In social groups where relatedness among interacting individuals is low, cooperation can often only be maintained through mechanisms that repress competition among group members.
In other words, when relatedness among interacting individuals is low — this means a diverse society — it is difficult to maintain cooperation, requiring either a police state or “repress[ed] competition” a.k.a. equality.
Societies that are not diverse are comprised of individuals who have roughly the same inclinations, wants and abilities. For them to cooperate is easy, since everyone knows what the general agenda is and few are far removed from it. But with diversity, people have no internal compass wiring that tells them which direction to take. This means that people compete on the basis of challenges offered by the lowest common denominator in society — jobs, products, social events — because culture is invisible on that level, since it is interpreted through a relatively small group of people who are able to understand it. Without culture, there is only mass culture, and that is what diversity promotes, which then in turn requires equality to keep people from clobbering each other with aggressive competition.
This study produced two other solid conclusions and one that seems a misinterpretation:
This comparison revealed full support for all three predictions of evolutionary policing theory.
First, when controlling for policing efforts, crime rate correlated negatively with the similarity among citizens. This is in line with the prediction that high similarity results in higher levels of cooperative self-restraint (i.e. lower crime rates) because it aligns the interests of individuals.
Second, policing effort correlated negatively with the similarity among citizens, supporting the prediction that more policing is required to enforce cooperation in low-similarity societies, where individuals’ interests diverge most.
High similarity results in higher cooperative self-restraint; low similarity results in lower cooperative self-restraint, symbolized by crime but extending to all other areas of society. In other words, diversity is chaos, and nationalism is order. This much makes sense by the use of logical facts such as that cooperation requires a high amount of internal communication if it is not innate because of the similarity in focus, ability and purpose of those involved.
However, the third point offers some confusion:
Third, increased policing efforts were associated with reductions in crime rates, indicating that policing indeed enforces cooperation.
Science often draws overbroad conclusions. Policing may simply remove those with enough sensitivity or intelligence to react to the situation around them, leaving only the oblivious, which represents a loss of shared culture instead of an enhancement of competition.
As with many Leftist attacks, this one begins with a social appeal, progresses to one fact, then draws overbroad conclusions from that and goes to a crazy place. The headline screams “The future is mixed-race” and it features a picture of a cute, mostly-white kid to make you think everything will be ducky.
But when we look further, we see the usual logical sleight-of-hand and circular reasoning that seems to define Leftist propaganda:
Recent insights from the sequencing of hundreds of thousands of human genomes in the past decade have revealed that our species’ history has been punctuated by many episodes of migration and genetic exchange. The mixing of human groups is nothing new.
What is new is the rate of mixing currently underway. Globalisation means that our species is more mobile than ever before. International migration has reached record highs, as has the number of interracial marriages, leading to a surge of multiracial people such as Shewmake.
It is so subtle you might miss it: in the past, groups which no longer exist today merged to form highly distinctive groups. This happened because they were close to each other and were in the process of improving themselves to the point where ethnic groups are today. In other words, this was evolution.
But now, instead of merging groups in a beneficial way, we are merely mixing randomly, and erasing groups in the process, replacing them with… what?
Let us assume that race-mixing happens all the time and has throughout history, and then look at it as a method of evolution, and compare different results from different areas.
For example, we can look at the Romans, who were a hybrid of Etruscans and ancient Greeks (in theory). Did it work for them? They had a great empire, for a time, and then it fell apart. Were these two groups closely related, or not? History suggests that since there were blonde and red-haired Romans, the Romans were much like modern Western Europeans, which suggests that these groups were more similar than disparate.
But then, we have plenty of other examples of race-mixing. For example, Pakistan is what happens when Muslim invaders mix with local Hindu populations. Vietnam is a merging of Asian groups, Brazil is an ethnic free-for-all, Iraq is a mixture of Persian and Arab, and Eastern Europe shows a mixing of Europeans with Asiatics. How has mixing worked out for those places?
Then we might look at Israel, a group with ancient origins that has steadily increased the amount of European in the mix over the years. Obviously this group was doing well in the past, and is doing even better now. Can we attribute that improvement to miscegenation? Probably not entirely. But the point is that sometimes, blending in other advanced tribes can help a small tribe.
But as far as bigger groups, when they blend, the result is going to be more like Iraq or Pakistan: the attributes of the larger group, formed through aeons of evolution, are adulterated by something different — it does not have to be “bad” or “good,” “superior” or “inferior,” merely different — which removes all of that refinement. A specific thing becomes a generic one.
This is why Vietnamese, Filipinos, Mexican indios, Pakistanis, Brazilians, Southern Italians and Thai people look very similar: they are roughly the same racial recipe, with similar amounts of Semite, Caucasian, and Asian leading to similar appearances. They might have something else in common: none of these societies are particularly functional.
So when you hear the argument that race mixing is inevitable and it is good, reflect on this. No method is universally good, and “good” depends on who is doing it and how, because that is what regulates results. Results are more important than categories like good and bad based on social feelings. And if you look at results, it becomes clear that race-mixing is neither all bad, nor particularly good.
In most situations, race-mixing leads to the death of civilization. The once-distinctive group loses its unique traits, becomes generic, and then creates yet another generic human civilization, which is basically subsistence existence with disorganized social order in the Thirdworld™ style. That is the future of random race-mixing.
Contrary to what the article says, race-mixing is not inevitable because the choice remains up to the individuals involved. Some people will race-mix; some always have. But those who want a non-thirdworld future for their descendants are probably against it. And so instead of our inevitable future, race-mixing looks more like a way of purging some people from among us, as a prelude to sending them away…
Humans migrated out of Africa at least 50,000 years ago and occupied many different ecological and climatological niches. Because of this, they evolved slightly different anatomical and physiological traits. For example, Tibetans evolved various traits that help them cope with the rigors of altitude; similarly, the Inuit evolved various traits that help them cope with the challenges of a very cold environment. It is likely that humans also evolved slightly different psychological traits as a response to different selection pressures in different environments and niches. One possible example is the high intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jewish people.
This is nothing short of revolutionary: a respected publication and mainstream writers are endorsing what HBD writers have said for years. HBD was only controversial because it violates the idea of equality, or that all people are basically the same and that they make choices not based on genetics but instead because of their all-powerful intent and “free will.”
Instead we are now back to recognizing the basics of Darwinism: that genetic coding positively defines our traits, or abilities that we can develop, where environmental influences mostly negatively define traits, such as fetal alcohol syndrome making people slow and slightly crazy. This rejects every thought derived from The Enlightenment,™ including that people are “equal” on some level other than “roughly the same size.”
Naturally, there is fear of the big un-democratic bad guys being imported into science as a result of this — eugenics, nationalism and caste systems — so the researchers make some disclaimers about ethics:
Frank discussions of such differences among human groups have provoked strong ethical concerns in the past. We understand those ethical concerns and believe that it is important to address them. However, we also believe that the benefits of discussing possible human population differences outweigh the costs.
These are not nonsense however. Medicine has reached a brick wall because the “average” patient, especially in a multi-ethnic caste-mixed democracy, does not exist. Instead, targeted medicine is the future, and this requires being genetically literate about who the patient is, including about the risks that patient faces.
However, there are also political implications. When our ideology requires us to consider people as “equal” in fact as well as in political access, then certain ideas become taboo. Even the possibility of genetic differences — between class, which is most taboo, and sex, and race — constitutes a threat to the ideological narrative of the ruling order, and must be punished. The last 20 years have shown us that idea in full flower.
With a recognition of biological differences, Leftists fear that people will desire freedom of association again. This means roughly that “birds of a feather [can] flock together” and they are not required to subsidize each other. With this, the diversity empire fragments.
The problem for Leftists is that nature is racist because tribalism is more efficient than trying to vet every other organism one encounters. Nature is rife with predators and worse, parasites, and so the organism that is able to recognize its own is able to save massively on its energy budget for self-defense.
As science moves toward recognizing the possibility of human biodiversity, it is also inching toward recognition of an important update to Darwinism: the organisms that thrive are those which conserve energy to dedicate toward improvement of offspring, improving quality instead of quantity, and these are by nature tribal to avoid wasting energy on potential threats.
When trying to understand Leftism, it makes sense to treat it less as an ideology than a pathology, or cycle of impulsive behavior that reflects an inner need. Only this analysis explains the intensity of Leftist belief and the way it behaves like a drug, giving its users a momentary high and then leaving them miserable until given the impetus to act again.
Given that Leftists, when they achieve their political aims, tend to create institutions and civilizations that self-destruct from the success of those very aims, it is clear that Leftism is not a reality-based narrative. This is the essence of ideology: it supplants reality by making human reason and intent more important than results in reality.
That, by its very definition, fits the archetype of a pathology. The same behavior is repeated independent of results because the behavior itself, and not its stated aims, are what its adherents crave. That leads us to the question of what type of pathology Leftism might be. One big fat candidate is separation anxiety disorder, or SAD.
What is SAD?
According to the American Psychology Association, separation anxiety disorder (SAD) is an excessive display of fear and distress when faced with situations of separation from the home or from a specific attachment figure.
Anxiety and/or being anxious are similar conditions resulting from an environment where change occurs. If one is accustomed to a specific environment, change can be (very) disruptive thereby motivating the establishment of an entire Change Management Industry (for companies).
What is the population impact?
Infants: 6 months – 3 years > 4%
“It is presumed that a much higher percentage of children suffer from a small amount of separation anxiety, and are not actually diagnosed. Multiple studies have found higher rates of SAD in girls than in boys, and that paternal absence may increase the chances of SAD in girls.”
However, “the clinically anxious pediatric population are considerably larger, according to Hammerness et al. (2008) SAD accounted for 49% of admissions.”
The election results (as an indication of the extent of liberally oriented people in the US) show that Leftists represent about 50% of the voting population in the USA. Comparing the violence “against change” after Obama’s inauguration with that of Trump, one can safely say that liberals are fairly anxious about the perceived changes they expect from a Trump Presidency. What is interesting is that Obama also stated his desire to change America in 2008, without it resulting in a comparable negative reaction by conservative voters.
The reference to “paternal absence” above, can also be illustrated by one in three children living without an own father. This is about 24 million people which in a generational sense points to 30% of the population. In addition to that single parents have tripled since 1960.
Informal data over time therefore, encourages the real fear of a SAD population (of adults) growing to 30% and beyond. Apart from requiring specialized medical attention, it appears that negative political fall-out has (as a consequence of ignorance thereof) manifested itself in an unstable nation.
Who is knowledgeable about SAD?
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) is the 2013 update to the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) classification and diagnostic tool. In the United States the DSM serves as a universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses.
Medical practitioners may follow the following process: To be diagnosed with SAD, one must display at least three of the following criteria:
Recurrent excessive distress when anticipating or experiencing separation from home or from major attachment figures
Persistent and excessive worry about losing major attachment figures or about possible harm to them, such as illness, injury, disasters, or death
Persistent and excessive worry about experiencing an untoward event (e.g., getting lost, being kidnapped, having an accident, becoming ill) that causes separation from a major attachment figure
Persistent reluctance or refusal to go out, away from home, to school, to work, or elsewhere because of fear of separation
Persistent and excessive fear of or reluctance about being alone or without major attachment figures at home or in other settings
Persistent reluctance or refusal to sleep away from home or to go to sleep without being near a major attachment figure
Repeated nightmares involving the theme of separation
Repeated complaints of physical symptoms (e.g., headaches, stomachaches, nausea, vomiting) when separation from major attachment figures occurs or is anticipated
One informal comparison with (liberal) SJWs includes the following criteria:
The “anticipated” separation from major attachment figures includes “friends” at school or Facebook. In other words, not being part of the popular group can cause serious anxiety. The fear of being alone is a real issue (FOMO: Fear of Missing Out)
Repeated nightmares involving themes of separation. It seems that their anxiety cause SJW’s into a light sleep causing multiple dreams every night. This will cause them to be slow developers.
Physical symptoms (such as vomiting) can be intentionally produced as a means of manipulation to avoid (anticipated) separation. (They literally live in a future world)
One explanation for having different “attachment figures” is precisely the lack of parents or even siblings. Single children are perhaps also more likely to exhibit SAD due to helicopter parents and in the case of single mother homes, mothers treating their boys like girls could also exacerbate this problem. The part where “avoidance” is discussed can also develop into defensive behaviors, manifesting in its full glory during adulthood.
Political impact of SAD
As shown above, anxiety and specifically SAD can cause a person to behave in certain ways. In theory this is due for the most part to avoidance, in order to avoid separation with whoever is important for that person. It appears that, due to exactly this avoidance, that liberals/SJWs will refuse to admit his/her own avoidance to anyone, ever.
Since no research investigations have been initiated into this field, political writers such as Matt Forney have realized that SJWs cannot be fixed and that they should be contained.
In the aftermath of the Trump inauguration, the question remained of how to achieve American unity. Many commenters voiced the opinion that the Democratic Party strategy will be to simply continue their losing fight to the next election. But surely that is not viable and certainly a nation divided is not feasible.
From an anxiety perspective it is unfortunately unclear whether a solution exists on a political, but what is clear though, is that this issue is not going away because it worsens with every generation. Decay begets pathology, and pathology begets ideology, which the resulting disastrous choices worsening the conditions of decay and causing the group of anxious Useful Idiots to grow, accelerating the cycle of suicide.
“When you’re on my level, God just gives you free shoes.” – YouTuber Lilian Shekinah
There is an antidote to the ennui that is sucking the West into the toilet of history. It is an antidote that you take as an individual. Taking it will inure you to the pathological rot marauding the institutions of our Modern Society. It involves the Law of Attraction.
The Law of Attraction is simple. You ask for it, you get it. That can be good, bad or indifferent. And you’d probably better take control of the asking, because your brain will do it on autopilot if you don’t.
If you let it slide, you get whatever you tolerate. It will suck because the crowd will populate your universe the way algae can kill all the fish and stink up the water at your favorite pond. When others control what is in your mental and sacred space, they will use it as a porta-crapper.
You will experience internal dialogue every day of your existence. Your brain will take things in aggressively and that will shape your view of the world and your place in it. You filter those images or they fill you to the neck with toxic crowdist sludge. Take control of this stuff or you will end up like “Fat Boy” in this old Silverchair song.
So how do I establish this level of self-control and inner dominance? You control what goes in and out of your life. You build your own High-Pass Filter. You demand better. As TRS puts it; “Will to power, bruh!” Really? How?
Visualization is how you start. Imagine what right looks like. Put visions in your mind of what you want to see happen. Make them increasingly detailed. It’s not Dungeons and Dragons. It’s using your imagination to plan what your life will look like.
Create your personal story board: Imagine your life as a movie or novel and lay out what you want to see happen. What type of person do you want to have kids with? Where do you want to live? How do you want to make a living? Answer these things or the world will give you those answers and they will be crowdist and sub-optimal.
Plan How To Live Your Story: Build a bridge. Look at where you are now and ask yourself how you intend to get from your current state to the life in your story board.
Listen Critically to Your Internal Dialogue: If it tells you negative things or drives you in a bad direction, treat it like a Nickelback song and turn that drivel off. You have discretion over what messages you accept and which ones you “Nickelback.” You need to use it. You will always hear internal dialogue.
Start Yesterday: As you age, your options dwindle. John Derbyshire describes the urgency this requires well in a movie review he did of Saturday Night Fever.
At twenty, these young men are all pretty much done, and you can practically hear the doors of opportunity clanging shut around them. Not that it is impossible for them to get somewhere in life from this point on, but now it will need more courage, determination, and luck with every passing year. This is the thing that Tony grasps at the very end of the movie: “I’m an able person. I can do these things.” (Unspoken: But I better get moving.)
Do Things At The Right Pace: “Festine Lente” said the great Philosopher cum Emperor. Set a pace you can steadily move forward at. Plan your work, work your plan. Ignore the crowd. They are garbage.
So, in conclusion, you need to internally fortify yourself against the external carny house of a culture we live in. Stand on the promises you can make to yourself and keep. These are reliable. Nothing you encounter around you will be.
In the land of Oregon, the realization has dawned that immigrants are polluting the local bloodline. Once mixed, the population can never go back, and this makes it more effective in the short term but less stable in the long term. In short, genocide will have occurred through replacement of the population by a new one, and that will erase all that was functional there.
The altered grass has taken root in Oregon, of all places, the self-professed grass seed capital of the world with a billion-dollar-a-year industry at stake. The grass has proven hard to kill because it’s been modified to be resistant to Roundup, the ubiquitous, all-purpose herbicide.
…”We don’t understand the ecological or the economic impact of this,” said Katy Coba, former director of the Oregon Agriculture Department. “We need to figure out the extent of the contamination.”
…Many international buyers will not buy genetically modified products, citing potential safety concerns. Some countries ban them outright. It was just three years ago that some Asian buyers suspended purchases of Northwest wheat after traces of genetically modified strains were detected.
At first, it seemed ludicrous to worry about such things. Why concern yourself with what happens a valley or two away? Look toward yourself, and accept the new arrival. And then, it becomes clear that the new arrival will displace the old. It is resistant to many of the weaknesses that afflict the old, and yet, in the long term, it may be less desirable.
Slowly, the realization dawns that genetic pollution may be the worst form of all because there is no going back, and once it begins, it is difficult if not impossible to stop.
Across the West, people are suspecting that institutions are corrupt, which has led to a lack of faith in not just our civilization but our own personal futures, as polls indicate:
After 17 years of polling, the Edelman marketing firm found that trust in four institutions – government, business, media, and nongovernmental organizations – took the steepest drop ever last year.
Almost two-thirds of people surveyed in 28 countries do not trust the four institutions to “do what is right.” More than 50 percent say “the system” is not working for them.
The rising distrust may help explain the attraction of anti-elitist and ultranationalist political leaders from the Philippines to Europe. More than 70 percent in the survey say government officials are not at all or somewhat credible. And the credibility of business chief executive officers fell 12 points to 37 percent.
Organizations rule the day when it comes to having a first-world society. Without a postal service, hygiene, police, fire, legal and medical institutions, the type of efficiency for which the first world is famed cannot occur and we are left at third-world levels of disorganization. When distrust expands across the globe and across institution-type, we know that organization has failed.
We forget how important organization is because we tend to see our society in terms of ideology and economics. If we have the right ideology, and a working economy, then everything else comes secondary. But other inputs have every bit as much influence as those two. Culture reflects what people want because it has worked for them in the past, religion contains their hopes, and the science of management determines how likely it is that the society will have competent organizations.
The savaging of Western institutions happened through two fronts: first, unions and regulation became involved, and second, these organizations became politicized, which meant that a mediocre solution which was politically correct was seen as superior to a good solution which was not as politically correct. This in turn meant that reality was suspended and replaced by ideology.
The high cost of replacing reality is that soon incompetence rules the day, and with that comforting miasma of confusion to camouflage it, corruption and ineptitude have a field day. The unions defend the inept, the regulations give them plausible deniability, and affirmative action essentially prevents many of them from being fired. As a result, institutional value has plummeted.
Any study of organizations reveals that giving the people at the lower level the ability to hit a stop button for the whole organization will quickly sabotage that organization and drive away the competent. And yet, with Leftist programs like affirmative action, unions and most regulation, this is exactly what we give low-level workers.
Now that the years have run past, and it is too far gone to fix or find the culpable, we are starting to recognize that distrust in American institutions has plummeted. The same is happening worldwide, because those institutions follow the same model. The high cost of Leftism takes years to reveal itself, but then, it always makes us regret ever going down that path.
The newly built shoddy townhouses start from the low 500s, with convenient public transport to a soul killing office job so you only spend 45 minutes commuting each way.
You watch passengers hide their faces in smart phones, a nerdy device named by marketers to flatter people for disconnecting from nature and fearing the intimacy of speaking to others. They nervously adjust app settings, which doesn’t amount to much, and check into social media that only shows which of their friends is posturing for attention with phony outrage. ADD and SSRI pharmaceuticals blur the days, leaving them without any lasting impressions.
Each worker diligently exits their townhouse box to report to work on time, as if satisfying invisible prison guards, and then returns back to the box after fulfilling their scheduled service. Comfortable inside the walls, over 1000 channels of prime entertainment offer enjoyable relief along with the latest simulated amusements offered to forestall dystopian realizations.
Hardly alone in this impotent revolt, almost everyone copes this way now.
Our best attempt at accounting for this low quality of life finds leaders who systematically strip-mine society to maximally extract from it with a series of one-time grabs that remove the defining peaks of the terrain. Flimsy schemes not built to last replace strength with weakness, but profit for a few years until failing from rot. Elected leaders escape responsibility and move on to the next scam.
Mandatory social experiments pushed on all further alienate the public into withdrawing from participation.
Previously active, unified, and trusting communities are transformed into incoherence, no longer sharing common ground and purpose. Politicians desperately justify wretched conditions by declaring that new spontaneous goals no one wanted have been achieved.
They say the people who developed and maintain civilization need to be replaced to create vibrancy, which ends up being the same exhibition of crime, illiteracy, incompetence, and low aptitude as their origination nations. Leaders patronizingly readjust cultural standards to accommodate this new, but less able population.
Education, politics, and television are commandeered to constantly demand the public tolerates multi-culturalism and terrorism, which are normalized as perpetual after not previously existing. From here it makes sense to also teach people that undrinkable water and a lack of food are also new modern conditions to endure, and to engineer those conditions to create a new focus preventing higher goals from being pursued.
For now, we retreat to our boxes, tune out reality in favor of fantasy and let the rulers keep extracting. But it’s also easy to imagine what would happen if the simulation and distraction devices failed, bringing people back to the world around them so they notice the state of things.
They might decide they wanted the world their grandparents had, and begin working towards that standard.
If you wonder why the media shifted SJW over the past decade, an account of its sudden loss of power makes sense out of the dilemma:
“The media world has been closed since radio,” he said, speaking to moderator Michael Kassan, the CEO of consultancy MediaLink. But the internet has changed that dynamic, removing the ability to create scarcity and giving control to consumers. “Until there was an alternative like the internet … there was only one way to buy programming. It doesn’t take more than a semi-imbecile [to realize] that once you have the opportunity, you’re going to pick what you want.”
Media — news, music, movies, television — was a bubble created by monopoly over means of delivery. Radio was limited to a certain number of channels, record labels had distributors to stores, movies had theaters and then video rental, and television had a fixed number of channels. With the mainstreaming of cable in the 1990s and then the rise of the internet, this monopoly vanished.
At that point, media needed another market that could provide equivalent numbers of warm bodies paying attention to it in order to claim profit. Music shifted to hip-hop, movies became extended television shows, and everything else went SJW as a means of finding fanatics who would be driven to attend to their media regardless of quality, which enabled studios to continue their cheap production / high resale gig.
What killed this in turn was that the new audience was powerless, relative to the original middle class viewing group, and also fickle, meaning that it had very few items to which it was particularly loyal. This created the “tentpole” pattern that Diller identifies, which is a few huge but transient best-sellers and then many niche products which barely sell at all.
Among us now come many who have staked all of their hopes on a single tool to fix a complex situation, for example, religion. Many especially among our most learned and thoughtful believe that society must begin again with religion as the tool that makes this happen, but they would produce the worst of possible results, much as happened when Hitler treated race the same way: as a tool.
Our time is ruled by social popularity, democratic voting and consumer-based industry. We are accustomed to creating tools, whether physical or institutional, that shape people around us by forcing all of them through a filter. In this filter, they must either obey the dogma or face some kind of sanctions, although those seem only to fall on the good taxpayers and not those who make lives of crime.
The problem with tools is that they not only fail to contain meaning, or knowledge of goals (“ends”), but that they actively displace meaning. Your mind only has so much space of focus, and if all of the focus goes into methods (“means”) instead of ends, then the reasoning behind doing things is lost. This allows fools to compete with the wise by emulating them, and the audience cannot tell the difference.
Of those people who want religion to save the West — fundamentalists, evangelicals, some traditionalists and pentacostals — the analysis remains consistent because it has been so for the past two hundred years. They talk a good deal about morality, and how they will set an example, which turns out to mean they will go to their church, drop out of society at large, earn money and pay taxes.
In short, they will not fight the enemy, but will enrich themselves, and in the meantime, be the good stupid little sheep that any parasitic system needs. If you want to know why people are fleeing churches, it is that the Christian conservatives act like morons, and the rest of the flock is too busy trying to be hip, young and liberal so they can get some of those donations, but it never works for long.
People who are trying to use religion to save the West have made religion into a political organ. They want to use it like a tool to filter people and force us all to obey what becomes a de facto ideology. In other words, they make religion into liberalism by attempting to use it as a force against liberalism.
A more sensible vision, as offered on this site, is that we will not have a single over-arching theory as liberals do. Even conservatism itself has two general planks, time-proven methods and transcendental goals. Religion is part of this, possibly an inseparable part, but it is not the core. The core is a desire to be realistic and from that, to choose what is best for ourselves and recognize that the rest of humanity will not. That leads to something like our four pillars, varied methods shaped around the goal of excellence through realism and self-discipline.
In other words, our basic outlook has to be evolutionary. We rise because we target excellence, but most of the world will always be a human wasteland because most people are dishonest because they are solipsistic, in the eternal weakness of humankind. Our big brains become mental bubbles in which we live while life passes by outside, and we waste our time on garbage instead of making greatness of our days.
Every part of life demands greatness. Even the simplest acts of craftsmanship, agriculture and day-to-day leadership can be improved qualitatively as an infinite dimension. There is always room to be go further, but it is not through a change in methods, but through refinement of our understanding, self-discipline, aesthetics and other inner skills.
We do not know what the future holds for us, but it seems likely that there will be a rebirth of Western religion. This will occur through a desire to restore the West by finding reality, and will emerge from our focus on what is real, which includes religion but is not limited to it. Religion in fact can serve as a proxy, a game or a legal puzzle, for understanding this reality. The tool then becomes the master, and the master the slave.
This religion may even be a revitalized Christianity. Writers like J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Paul Woodruff and T.S. Eliot have given us a vision of what that might be like, with Tolkien and Woodruff leading the pack. But more likely, the strength of Christianity — its communication through fable and laws — will be its downfall. In our new complex era, we need something more.
Another writer, Michel Houellebecq, expresses something else: admiration for Christianity, but recognition that its vitality has faded, and so it needs to be restarted and renewed, if not remade in our image. We do not need a Western religion; we need a religious Westernism, a belief in ourselves in our goodness that includes the will to find God in all things, but not through the tired manipulations of the flagging church.
It is likely that the Western religion will be like our original pagan faiths, unwritten and in fact, not formalized. It will not be used as a tool, where the religion is the means of changing our motivation, but will be discovered as part of daily life. The ancients might have said to us that they did not have religion, only an awareness of an order within the patterns of life, and that this transparency allowed them to avoid turning it into a dogma, an ideology and a tool.
Our original religion comes from nature and is based in the idea that nature reflects a more complex order than man, because man must fit into this order. We study patterns and from them, can make some conclusions which are firmer than any material objects in their prevalence in our lives. For example, we notice that life seems to strive for beauty, balance, harmony and purpose, always refining itself toward greater complexity which is a form of simplicity with many layers, not lots of unconnected detail in the modern “complex” way that is really ornamentation.
To the ancients, religion was inseparable from any other form of knowledge. They knew that the natural world was everything, but that it had layers which are not visible to the living, and it has spaces to which the non-living pass, but that these are battlegrounds not of good versus evil but order versus randomness, with evil being an agent of that randomness because it is moral selfishness, or hubris.
Their beliefs were logical and rigorously ordered, not symbolic as the Asiatic religions were, and they were not backward like the process of using religion as a political tool. Instead, they sought to put each thing in its place, and then improve everything qualitatively according to the order found in nature. This is a more mature faith than what we have now, and the only type of belief that can aid us in our task of restoration.