More elaboration than could fit into Steem’s 16KiB limit for my prior comment post to which this comment replies:

A high trust society Western Christian might not work diligently and with absolute asceticism, but he/she will at least refrain from overt theft to satiate covetousness preferring instead (at least the kick-the-can, mortgage the future, ephemeral illusion of) the prosperous cooperation of peace (although will self-deceptively instead steal from self+collective via the obfuscation of demo[n]cratic redistribution). Whereas low trust societies believe that the savagery of life is reality and every individual must get his/her own albeit perhaps with an exception for immediate clan members.

[…] holier-than-thou atheists misinterpret as the Christian God being evil because even with their self-claimed “152+ I.Q.” they’re incapable of understanding.

“Holier-than-thou atheists” who thus create a dogmatic, innocence-seeking Good vs. Evil holiness spiral power vacuum megadeath:

[…] When Gnon defines good and evil, he is telling you that some people and some behaviors make it very hard to achieve cooperate/cooperate equilibrium […] The Old Testament told us to pay attention to tribal taboos and copybook headings. The book of Proverbs is copybook headings, and the book of Deuteronomy is tribal taboos. But in Old Testament times, they had good and working social technology. The New Testament told us to judge a tree by its fruits. In the cold and cynical language of the Dark Enlightenment, the New Testament tells us that when the tribal taboos get holiness spiraled, they are likely to be really bad social technology […] The Jews thought it was more important to observe the pharisaic law on attending synagogue and the pharisaic law on avoiding blood contamination by walking on ground on which chicken blood had been spilled, than to observe the commandments of Gnon on coveting, on theft, and on murder […] Commies kill their friends.

The holy continually invent new ways to be ever more holy. Which, because universalism and utilitarianism, requires the continual invention of new and ever more terrible harms caused by inadequate holiness. White privilege. Male privilege. Therefore, being white and male, you are committing all manner of terrible harms, and should rightly be hated and punished. So the sincere leftist will hate you and punish you.

It is defect/defect equilibrium, because the leftist perceives all near as defectors. You cannot establish cooperate/cooperation equilibrium with a leftist, because his perception of cooperation is defective, just as his perception of female sexual desire is defective.

Near is supposedly oppressing far. So the more he hates near the holier he is. The more he harms near, the holier he is

IOW, leftists are idealists (the antithesis of realists and pragmatism) thus implicitly demanding either perfection or if perfection is impossible then they’re effectively working towards Satanic (w(h)or(e)ship) nothing-at-all aka nihilism, defeatism, fatalism, self-deprecation and “fuckitall pill” savagery.

It Can Be Worse

Leftist males frequently want to cut their own balls off, because they are ashamed and horrified by how much they are oppressing women. But even more, they want to cut your balls off. Especially if you are scoring more pussy than they are, which you probably are.

A leftist just hates you, he hates his fellow leftists, and he hates himself. He will try to harm you and frequently does. Sometimes he will harm himself in the course of harming you.

[…]

Leftists are nicer and politer than rightists, in part because they are always worried about microaggressions, in part because all bad language oppresses some official victim group, in part because they tend to have no real friends, thus feel weak individually, and unable to openly confront people individually.

IOW, a power vacuum because nobody is taking charge to say “STFU, stop the nonsense.”

Kathy Forth was industriously destroying the lives of people in Scott Alexander’s social circle, and everyone was far too nice and far to polite to call her out for it or speak up in the defense of those she damaged.

Scott Alexander on his social circle’s response to an evil and insane woman causing immense damage: “I do think that the people who work on making sure harassment allegations get heard and dealt with have done a really great job, and often while Kathy was stalking them and their friends, and I commend that”

That politeness and niceness is truly astonishing. Approaching Pol Pot levels of politeness and niceness. It is absolutely obvious that Scott’s social circle is outstandingly nice and polite. But really lousy friends. They were throwing each other to crocodile in the hope of being last to devoured.

Pol Pot, who murdered everyone with any connection to himself, was a famously nice man. Everyone who met him and survived (which is not very many of those who met him) reported on how remarkably nice he was. None of his family, none of the classmates he went to school with as a child, survived. The amazingly nice Pol Pot was so nice as to eradicate anyone who obstructed immanentizing the eschaton. And since eschaton failed to immanentize, it was obvious that no end of people were obstructing it.

The collapse of faith in government and social institutions (which we and Trump are riding) is happening because leftists not only behave badly collectively, they behave badly individually. A leftist government is apt to murder millions, and a leftist sister is apt to murder her brother for the inheritance […] The average leftist would like to kill you, and will steal anything not nailed down. The holiness spiral heads to war, because it destroys cooperation, because it destroys the words “Good” and “Evil”, destroys the meaning of those words.

The end state of this collapse of cooperation is war, frequently the state making one sided war upon its disarmed subjects.

[…]

When I hear leftists talking in moralistic language, they use that language in the same way they use the symbols and language of Christianity, to desecrate and denigrate. They hate goodness and decency and want to destroy it, they shrink from it as a vampire shrinks from sunlight, or Merkel famously shrank from the German flag. They use the language of virtue and goodness like satanists inverting the symbols of Christianity in sacrilegious rituals. “Piss Christ” fails to impress me as an indication of heartfelt Christianity, and leftist claims to be in favor of fairness are as convincing as communist claims to be in favor of the peasants. “Land to the tiller”.

Did the tiller get land?

The communists stole his land, and mortgages in the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown were distributed in a way that was a savagely and destructively unfair as it was possible to be. The people who say “Think of our Children” also issued “10 10 No Pressure”. They don’t want to save the earth for our children, any more than the communists intended to give land to the tiller. They want to murder our children in order to save the earth, and are not shy about saying so.

The warmists want to murder our children, the communists are so vitally concerned about fairness that they want to take the tiller’s land and the worker’s house and force them all to live in giant Le Corbusier Housing projects. Is it fair to take the tiller’s land?

Complex societies are the result of males cooperating – and the male capacity to cooperate is the result of selection for collective action to hog the most women.

Failure of the elite to reproduce reflects breakdown of cooperation within the elite. The state religion contains the social technology for cooperation within the elite, thus failure of the elite to reproduce reflects a dysfunctional state religion promoting a dysfunctional moral code, a moral code that prevents cooperation, an evil moral code.

@Jim blogged in The puritan hypothesis in short:

[…] If Christ is the incarnation, then he is, among other things, the incarnation of the logos, and interpretations of his words that give him meanings incompatible with game theory and evolutionary psychology should be treated as heresy […] The death of God led to the death of western philosophy […] And eventually to the death of science, for if there is no truth, what is science? […] An individual atheist scientist can do fine science, but science as a collective endeavor, as a social endeavor, requires a shared belief in the pursuit of truth, and we just have not been successful at maintaining a shared belief in truth without God. Hence the reproducibility crisis and peer review, which replaces evidence with social consensus. Robert Boyle told us that if a scientist talks about consensus, he is likely dishonest, and, honest or not, is facilitating dishonesty. He who believes in consensus, has no regard for truth. Robert Boyle tells us that if a prominent expert tells you experts agree, or gives you third hand evidence, what they supposedly agree upon is unlikely to be true. The supposed expert consensus is being manipulated, and you are being manipulated. If the supposed consensus was not being manipulated, they would invoke evidence from primary sources, not consensus nor third hand evidence […] We should be peaceful to all men of goodwill. A few centuries ago Europe achieved a highly successful social technology for peace on earth, for avoiding terrifying and immensely destructive wars, which social technology which was lost during the twentieth century […]

@Jim blogged in The puritan hypothesis in short:

Observing leftism in action, it is all holiness spirals. Social Justice Warriors continually out left each other and form circular firing squads. Every few years they find something new to be holy about. There is no consistent and unchanging core of leftism. One day they love the proletariat the next they hate the rednecks. One day they love the peasants, the next they liquidate the kulaks. The only consistent things in anglosphere leftism have been war on marriage and war on Christmas, but other outbreaks of leftism have not had those elements.

Leftism is a thousand points of doctrine, but new points continually get added, and old points reinterpreted, or altogether dropped. Remember when Obama and Clinton opposed Gay Marriage? Well you may remember, but somehow very few other people do.

The Bolsheviks were a largely an evil Jewish conspiracy – except that the Jews in question were largely self hating Jews, who proceeded to enthusiastically purge each other until Hitler was able to congratulate the Soviets on having achieved a Judenfrei ruling elite. The Khmer Rouge were foreign educated intellectuals, who proceeded to murder all the foreign educated intellectuals, then all the intellectuals, then murder most Khmer Rouge members who could count.

When I read up the writings of the proto puritans, the members of the Church of England who were industriously being ever holier – well at first it was conventional Christian holiness. Very sincere people being very holy. Suspiciously holy. Then, by the time the Puritans set off for America, it was conventional Christian holiness that had turned distinctly pharisaical. And then by the later Cromwell years, the most holy were pushing standard twentieth century leftism, which so alarmed Cromwell that he cracked down.

Communism is not directly puritan descended, though Marx was influenced by the leftists suppressed by Cromwell, and proceeded to do to Judaism what they had done to Christianity. Marxist Dialectics is Talmudism transmogrified into left wing politics […] Harvard was the state Church of New England. Harvard conquered America, and then the world

And then the part where I diverge from Jim in my understanding (which I had mentioned in 2014):

If the world was currently ruled by the Soviet Union, then Jew hypothesis would be largely true. But it is ruled by the US state department, which wants Israel destroyed, so the Jew hypothesis is largely false, and the Puritan hypothesis is true

In 2015 I wrote “Never follow a person who censors”.