticized sexual seductress (nymph, siren) or even the high-priestess of the holy temple of prostitution (an ancient brothel madame). Over the course of history, since our hunter-gatherer beginnings, this means to influence and power for women has coalesced into what we popularly imagine about women’s mysterious nature. Only today we call it a ‘woman’s intuition’ and we make appeals to fortune and fate when a guy get’s “lucky” and a woman favors him with her sexuality. It’s all socialized solutions to evolutionary problems, but if we add an element of ‘magic’ to the equation it makes explaining failures and appreciating successes that much easier.

Today, the belief in this nature is still very much reinforced in society. Thus, we get women subscribing to what amounts to a collective pathology – they are encouraged to believe in their ‘magical’ sensitivities to spirits and forces beyond the sensitivities of (ostensibly) “powerful” men. To fight the mythological Patriarchy women rely on a mythological tool. In Chick Crack I made mention of a stripper I used to have as a friend-with-benefits who was very attuned to the “spirit world”. As such the whole gamut of the supernatural was free game for her to use. She’d read my Tarot cards, my palm, throw in some eastern mysticism and wash it all down with a read through her pink ladies’ devotional Bible. Granted, ‘Angie‘ was an extreme case, but all women are in someway, or say they are in someway, privy to metaphysical understandings which men are not. And today we read and listen to male leaders in mainstream religions adopt and parrot back this “women are closer to God than men” mantra which is directly linked to the ‘spiritual women’ mystique.

The old trope of a Woman’s Intuition is an example of this belief in something beyond the ken of men. And this is also an important aspect of boys’ Blue Pill conditioning – girls/women possess some unearthly connection to God or something supernatural which further cements the idea that they should to defer authority to girls and women if they want to “please God the Goddess”. You might think this hard to believe in our age of technology, but only the context of the supernatural has shifted. Even the most objectively rational boys and men strongly believe in the ‘soul mate myth despite atheism or agnosticism. This belief of the faithless is directly related to the unknowability of the female. Even modern atheists have a tendency to fall prey to the “someone for everyone” religion when it comes to connecting with the opposite sex.

It’s my belief that this presumption of a greater sensitivity to the supernatural is an aspect of women’s evolved mental firmware. Regardless of how false it may be, a woman with the disposition to encourage men to believe that she has some otherworldly connection despite the world or circumstances around them, one that would lead men to venerate her in the long term, would’ve been a powerful social adaptation in ensuring her and her children’s security. No doubt women readers will trot out the reflexive “Well men have been shamans and soothsayers and the patriarchal leaders of churches too”, and this is true, but those men lacked the female elemental advantage in their believability. Even their own belief sets encompassed the ‘spiritual woman’ tropes for better or worse. The wise old wizard is definitely an archetype, but that wizard lacks the feminine mystique and the sexual components only women possess in exercising that power.

Modern Witchcraft

Today we see a distinct falling away from the old order of acknowledging the supernatural. Less and less people subscribe to religion in its conventional sense. The Millennial generation wants nothing to do with “organized religion”, yet they still seek the structure to life it used to provide. So instead we hear the compromise about being “spiritual, but not religious” as if accepting the possibility of the metaphysical is something expected, but the taint of the “religious” is left for older generations. Even in what passes for contemporary religion the influence of the Feminine Imperative is ever-present. The spiritual, the metaphysical, the religious, all are still useful tools for women to consolidate power with. As men abdicate more authority to the feminine, as they themselves are the products of a continuous social feminization, we see a wholesale handover of the spiritual to the direction of women. The male leadership of mainstream religions is itself compromised with the imperatives and priorities of women who are already presumed to be “more in tune with God or the supernatural”. As such they exercise the Feminine Imperative and assimilate women’s stake on the spiritual by being proxy agents for women’s authority.

Today I was linked a story about how Episcopalians have begun to Remove the Man from their religion. Apparently this marks the beginning of rewriting the doctrine of this religion by erasing all masculine pronouns for God. Of course I expect the predictable retorts that Episcopalians aren’t real Christians, but theirs is just one of the more glaring examples of how the feminization of religion progresses. The latent purpose is a wholesale removal of anything conventionally masculine from religion, and/or placing the feminine as the primary connection with the supernatural. Whether it’s mainstream religion or psychic reading, a woman is at the center of that mysticism. If you want a perspective into the things to come for a female-led mega-religion look no further than the teaching of Rev. Shannon Johnson Kershner (dual surname noted). God is not male is the clarion call of the priestesses (and their male ‘ally’ priests) of this new religion.

Why should we view God as female? Well, it’s so that little girls can become pastors, with Kershner saying, ““I wanted to make sure that little girls knew that God could call them to be pastors, too.”

For the MeToo / Time’s Up generation God is female, the supernatural is more aligned with the feminine. I’ve made this observation before (before the #MeToo moral panic arrived) but there’s been a growing push on the part of men to relinquish any spiritual authority from a masculine perspective for decades now. The largely secular impetus of the MeToo movement is now finding its way into a religious environment that has been primed and ready for it (largely due to its acquiescing, complicit, and thoroughly Blue Pill male leadership) for a long time. MeToo was a natural fit for a feminine-primary church that needed its push to consolidate power even in the most patriarchal of religions. MeToo has given women license to finally be overt in their design on religion and spirituality – not unlike Open Hypergamy has been embraced in the mainstream.

In celebration of this conversion of religion to feminine-primacy we get the feminist Beyoncé “worship” services in formerly traditional cathedrals. Millennials may be falling away from the old church, but they fill the new church to overflow-capacity when ‘god’ is female.

The take home message for this essay is this; womankind has been intimately aware of the complicity of men in granting them a default connection to the supernatural. While we may not profess a formal belief in such, men are eager to accommodate female power in this arena – especially if in doing so it endears women to the men who play along with it. Professing a belief in the supernatural is simply good Game. The early PUAs picked up on this and used it to their advantage. However, this abdication of moral authority – an authority founded in masculine pretenses – goes far beyond getting your palm read by an earthy stripper you want to bang. This compromising of moral authority to the feminine by men is just the next phase in conceding all social and political authority to the Feminine Imperative. If God or a ‘higher power’ is the foundation of moral authority, and women are universally presumed to be more in touch with that higher power, the next step is to cede that authority to the sex that has a more direct line to that power.

What prompted me to consider writing this essay was a link I was sent in response to the story about Asia Argento’s involvement in modern day Wicca. I listened to a bit of a podcast by Vox Day recently in which he was asked his thoughts about modern paganism. He said, and I paraphrase, “Paganism today is just kids LARPing to the idea of old world religions. They’re role playing something akin to Dungeons and Dragons with no real belief.” I thought this was interesting in light of the article I was sent on Neo-Paganism and the Feminist Spirituality Movement:

However, some women were not willing to identify themselves as “witches”, and there arose a form of Goddess worship without any of the trappings of witchcraft. As Nevill Drury explains, “Although some Goddess-worshippers continued to refer to themselves as witches, others abandoned the term altogether, preferring to regard their neopagan practice as a universal feminist religion, drawing on mythologies from many different ancient cultures.” This has been called “Goddess worship” and the “Goddess movement”. These terms are frequently used interchangeably with, but should be distinguished from, “feminist spirituality”, which includes the Goddess movement, but also feminist Christianity, feminist Judaism, etc.

[…]

The principal beliefs of the Goddess movement are that the Goddess is a radically immanent deity and she can be experienced directly. The Earth is seen as the body of the Goddess and women are understood to connect to the Goddess through their experience of their own bodies, as well as the “body” of the earth. Goddess feminists also believe that the Goddess is constantly changing, manifest in the changing of the seasons and the human life-cycle, and perpetually self-renewed.

The Goddess movement offers women a new self-image and facilitates women finding their own innate goodness and natural divinity. It enables women to redeem and revalue the “feminine principle” and offers them positive images and symbols of female empowerment.

It may seem easy to dismiss the influence of the feminine on what is re-evolving into a new feminine-world order of spirituality, but I think it would be foolish dismiss the influences of the Feminine Imperative – the Goddess Movement – that is manifesting itself incrementally in the power vacuum left by the abdication of masculine moral authority to the feminine. We read that Millennials may not be “as religious” as previous generations, but that doesn’t mean they don’t seek out ‘spiritual, but not religious’ metaphysical connections. They seek direction, and connection in religion, but they seek it in the secular, gynocentric terms they’ve been conditioned to believe they should define themselves by. A similar parallel exists on the masculine side too. One of the reasons for Jordan Peterson’s popularity is his ‘ministering’ to a generation of “lost boys” seeking direction in life. He is every bit one of the Lords of the New Church in the same way that the Goddess Movement speaks to another demographic of lost souls who seek absolution in the “divine feminine” – also a term Peterson is fond of.

570 comments

  1. I never said men should ignore anything.ignorance is a huge part of the problem.

  2. ( insert picture of sun being orbited by planets, you know, the one from kindergarten..)

  3. Groupthink happens when any workplace or profession reaches some tipping point where people who don’t follow the default position either feel it’s wise to keep their mouths shut or just go somewhere else.

    Even the liberal Politico website admits The Media Bubble is Worse Than You Think. Only 7 percent of journalists identify as Republican, and our sources of news and comment are becoming increasingly concentrated on the East and West Coasts.

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048

    But it’s not just political, it’s people being people. As I mentioned, journalists are focused on being popular and respected among their peers, not voicing any view that might be seen as “mean” or “old-fashioned.” And no one wants to buck the FI’s growing influence in news.

    So this is why independent voices such as Rollo are so badly needed; he’s on a mission and is not running it by people at some 5 PM daily meeting

  4. Groupthink occurs whenever some narrative is pushed loudly and critical voices are suppressed thru mockery and other forms of coercion.

  5. “The left has consistently pushed issues that are anti-family, anti-church, and anti-capitalism, like they continually wrote about for centuries.”

    I have read the discourse going back to Hammurabi’s Code. I habitually walk around with much of it, in readable form, contained in my shirt pocket (I have mentioned before that I have shirts with a “Kindle” pocket hidden behind the patch pocket).

    There was nothing called the political “Left” or “Right” before the late 1700s. The human behaviours that are the foundation for them predate humans and are observable in other animals.

    The fundamental division is between the collective and the individual. What particular terms the collective imposes is completely irrelevant to its status as a collective.

    A Church (note the capitalization) is Collectivism. Capitalism is individualism.

    As for the rest, if it was also directed at me, I have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.

  6. Which part of the Goddess movement are y’all discussing, again?
    Just asking.

  7. That’s right, Blax, believe what you are taught, not what you see.

    The earth is flat then, right?

  8. “Groupthink occurs whenever some narrative is pushed loudly and critical voices are suppressed thru mockery and other forms of coercion.”

    Thank you for stipulating that point. Now read up on the Thirty Years War.

  9. “Which part of the Goddess movement are y’all discussing, again?”

    Collectivism vs. Individualism. The Goddess movement sees itself as “Holistic,” and sees The Patriarchy as “Reductionist.”

  10. There was nothing called the political “Left” or “Right” before the late 1700s.

    Those terms came into being at the time of the French Revolution, but the ideas were active long before the late 1700s. Robert Owen was among the first British socialists, I believe. The other British (and American, later) socialists built on Owen’s work. I had a real Western Civ course that covered Owen and the revolutions of 1848.

    A company is a collective, generally; since capitalism requires companies, capitalism is collectivism.

    >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848

    Over 50 countries were affected, but with no coordination or cooperation among their respective revolutionaries.

    And I also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

    Owen and other early European socialists are collected at

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marx_socialists

  11. @kfg
    Would that be collectivist individualism or individualist individualism, and how do these Goddess girls define “holistic”?

  12. And the Goddess Movement aka the FI is strengthening its hold on the media. A lot of reporting reflects this orientation and is aimed at getting more females on board.

  13. That’s right, Blax, believe what you are taught, not what you see.

    The earth is flat then, right?

    Using a spyglass, I can see ships disappearing on the horizon. Presumably, they fall off the edge of the world. How they get back up, I have no idea. hehe

    (My perspective is definitely limited as much as anybody’s.)

    I’m only defending my claim that I see the sun rise in the east. I’m making no claim about the earth being flat.

    There are pics, taken from space, supported by eyewitness testimony, which show the earth to be ellipsoidal.

  14. ” . . . the ideas were active long before the late 1700s.”

    They were active since the time two cells found it to their survival advantage to clump together.
    Do you read what you respond to?

    “I had a real Western Civ course . . .”

    I had the advantage of never having one. I did have access to a very good public library, however. I now have access to most of the surviving literature of the world at a mouse click or four.

    ” . . . that covered Owen and the revolutions of 1848.”

    So a couple of centuries after a socialist movement I’ve already brought up here (although Scribbler took offense at the idea of pre-Marxist socialist movements and called me an idiot for invoking them). There are some pretty decent college lectures by old school classicists on YT as well, or at least there were the last time I looked (which is how I originally became aware of Jordan Peterson as well).

    “Would that be collectivist individualism or individualist individualism . . .”

    That will depend on the circumstance of where and when you are.

    ” . . . and how do these Goddess girls define “holistic”?”

    They define it as undefinable. See the article.

  15. “I don’t do conventions, and don’t read comics much.”

    I don’t do conventions or read comics at all, but I do hear about the Culture War(tm) and comics are currently one of the major fronts. Comic book heroes (and Luke Skywalker fits into that catagory) are just another type of statue to be torn down.

  16. That will depend on the circumstance of where and when you are.

    But wherever I go, there I am!

    They define it as undefinable.

    “Just Get It”….

  17. “But wherever I go, there I am!”

    Yeah, well, ya know, I love mankind, it’s people I can’t stand.

  18. ” I have read the discourse going back to Hammurabi’s Code….

    Careful. You’re gonna make heads explode talking that kind of stuff.

  19. @kfg

    Did you do your own physics, too, or did you take a course? (There’s lots on the interwebz about physics.)

    I had Owens mis-timed as 17th century, when he was early 19th century. A Utopian. The Diggers were 17th century. Of course, we could look as far back as Sparta for socialism.

    Left wing iconoclasts. Reminiscent of the Protestant Reformation.

  20. @kfg
    Would that be collectivist individualism or individualist individualism, and how do these Goddess girls define “holistic”?

    In dog-speak, “Having a hole”

  21. “Did you do your own physics, too . . .”

    I worked my way through Einstein, Eddington and Russell before I took any classes. I spent some time just hanging out with astronomers and astrophysicists on “expedition” while I was doing it.

    And if you ever have the chance I can recommend taking your observations of a solar eclipse from atop a pyramid at Monte Alban.

    I was not, nor did I have, an average youth.

    My weakness as a theoretician is that I’m rather fond of “stuff,” and getting my hands on it. Matriculating gave me access not just to professors (which I already had access to when I found it advantageous, as well as various professionals in various fields), but labs (not just physics) and a machine shop. And then there’s that whole “credentials” thinggy, but the older I get the more I understand Lazarus Long declaring that he stopped calling himself “Doctor” when they started handing out Ph.Ds to anybody for anything.

    Western Civ, on the other hand, is primarily the study of literature, although I have been “in the field” along that line as well. Somewhere in the stacks I’ve got a rubbing of the Tomb of Rabbi Lev of Prague and the Golem fame. It might well be the only one in existence, since the curator who gave permission acted like nobody had ever asked that before and it was thereafter banned.

    Timing! Sometimes its everything.

  22. And Mozilla Pocket on this fresh install of Firefox just recommended that I check out this new article on Bertrand Russell.

    Hell of a coinkidink.

  23. @kfg

    Sounds like you had a very interesting youth. I worked my way thru J.R.R. Tolkien before I took any classes…hehe…just kidding about the classes…a lot of my education has been as an adult…riffing off of the simplistic stuff I was taught in HS and college.

    Western Civ, on the other hand, is primarily the study of literature,

    I see it as being about fitting lit into the current historical faddish theory…in my time, the theory was about popular movements and ideological waves. I wasn’t convinced that the text/instructor were successful. Historians were trying to attach history to anthropology and make history “scientific”…very pretentious. A vestige of the Rationalist movement.

  24. “Historians were trying to attach history to anthropology and make history “scientific”…”

    As I noted a while ago an informal survey failed to find a single “right wing” anthropology professor. It isn’t pretentiousness, it’s “Scientific Socialism.” AKA Marxism.

    He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past.

    While you and I have our irreconcilable differences, we’re not as far apart on some things as your arguments seem to imply you believe we are.

  25. He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past

    TRUTH.

    And he who is unaware of either is a pawn.

  26. As I noted a while ago an informal survey failed to find a single “right wing” anthropology professor.

    Even right wing historians have jumped on the pretentious science bandwagon. If you can get the “scientific” label attached, you gain cred in some circles and maybe more funding.

  27. He who controls the history textbook writers controls the past. He who controls the teachers’ colleges controls the teachers.

    I’m all for gun control–putting rounds on target. I’m also for thought control–when I’m writing so that I don’t go chasing undomesticated waterfowl.

    You’ve got some cool shit. Started me thinking…I think I’ve got an autographed (by Col. Eddy) copy of “FDR meets Ibn Saud.” Somewhere. lol

  28. ” The Thirty Years’ War was a 17th-century religious conflict fought primarily in central Europe. It remains one of the longest and most brutal wars in human history, with more than 8 million casualties resulting from military battles as well as from the famine and disease caused by the conflict. The war lasted from 1618 to 1648, starting as a battle among the Catholic and Protestant states that formed the Holy Roman Empire. However, as the Thirty Years’ War evolved, it became less about religion and more about which group would ultimately govern Europe. In the end, the conflict changed the geopolitical face of Europe and the role of religion and nation-states in society.”

  29. I can read, Blax, but I didn’t understand the point of why to read about the war. If the point was that wars are started by religion, lots of wars are started that only peripherally involve religion. The secular Soviet Union, under Stalin, killed more people than the Thirty Years’ War. And the bloody War of Northern Aggression didn’t involve religion. Nor did WW2, nor WW1. All secular wars. War is just an extension of politics. Not of religion.

    Can religious rulers be oppressive? Sure. So can secular rulers. It’s a reflection of human nature, not of religion.

    One of the major participants in the Thirty Years’ War was Catholic France, which sided with German Protestant states, Sweden, Bohemia, etc. The fuse that lit the war was religious oppression by the Catholic Hapsburg king. No question about that. But that was just an excuse for Spain and Sweden to join in for political purposes of their own. The war could have been settled early on without all the political reasons for keeping it going.

    One of the lessons we learn from “Richard the Third” by the incomparable bard is that rulers will use religion for their own purposes, as Machiavelli suggested.

  30. I will requote what I quoted as the subject:

    “Groupthink occurs whenever some narrative is pushed loudly and critical voices are suppressed thru mockery and other forms of coercion.”

    The point was not so simplistic as “religion causes war*.” It was that The Church and Monarchy are elements of the set of the quote.

    And if you go on to read up on the aftermath of the war, the affect it had on culture and civilization, you will find that Voltaire is the product.

    *Vox Day has analyzed all the wars in the Encyclopedia of Wars and found that circa 7% had a fundamentally religious cause. In other words, it isn’t a major cause of wars.

    All wars, however, require sufficient groupthink to raise an army.

  31. @KFG

    What was your ancestry (that you have alluded to in the past) in relationship to the Thirty Years War?

    And feel free to be as vague as you wanna be. (You, riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, you.)

  32. All wars, however, require sufficient groupthink to raise an army.

    The Thirty Years War, in particular, made heavy use of mercenary units. The only groupthink there was to make a buck. Paid for in some cases with money taken from confiscating Roman Catholic Church property.

    The groupthink may be as simple as “We gotta defend ourselves”, which was the case for the Confederacy in the War of Northern Aggression and France in WW2.

    Certainly, to raise an army to start a war requires groupthink. Starting a war requires groupthink if the army is made up of the citizenry.

  33. And if you go on to read up on the aftermath of the war, the affect it had on culture and civilization, you will find that Voltaire is the product.

    …who started an entirely new groupthink of his own…because most war isn’t about grabbing resources or solidifying power, you see, it’s about religion and monarchy!!!! The seeds of socialism….

    WW2 was about grabbing resources, Thirty Years War was about grabbing resources/solidifying power (except for the religious fuse), The War of Northern Aggression was about getting taxes from the South, Iraq/Iran War was about resources, Iraq invasion of Kuwait was about resources, Desert Storm was a defensive war. The American Revolutionary War was groupthink by secular-republican politicians. Ditto for lots of Latin American revolutions.

    Many Indian wars were due to Indians lacking resources or attempts to grab Indian property.

    The War of the Roses was about gaining power.

  34. “The seeds of socialism….”

    And the seeds of Woody Guthrie’s socialism was . . . the New Testament.

    “When Jesus come to town, all the working folks around
    Believed what he did say
    But the bankers and the preachers, they nailed Him on the cross,
    And they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.”

    Go figure.

    “What was your ancestry (that you have alluded to in the past) in relationship to the Thirty Years War?”

    My father’s family dealt with it by getting the hell out of Dodge (or Devon, as the case may be) as Bay Colony separatists. So I think it reasonable to believe that he would have denounced the behavior of his papist scum cousin on the Continent.

  35. My point was that socialists see religion and monarchy (and capitalism) as the source of human evil. As did Voltaire. And you. But, if groupthink is an evil, then anything that creates groupthink is an evil, including secular republicanism, if it creates groupthink.

    Woodie had a weird way of reading the NT. The Sadducees allowed moneychanging for the purpose of sacrifice in the Temple–they didn’t lend money, so they weren’t bankers. The Pharisees were religious leaders, so the preacher charge is sort of apt.

    And wasn’t it strange that a lot of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were preachers if they were establishing a secular republic (“Endowed by our Creator”). (I’d use the term “nondenominational”, not “secular”; a secular republic would prohibit religious practice–e.g., the Soviets)

    Some of the “Protestant” princes “converted” from Catholicism so that they could steal Church property. (Lest you think that I don’t see misbehavior on the Protestant side of the Thirty Years War.)

    But how do you categorize the NT? A religious book? It mandates “testing all things” (to avoid naivete) and values liberty highly, which seems strange if religion necessarily promotes groupthink. I see idealism and ideologies promoting groupthink. If religion is pursued in an idealistic or ideological manner, then I can see it promoting groupthink. But aren’t idealism and ideologies more a characteristic of the naive (which tend to be young)? So, the problem isn’t religion, or monarchy, but idealism and ideologies. Naivete.

    So maybe we’re not so far apart. Even Blax. But we’re nowhere near Voltaire, who fails to diagnose the problem of groupthink accurately, blaming incidental bystanders–monarchy and religion.

  36. “My point was that socialists see religion and monarchy (and capitalism) as the source of human evil. As did Voltaire. And you.”

    Yer smokin’ s’hrooms.

  37. Roused,

    “@foxguy – I’d be interested in hearing more.”

    You are on the right track, the collapse is not a single event, it’s a series of small events that then snowball into medium sized events and then the relevant authorities step forward to take control to prevent a large event, whether it’s financial or security based.

    A big part of the human condition is that of envy, while yes most American’s are indeed well off compared to the rest of the world , that’s not what the average American is comparing against, they are comparing against what they see on TV, social media, internet, etc. This is an unreasonable comparison because what we see there may not be actual reality and if it is we are looking at the top of the pyramid, but the average person doesn’t process it that way, it activates their envy switch, I believe envy was very advantageous evolutionary in our recent past, still is to an extent, it’s very a very powerful process and is a big driver for human beings. A big part of the far left is driven by envy, as well as the far right but not for the exact same reasons as the left.

    Most people have a gut feeling/sense they are being screwed financially, they may not be able to point at the exact cause but they sense it and it’s there in the back of their mind. The screwing is happening via inflation of the monetary supply thereby decreasing any wealth they happen to accumulate, which both the far left and the far right love to engage in when they gain power.

    The collapse is not necessarily a bad thing either, something that is rotten in the end cannot stand, therefore something new must be reborn out of the ashes.

  38. I was too full to eat the shrooms, so I had to smoke ’em.

    So put the cookies on the lower shelf. Please explain why Voltaire was the product of the TYW.

  39. I believe envy was very advantageous evolutionary in our recent past

    Ah, yes, an appeal to the evolutionary narrative…can’t question evolution because then you’d be questioning Science…so, if you want to stifle dissent from groupthink, just wave the evolution flag…do you also see this, kfg and blax?

  40. Sentient, looks like not just pussy pass but “abused by a man!” pass, maybe “immigrant from different culture” pass as well. Given that it’s a story from Minnesota I’m surprised she’s getting anything remotely like punishment at all.

  41. On an unrelated note, Rollo, my nephew’s eighteenth birthday is in three and a half years. Presumably he’ll be out of his parents house and away at college. I’m going to buy The Rational Male for his birthday present. I wish someone had told me all this when I was his age.

  42. “You are on the right track, the collapse is not a single event, it’s a series of small events that then snowball into medium sized events and then the relevant authorities step forward to take control to prevent a large event, whether it’s financial or security based.”

    These events look an awful lot like investment bubbles bursting,S&L’s failing,large corporations going belly up,insurance companies failing basically anything that would precipitate an economic bailout printing spree.

    “A big part of the human condition is that of envy”

    This is more of a conditioning than a natural condition,it is a perversion of recognizing an advantage. In our recent past we learned how to fish not how to get free fish.

    “, while yes most American’s are indeed well off compared to the rest of the world , that’s not what the average American is comparing against, they are comparing against what they see on TV, social media, internet, etc. This is an unreasonable comparison because what we see there may not be actual reality and if it is we are looking at the top of the pyramid, but the average person doesn’t process it that way, it activates their envy switch,”

    Again this envy is a learned response,much the same way hate is taught at a young age. Keep in mind children can also be taught how to create the things they desire,or even earn them.

    “I believe envy was very advantageous evolutionary in our recent past, still is to an extent, it’s very a very powerful process and is a big driver for human beings. A big part of the far left is driven by envy, as well as the far right but not for the exact same reasons as the left.”

    Envy as such has never been advantageous to anyone,recognizing an advantage and learning a new method of operating however was and is a powerful process. I still believe left and right are just a distraction from constructive endeavor.What is really tearing them apart is greed and power lust,ironic as these are the same things they use as tools to get control in the first place.

    “Most people have a gut feeling/sense they are being screwed financially, they may not be able to point at the exact cause but they sense it and it’s there in the back of their mind. The screwing is happening via inflation of the monetary supply thereby decreasing any wealth they happen to accumulate, which both the far left and the far right love to engage in when they gain power.”

    They really have no choice,government is to big,it has outgrown the populace that it “serves” the only way to support it is through borrowing,this causes inflation

    “You are on the right track, the collapse is not a single event, it’s a series of small events that then snowball into medium sized events and then the relevant authorities step forward to take control to prevent a large event, whether it’s financial or security based.”

    The financial collapse has already happened,small and mid-sized events happen all the time they evacuate set up checkpoints , camps and bailouts people pull together and donate time food and lots of money to help.

    What would cause the biggest stir is com net failure,the modern world would be lost and lean heavily on the “have-not’s”

    it always cracks me up when some semi rich cat thinks he has what I want,when I have what he needs,true knowledge,skill,talent and resources.

  43. I have a fair bit of” secret, covert knowledge, privy only to a chosen few “ about real, important things that demonstrably occurred in the remote past. Unfortunately it’s all about some obscure aspects of archeology, unknown even to most academics, just to a very few obsessive noseyparkers
    “.. then you’ve got an attentive listener in a woman”. Not, in fact never, in my experience. Too much simple yet consequential detail involved, they become woozy and disoriented, and finally enraged.
    Even though they begged to be let in on the “secrets” and “mysteries”.
    No longer mysterious enough, I suppose. Just dull boring grimy stinky subsistence farmers fucking around with rocks and timber, thousands of years ago. Oh look a squirrel ..

    “Never let daylight in on magic”.
    tl;dr women crave only that Sekrit Nollij which leads to .. POWER! Over others.

  44. You see muslims avoided this problem…
    When a woman menstruates she is exempt from her 5 daily prayers. So in effect, women can never get as close to god as men, since they usually dont pray for a few days a month unless…………..she gets pregnant, only then can she experience 9+ months of uninterrupted prayer to God.
    God bless fellas.

  45. “Why is it impossible to mention JBP in any critical respect and have it not be a “swipe”? Questions fanbois need to consider.”

    @Rollo because “critical” implies an informed critique, not an off-hand remark that belies a lack of understanding of the very thing supposedly being criticized.

    There are valid reasons to criticize JBP – the offense he takes at people trying to pin him down on his definition of God, for one – but this isn’t one of them. His explanation of the “Divine Feminine” isn’t remotely related to the “Goddess” phenomenon.

  46. Why is it impossible to call out a bullshit correlation between a New Age chick-crack concept and some ancient archetypal model that JBP explained once without being called a “fanboi”? Questions Rollo needs to consider.

Leave a Reply