The Lavender Mafia wears purple.

They've also limited themselves to property crimes so far- they started with vandalism and arson, and have now progressed to the frivolous lawsuit scam.

Catholicism is specifically an anti-state-like organization. Power is limited to the least competent authority in the hierarchy, the higher you go, the less power you have.

Kind of like on Babylon 5- when Londo had no power, he had the freedom to do whatever he wished, when he became emperor of Alpha Centauri, he had zero freedom at all.

That's why I am against Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. It reserves far too much power for the central government, and does not leave enough power with local cities and counties to protect themselves.

Libertarianism is full of meddlesome engineering- that's what Ludwig Von Mises was writing about. Yeah, it's not as outright evil as Stalin, but the intent is the same- engineer a system for maximum profit for a small group at the expense of everybody else.

Is the only form of progress statist?

I have a tendency to think of libertarianism and "freedom from" to be extremely progressive. As in, progressing in the wrong direction on bad data and individual whim.

I'd certainly call the Nation of Islam and its militant wing the Black Panthers a black mafia. All revolutionaries have a tendency to adopt the worst of what they are fighting against, that's the reason the KGB exists, a copy of the Czar's secret police.

The last shall be first, and the first last, ring a bell?

Not on that you aren't. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a four star resort amusement park for Saints.

It's a comment deep down in a thread, but if you'd like to read the whole thread, it's at http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/christians-must-go-offensive-gay-mafia. I personally prefer the Benedict Option.

I tried to comment on something about progress, then it claimed I was posting anonymously, logged me out, and when I logged back in the comment on progress was gone. I'm going to post my response anyway.

I think I finally found a big hole in all human progress. Human beings are short term thinkers. That's why we base our transportation system on fossil fuels that can't be easily replenished; that's why "progressives" base their romantic escapades on non-sustainable procreative strategies like serial adultery and homosexuality. That's why when the "scientific Green Revolution" came to Bali and overturned a few thousand years of theological agriculture to try to increase rice production, the whole ecology went out of whack.

No long term view. And that's why this Gleichschaltung, like all others before it, will fall.

My only question is, when will Northern Europeans in general realize that what they think is progress, is extremely short term thinking?

I think they still were- but you can see the Republican Cronies in those companies whose business was utterly destroyed by a failure to provide contraception and abortion coverage.

2nd potential mechanism. Due to competition for rare leadership positions, serfs showing leadership potential are killed outright, leaving behind only those with brains enough to do the job that the lord wants them to do. Once a dynasty and traditional economy are established, eight nor nine generations of this and you'll end up with a genetic separation between "noble blood/highborn" and "serf/lowborn" populations.

For an extreme comedic version of this, see https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCscVT3d-EEQsq-5rPozTyJw/, these English actors portrayed the four class English system perfectly, complete with simulated IQ levels.

In feudalism, and in certain forms of tribalism, the chief/King and his family eat first, and then everybody else eats what is left over from their table. (in Calapuya Chinook, the title of the chief was the Hias Mucktymuck- quite literally "the dude sitting at the head of the table", from which we get the saying "Lord High MucktyMuck"). I'd call that a very powerful selection mechanism.

I like this. It also fits the Cain and Abel hunter-gatherer vs agriculturalist interpretation.

I suspect that evolution is involved. Those who have power in society are making the decisions and thus NEED the larger brains. Those whose grandfathers were ditch diggers and under 99% of the societies ever designed would be ditch diggers themselves, didn't need big brains and in fact were better able to survive without them.