One of my commenters asks “Why not just become Muslim?”

I presume he means conservative Muslim, since a whole lot of Muslims are pozzed, are not breeding and not getting any pussy.

That is the Mormon solution (control women’s socialization) plus the orthodox Jewish solution (make female status artificially low), plus the ever popular individual male solution (illegal violence or the quiet potential for it) plus you turn off the Cathedral’s ever vigilant immune system plus you have a pre-existing community. (Just grow a wildman beard, attend mosque, and you are in like Flynn.) If you want to marry those eighteen year old socially conservative virgins, you need high socioeconomic status (they are in high demand), which leads to a problem with the wildman beard (tricky to have high socioeconomic status with the wildman beard), but that one is easier to navigate than political correctness, plus if you are Muslim you get a pass for all political incorrectness relating to gays and women. No one is going to ask a Halal bakery to bake a gay wedding cake. I see a lot of engineers putting on a dress and declaring that they are trans women in order to get ahead. Declaring yourself to be a Muslim almost makes you trans brown. Should be almost as good for your career as declaring yourself a trans woman, a whole lot better for your sex life than declaring yourself a trans woman, and the wildman beard is not nearly as bad as the dress. You also get a free pass to be manly, which helps with the ridiculous beard. If you lift iron and do a little bit of high intensity training, the beard will not look quite as bad.

Plus this is the solution we are going to get if we don’t do anything dramatic, if we continue to drift along our present course, if the passengers don’t attack the cockpit and kill whoever is flying the plane to its doom. Wherever we get data on Muslim births in Western countries the data shows that Muslims are massively outbreeding the natives. I assume this is conservative Muslims, since anecdote suggests that pozzed Muslims have the same dreadfully low reproductive rate as pozzed Jews. Islam is quietly becoming the official religion, in that sacrilege against Islam effectively carries the death penalty (in most western countries if you drop bacon on the pavement outside a mosque the judge will give you a jail term comparable to that which he gives for raping and murdering small children, and while you are in jail some Muslims will kill you while the prison authorities turn a blind eye, like the blind eye Berkeley police turn to black bloc beating up pro-trump protestors) while sacrilege against Christianity is almost mandatory: (Gay wedding cake, Church required to pay for abortions, Pope kisses the feet of aids infested homosexual transvestite prostitutes, government funded sacrilegious “art”, free pass for gays and feminists to physically attack Christians and disrupt religious services.)

So, you ask, what is not to like?

What is not to like is that when Islam conquers a civilization, that civilization dies. When people talk about the great achievements of Islamic civilization, they are actually talking about the achievements of peoples enslaved by Muslims, and what remained of their libraries after the Muslims finished looting them for toilet paper and kindling.

The Trinity is God the father who, though he might seem pretty mean to merely mortal perception, is limited by law and logic, the God that can command genocide, but cannot lie, thus is compatible with science, a more approachable God the son, who is wholly man and wholly God, who experienced every suffering that mortal flesh suffers, including the sense of abandonment by God, and the Holy spirit, who talks to people.

Because the Christian God the Father imposes limits upon himself, unlike Allah, science is possible, and Christians do not have to say “God willing” all the time. The limitless and arbitrary caprice of Allah makes science impious, and promises impious. A good Christian says “I will do so and so”, and then does it. A good Muslim says “I will do so and so, God willing”, and then very likely does not do it.

If the Christian God decides to create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it, then he cannot lift it. Allah cannot create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it. Kind of like playing Solitaire. There is nothing preventing you or God from cheating at solitaire, but then there would be no point to the game. The Christian God not only throws dice, he throws dice where even he cannot see them. He is omniscient but we have free will. Allah, on the other hand, cheats at Solitaire. Hence no Islamic science.

The Christian God the Father cannot lie. The Muslim Allah lied all the time. During Mohammed’s career, Allah would declare one thing, that was convenient for Mohammed at the time, and then when convenient for Mohammed, would declare a different thing. Which is why science and promises are impious if you are a sincere Muslim.

Judeo Christianity sucks. We need Christian Christianity. The trouble with Judaism is that they keep reinventing their religion all the time to accommodate the times and the surrounding society, as any group in exile must, but keep torturing their holy texts to prove that they are not reinventing their religion. This results in an alarmingly creative attitude to truth, promises, and contracts. A negro or a Muslim will just casually break a promise or a contract. A Jew will not break a promise or contract outright, but he is apt to find, and with great chutzpah proclaim, an ingenious and surprising meaning for the promise, the bet, or the contract, much as he is apt to find, and with great chutzpah proclaim, an ingenious and surprising meaning for the words of his holy books. Hence the failure of Orthodox Jews to contribute much to science, compared to prog, atheist, and agnostic Jews, who have contributed immensely to science. Almost every Jew who has made important scientific progress finds the Orthodox Jew twisting and torturing his holy books to be rather ridiculous.

It also means that Judeo Christianity is not really capable of resisting progressivism. I have had a debate with by Jewish commenters as to whether Jewish Orthodoxy or Christianity is better and resisting progressivism, and I ask, where is the Jewish Phil Robertson?

Christianity inherits its solution to theodicity from the Jews in substantial part.

1. Evil exists because of human and satanic choices, free will. Genesis: Fall of man in the Garden of Eden was caused by, and caused, consequences remarkably similar to those one would expect in a universe of where natural selection and evolutionary psychology are true.

2. God allows evil because God is trying us, wants to see what we are made of, wants us to make hard choices that really matter. Book of Job.

3. The goodness and greatness of God is beyond mortal comprehension. If it does not make sense to us, if it looks to us that God is a mean bastard, hard biscuit. Book of Job.

But Christianity also inherited the Greek philosophers’ concept of the unnamed one god, God as the underlying cause, reason, and logic of the universe.

4. God created an orderly universe of cause and effect, and thus mere flesh and blood is apt to get squished as the cold logic of the universe unfolds.

You will notice that these features of Christianity support a world where truth is spoken, promises are kept, and science is actually scientific. Which is a big part of why it was Christians that made the scientific and Industrial Revolutions, not Jews and not Muslims, why it will be Christians that settle space and conquer the universe. (Maybe atheists are better at building rocket ships, but they will not have the children to fly those rocket ships to new worlds and settle them.)

What we need to do is import the good parts of Islam into Christianity: Patriarchy, repression of women, execution of homosexuals, holy war, intolerance of sacrilege, intolerance of heresy, and intolerance of apostacy. Retain the good bits of Christianity, the trinity, the attitude to logic, reason and law, the Orthodox communion of the saints, where the final authority on faith, doctrine, interpretation of the bible, and morals, is ancient Christians. Keep the Episcopalian married clergy, plus Episcopalian subordination to earthly authority. Decorate the result with a few Episcopalian symbols and call the result Episcopalianism, and make it the official state religion of the US empire in place of progressivism, with all other religions subordinated to it, second class, and unequally backed by the state. In school, kids get taught that official Episcopalianism is wise, good, and right, and all other religions are stupid, much as today they are taught that official progressivism is wise, good, and right, and all other religions (except possibly Islam) are stupid and evil.

We always have an official state religion: As Boldmug tells us:

The trouble is basically that sovereignty is conserved. If you try to design a political system that discards some element of sovereignty, like the right of the state to promote truth and suppress error, a parallel, informal state will rush into this gap and fill it.

Since control over information is incredibly powerful in the age of broadcast media, this parallel state will become the strongest organ in the actual government. It will be completely irresponsible and unaccountable, since it’s not even part of the official state. But there is no political, economic, or intellectual check on its operations. Once again, sovereignty is conserved.

This sovereign information-delivery system naturally assumes the religious imperiousness we expect from an intellectual sovereign. It is also disorganized, centerless and leaderless, which means there is no possible way for it to feel pity or shame. Sound familiar?

There is no way to disestablish religion. It’s just an unsolvable engineering problem. If the state disavows its religious authority, all it’s doing is disavowing control over that authority. Which leaves said authority in a perfect position to control the state. So the nominal objective of separating church and state leads naturally to the theocratic state. This is not a new phenomenon in Anglo-American history.

Even if you don’t care about quality of government, but just about quality of thought, putting the church in charge of the state — ie, the nerds in charge of the jocks — has a nasty effect on quality of thought. Thought is distorted not by the repulsive force of a fascist jock state that discriminates against nerds, but rather by the attractive force that offers free power to power-craving nerds.

The state which disavows religion is basically a flawed engineering structure that’s leaking power. The power leak has a horrific evolutionary effect on the nerd population, basically favoring sniveling, student-government weasels over good sensible open-minded people. Noticed anything like this around you? Anyone? Bueller?

This is only one of many reasons why humanity flourishes under leaders who unite both nerd and jock qualities, ie, true aristocracies, and has serious difficulties when these qualities are opposed or even just divided.

Anarcho capitalism is apt to tempt some more cohesive group, like Muslims, to come in and kill the men, and take your property and women, and separation of church and state is apt to lead to a hostile and cohesive religion taking over your state. Progressivism took over from Christianity, and in due course Islam will take over from progressivism.

Back in the seventeenth century, the Church was the mainstream media and the education system, and Charles the first appointed the archbishop and the Bishops, and the Church damn well taught what he wanted. The puritans, of course, felt this was a very bad thing, and were all in favour of religious freedom (except that they agreed that atheists and Roman Catholics should be executed) In 1640, they seized power, Bishops were in effect abolished, and the Established Church was formally stripped of almost all its power – while informally becoming Puritan, a hundred times as powerful, a hundred times as intrusive, and a hundred times as oppressive. Formally and officially the Puritans brought freedom of conscience, informally and unofficially they brought brutal religious repression.

Which is pretty much what we have today, except that today’s Puritans are holier than God.

In 1660 Charles the second returned, bringing with him official formal theocracy. The Archbishop crowns the King, and the King appoints the Archbishop. The Archbishop tells the Bishops what to say and think, the Bishops tell the priests what to say and think, and the priests tell the assembled congregations what to say and think. The British people celebrated this enthusiastically, recognizing the formal theocracy as abolishing informal theocracy. They celebrated by engaging in pagan festivals such as maypole dancing, that had been cruelly suppressed by the Puritans.

If we are openly ditching the first amendment, what about the second? Well, it turns out it is mighty difficult to deny organized hostile groups arms, so you might as well allow your support base to carry arms, as in Iraq. Ideas are more powerful than guns. The dictator Sadam Hussein of Iraq did not allow his people ideas, but he did allow them full auto military style weapons. Looks like he knew what he was doing.

All married property owning men, all soldiers, all cops, all authorized mercenaries, all rentacops, and all security watchmen should be allowed to keep and bear arms, because in a well functioning society, that is the ruler’s base of support. He looks after them, and they look after him. The rest, probably not. Not single men, nor men without property, because they have nothing to lose, and therefore will likely fail to defend society and uphold order. Guards and suchlike have been vetted that they will protect protect property and order, so should be allowed to keep and bear arms even if they do not have wives and property.