Posts Tagged ‘christianity’

How Religion Shattered The Leadership Of The West And Let Leftism In

Monday, June 5th, 2017

It does not make sense to blame Christianity for the downfall of the West; the real story is more nuanced.

Christianity was taken up by the rising Left as a means of spreading individualism. Any religion where the choice of the individual to partake is considered a complete introduction to the depth of the faith will naturally become a vehicle for projection, which is why the Catholic church continued the Rabbinical tradition of isolating scholarship to those who had already demonstrated prowess.

This elitist viewpoint is called esotericism, meaning that it is based on mysteries and not memorization. Topics are seen through a qualitative lens that views them as having depth, such that their initial summary in language is a gateway to a series of cause-effect relationships and their implications. The more one learns, the more there is to learn.

Esotericism also relies on logical collisions to determine boundaries, instead of categories. The opposite of esotericism, exotericism, teaches through categories, where a single detail stands for the whole and is presumed to impart that characteristic uniformly to all objects within the category. This provides an easier method of thinking, thus a more popular one.

Logical boundaries on the other hand occur when the thinker looks into the depth of an idea through its extension to a logical extreme and the implications of that, in infinite cycle. This resembles the thinking of a chess player, looking ahead as many moves as possible by accounting for every potential move by the other player. In this view, objects have many details, and it is important to take the interaction of objects with other objects on a case-by-case basis, seeing how the details collide and coincide to determine the nature of those objects. This gives humans less perceived power through an easy method of thinking, but is more accurate.

Christianity suffered weakness because it was based on the Word. The Word first appears in the creation of the world, and then extends as a theme in the Bible through people accepting word tokens as literal truth, without having depth to work through, implying an equality of all people in understanding. This approach lends itself to propaganda.

At first this was an advantage to Christianity. It could induct and unite huge groups of people quickly, which is why the pagan faiths faded away; they simply could not compete. As a theology derived mostly from the Greeks, early Christianity conveyed a strong Indo-European philosophy. But its strengths were also its weaknesses, making it easy to take over from within.

Some claim the rise of Protestantism was part of this process, but it may have been resistance to the effect that having the Bible widely available in lay languages was having within Catholicism.

This upheaval resurrected an old conflict that had lain dormant throughout the middle ages. Before the preceding millennial turn, Throne and Alter had been in conflict as the monarchies of Europe found themselves needing allies during war, and in addition to domestic splintered politics, having to placate special interest groups. The Church too often played as a self-interested party.

With the middle ages, this condition was suspended as some parity was reached and Church and monarchy could work together. However, this was short-lived, as Christianity proliferated into different cults with the rise of mass distribution of the Bible, in part pre-dating the printing press as the supply of hand-copied Bibles accumulated over the years.

At that point, a new internal religious conflict began, one that would eventually give rise to the nascent Leftism of The Enlightenment™ and the Romantic period:

In Cavanaugh’s The Myth of Religious Violence, Cavanaugh presents a thesis which is radically at odds with received wisdom concerning the origin of the secular state. Citing the examples of Baruch Spinoza,Thomas Hobbes and John Locke who presented religious division[ii] as the cause of the conflicts of the period, he notes that this narrative provided:

…the backdrop for much of the Enlightenment’s critique of religion. There developed a grand narrative in Enlightenment historiography — typified by Edward Gibbon and Voltaire — that saw the wars of religion as the last gasp of medieval barbarism and fanaticism before the darkness was dispelled.

More modern liberal thinkers have subsequently traced the birth of liberalism to the so-called religious conflicts of this period, with Cavanaugh citing Quintin Skinner, Jeffrey Stout, Judith Shklar and John Rawls as exemplifying this narrative.

When a conflict of this sort arises, more likely what happens is that one party was neutralized, allowing some event to take place. The “fanaticism” of the medieval era was an attempt to retain balance between different power structures within civilization, because they remembered what happened to Athens, Rome and pre-medieval Europe.

If instead of viewing the religious wars as a conflict between religion and anti-religion, but a struggle for power within civilization, we see that an unnamed third force won: egalitarianism.

As Cavanaugh takes pains to point out, the institutional changes which were supposed to have been ushered in as a result of the religious conflicts actually presaged them. To bolster his argument he provides ample examples of conflict occurring between states with the same denominations, as well as collaboration between differing denominations. The most trenchant observation is provided by the example of Martin Luther:

As Richard Dunn points out, “Charles V’s soldiers sacked Rome, not Wittenberg, in 1527, and when the papacy belatedly sponsored a reform program, both the Habsburgs and the Valois refused to endorse much of it, rejecting especially those Trentine decrees which encroached on their sovereign authority.” The wars of the 1520s were part of the ongoing struggle between the pope and the emperor for control over Italy and over the church in German territories.

In other words, while the Church struggled against the kings, someone else took power. This became The Enlightenment,™ which had fortunate timing in that it caught the early years of the industrial revolution within a century and, because it perfectly justified unlimited growth and tragedy of the commons, replaced religion with the new mythos of the individual.

For this reason, “Christianity caused Leftism” is too simple of an analysis, just like “Christianity is the root of Western Civilization.” The root of Western Civilization is its people, but they depend on quality leadership from the aristocracy in order to be effective. We removed that, and now we are removing our own people so that it can never be reborn.

Idealism And Platonic Forms

Friday, June 2nd, 2017

the patterning of trees, fuck communism

To reconstruct the West, we need a will to be good; this requires some understanding of what good is, and how in a long-term sense it is more beneficial for us to embrace good than the convenient and short-sighted, often referred to as “evil.”

That in turn requires recognizing that what the crowd refers to as “good” is evil and vice-versa, because knowing their own tendency toward evil and venality, they make an ideal of those behaviors in order to avoid criticism for them by those that know better.

This places us in a strange place: we exist in a wasteland where nothing is true and everything is suspect, but are seeking an occult or hidden truth of what is actually real, despite it being right in front of us. We are fighting the mental spam created by the needs and chatter of other human beings.

In addition, we recognize the bias of this time toward the present tense, because it has no future and fears any consequences of its actions. Hence an entire range of thought, from long-term practicality to metaphysics, has been made taboo by the agitation of the herd.

A bias toward the present tense will inevitably favor tangible and material objects over long-term predictions, such as the knowledge of patterns in reality that lead to outcomes far removed from their origins. Present tense recognizes only conditions of objects already existing where their properties determine outcomes, like a match producing fire but not the production of flame itself.

This leads us to questions of cause and effect. What is the cause, the material object or the pattern? Plato says the latter, and he finds support in modern religious thinkers as well:

As Ransom is told in Lewis’s novel, Perelandra, ‘You see only an appearance, small one. You have never seen more than an appearance of anything,’ and he sadly realises, ‘I have lived all my life among shadows and broken images.’

What we think of as tangible and firm objects, being the causes of themselves and having the end goals of themselves, are in fact the least solid part of the process: they are the effect, and the cause is elsewhere, probably in a bigger and more complex formation than that which we think of as physical reality or, at least, immediate physical reality.

Pattern, principle and natural laws — from gravity through human hierarchy — are more solid than the positions we are in now. We are fragile beings, prone to die at any moment or falter as our bodies or souls weaken, but the order of nature prevails over time, more statistically than in the instant. Our tendency is to confuse its momentary abeyance for an exception that proves its invalidity, when inf act the exception proves the rule.

Let us revisit perhaps the most profound thinker the West has produced, Plato, on the nature of reality:

Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

I see.
And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

Plato describes the inversion effected by reality here: we confuse what we see for the truth of reality, when in fact we are seeing the effect and the cause requires discovery, like solving a mystery, debugging a computer problem, inventing a new algorithm or tracing a fault in a line. Our minds select the weakest link in the chain, the manifestation or instance, and confuse it with the essence or cause.

With this in mind, we can see the wisdom of German Idealism: all in the world is thought or thought-like, because thought operates on the level of patterns and not pure material this-thing-hit-that-thing style thinking. For the golf ball to hit the distant hole, the swing must be of the right pattern, the ball balanced on the tee, the wind at certain levels, and many other factors in balance. It is not as simple as bashing a ball with a club.

Following up the previous part one and part two of this series, this article explores the foundations of European faith.

We know from Perennialism that there is an Ur-faith to all religions which believes that there is a cause beyond the immediate material reality; this takes both an agnostic form, in which patterning over time is more important than reality, and a monistic one, where the metaphysical is seen as a layer or level enclosing our material reality and producing its patterns and results. However, in all of these, the sane believe that this is an order based on nihilistic consistency, or logical actions independent of human desires and perceptions, and therefore is not of the primitive superstitious mysticism that blights third world nations.

A European religion will be like that: unconcerned with individuals, patterned in cycles and forces, and based on the idea that information and order are more important than material substrate. It will thus be Idealistic and Traditionalist, but not in the most common forms of these now, which apply modern superstition — either scientism or fundamentalism — to that which is essentially a logical and logically consistent process independent of our human monkey wishes.

The idea that there is a pattern beyond but manifested in the material might be called animism, or the idea that life has a form as a whole, and that this translates into events rather than those events arising linearly from previous events or material properties. Animism is the idea that life itself is alive and that living things are logical in the way thoughts are logical, meaning that they cast about for possible meanings and then choose the best, rather than being “objective” and “rational” in the way of humans approaching real-time decisions as if they were made in a lab.

Because the natural world is seen as sentient, for an animistic thinker significant events don’t ‘just happen’ – like inert billiard balls bouncing-off one another – instead events occur because some entity wants them to occur. For the animist, every significant event is intentional, every significant event has personal implications.

…The problem is that, for a modern adult, recovery of animistic thinking entails undoing the effects of an exceptionally thorough and prolonged process of socialisation that has buried animism under a vast superstructure of repressions. Modern adults cannot necessarily recover their animistic thoughts at will, even temporarily.

Methods used to help in the recovery of animistic modes of thinking have been known since the Romantic era. They essentially involve detachment from the social systems that tend to maintain objectivity and rationality. For example, solitude (away from people), leisure (away from the economy) and unstructured time (as contrasted with technologically-measured time). Direct contact with nature is another classic strategy. Under such conditions of societal detachment there tends to be a spontaneous resurgence of animistic thinking – and those who can achieve detachment, often strive to do so.

In other words, animism is the original condition of humankind and is obscured by the necessity of maintaining a civilization where most people cannot understand it, therefore need to be manipulated (a form of “control”) via carrot-and-stick style judgments. When we escape the modern world, we are able to see the original truth, and this points us not toward momentary adaptations as economic thinking does, but toward eternal paths toward clarity within ourselves, and through that knowledge of prescriptive use of those material truths so that they can serve cosmic or timeless truths (where “truth” means “a more accurate interpretation of reality relative to other human options”).

The main problem with the Christian interpretation of this is that Christianity is based on the Word, which forms a proxy for reality itself, and as a result it is quickly gamed by Crowdists, who turn it into a dualistic faith or one based on two worlds: (1) the physical world we know, and (2) a spiritual world where things are as they actually are, or are perfected. The problem with this is that it naturally creates a bias against reality because it is perceived as the physical world, and if the other world is perfect, then the physical world is wrong, broken or otherwise unimportant. Second, it encourages people to project their desires into this spiritual world because there is no data for how it actually works, so it becomes a manifestation of human intent rather than a reflection of the type of dry logical consistency we see in nature. Christianity takes on a “New Age” interpretation because people see in this “pure” world the idea of ideology, which is that in that world, things operate as they “should” according to human lowest common denominator desires, which reflect weakness more than reason and sensibility.

Animism relies heavily on the same mechanism as Idealism, which is a union between mental state and world, taking the ancient concept of intentionality to a level of ontology, or means of understanding the world:

In medieval logic and philosophy, the Latin word intentio was used for what contemporary philosophers and logicians nowadays call a ‘concept’ or an ‘intension’: something that can be both true of non-mental things and properties—things and properties lying outside the mind—and present to the mind.

Intentionality defines our relationship with reality and provides for us the basis of understanding Idealism. This definition is a complex way of saying that our mental concepts do not necessarily align with what is in the world, and that thoughts can be logically true without being true-in-fact, and that for that reason, our primary quest in philosophy is to figure out which concepts are accurate, which becomes difficult when there is not an external object to which they can relate. In animism, the world operates according to conceptual principles, which means that the mind can discipline itself to find the inner properties of external objects and from that, discover their actual nature as opposed to their merely-intentional or purely conceptual nature.

As a result, the ancient faiths were forms of monism or a belief that no matter what metaphysical layers exist on top of this world, the logical rules derived from this world also applied to those “worlds”:

Vedānta is nominally a school of Indian philosophy, although in reality it is a label for any hermeneutics that attempts to provide a consistent interpretation of the philosophy of the Upaniṣads or, more formally, the canonical summary of the Upaniṣads, Bādarāyaņa’s Brahma Sūtra. Advaita is often translated as “non-dualism” though it literally means “non-secondness.”

…According to Advaita metaphysics, Brahman—the ultimate, transcendent and immanent God of the latter Vedas—appears as the world because of its creative energy (māyā). The world has no separate existence apart from Brahman. The experiencing self (jīva) and the transcendental self of the Universe (ātman) are in reality identical (both are Brahman), though the individual self seems different as space within a container seems different from space as such. These cardinal doctrines are represented in the anonymous verse “brahma satyam jagan mithya; jīvo brahmaiva na aparah” (Brahman is alone True, and this world of plurality is an error; the individual self is not different from Brahman). Plurality is experienced because of error in judgments (mithya) and ignorance (avidya).

Humans break down any faith according to what is convenient for the human mental state, which generally involves that which requires the least discipline of the inner impulses and external behaviors of the self for intangible reasons. People will change in order to make money, make friends or gain social status, but when told they must change in order to be aligned with the order of nature that offers them no tangible reward, they tend to resist this and instead retreat into the world of their own thoughts, thoughts shared with others through language, and physical objects including the management thereof such as economics. This is the human world; it is easy to rely on, and it requires nothing of the individual but participation in nominal events such as jobs, social interaction and shopping.

For these reasons, much as we escape modern institutions because they are tainted with human illusions, the same must be applied to religion. Our goal is to discover the Idealism within Animism and through that, to understand the purpose of religion outside of its external trappings — work hard, be nice to other people, say the magic words — and through that, to rediscover how our inner goodness can find an outlet in religion for understanding the task of life.

In this light, the question is not so much Christianity or Paganism, but how to find in each the parts that fit with our task of spiritual revival in the West. Whichever one we use will eventually return to this original religion because people now have a memory of distrust for organized, formal and written religion. The result of this uncertainty will be a return to the pagan outlook, no matter what religion was chosen, of encoding belief in ritual and custom, not word and law.

Western Civilization Faces A Spiritual Struggle

Wednesday, May 31st, 2017

I think now, looking back, we did not fight the enemy, we fought ourselves, and the enemy was in us. – Chris Taylor, Platoon

In the previous post in this series, we established that Christianity alone cannot save Europe. It needs a cultural revival, which in turn needs aristocracy, leading to a sensible plan.

However, it is worth remembering that Western Civilization will not restore itself until it resurrects its spirit which desires to be more than materialistic. There is a step there which is required before we can get to religion, and religion cannot stand alone, but our spiritual struggle in the West begins with the desire to be good not in a personal context, but in the context of natural order. Our goal is to exhibit the inverse of hubris. In that mode, we seek to find our place within an unequal natural hierarchy, and do what is fit to the body in which we have been incarnated.

This need clashes with a basic human tendency to assert ourselves first, or “individualism,” which is a temptation whenever the human is not immediately threatened by want of food, shelter, safety or mates. The simplest form of human existence consists of caring about oneself only, and forgetting the consequences of actions beyond that.

However, civilization arose when people beat this impulse and started caring about what they created outside of themselves. In this viewpoint, the importance of actions lay in their effects on a long timescale, such that an individual would consider what would happen for the next ten thousand years or longer when contemplating what action to take.

That was the birth of the transcendentals. Transcendentals are immutable, yet relative, measurements, much like the thought process of an athlete who wants to do better than his previous record, no matter what that was. There is infinite improvement in life, but it occurs on a qualitative level, meaning proficiency and elegance more than raw factors like time taken or weight moved. A dancer can execute the same maneuver in the same amount of time, but add artistry, efficiency, acumen and aesthetic improvement on a scale reaching toward infinity.

And thus, we reach a sense of what it is we must reach for: the “good,” for example, but on the epic mythic-historical scale of existence beyond ourselves, and on a spectrum of measurement that includes millennia and beyond. What is good for today and what is good for all time are often markedly different things.

Remember Plato’s warning which identifies the root of civilization decay:

When discord arose, then the two races were drawn different ways: the iron and brass fell to acquiring money and land and houses and gold and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things. There was a battle between them, and at last they agreed to distribute their land and houses among individual owners; and they enslaved their friends and maintainers, whom they had formerly protected in the condition of freemen, and made of them subjects and servants; and they themselves were engaged in war and in keeping a watch against them.

In other words, the good is that which acts toward “virtue and the ancient order of things,” namely the one stable form of civilization from which other parts of the historical cycle are deviations. Virtue means doing the right thing according to a hierarchy of nature, instead of acting through the deferential morality of the herd, which along with apathy forms the two major deviations from rightness.

Once we understand this definition of good, we realize how difficult the Occident is versus the Orient and Africa: while they have nature-religions in Africa, and either timeless Confucianism or momentary Shintoism in Asia, the Western Way is to live for a principle of eternity. We are the reflective people who seek to build in our souls a mirror of external reality, and then to bring it to a point of divinity.

If we are to resurrect this spirit, it will occur before we choose a religion or a philosophy. It is a gut-level, intuitive and soul-rending decision. It is the reformation of the being to be more than our glorious Simian heritage. We must want to rise to a level of excellence where we reach past evil, stupidity and the mundane toward the exceptional, glorious, good, beautiful, honest and real.

This spirit is more important than the form that religion takes. As Aldous Huxley points out, most religions have the same basic philosophy when we look for intersections and not aspects of them that are specific to their host cultures:

At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.

  1. The phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness — the world of things and animals and men and even gods — is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent.
  2. Human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.
  3. Man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.
  4. Man’s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

Once we recognize the above as the archetype of religion, it becomes clear that we must focus on the good to reach the above, and then need to choose a religion that fits our culture. If Christianity has a fatal flaw, it is that it is foreign, in a foreign language, from a land which is not European and a people who at least now are no longer European.

Christianity won out over Paganism because Christianity unites groups, but by doing so in lieu of aristocracy and culture, it creates weak bonds that shatter and leave a lowest common denominator behavior in their wake. This is why the West is slowly abandoning Christianity: it thwarted our kings and then devolved to its core, which is individualism.

As a result, it will not be surprising if in another hundred years religion will be entirely different. We will use the same churches, many of the same rituals and songs, and even the same holidays. But the understanding will have changed: religion is not something you get from a book, but by going into a forest and searching your intuition for what is compatible with nature as you observe it.

In addition, despite the hopes of the religious conservatives out there, we cannot resurrect our civilization through religion. We can resurrect our civilization so that religion among other things will survive, but religion alone cannot save us; we need to want goodness first, and to change power structures to aristocracy so that we can rule by it. Only then can religion live.

This does not change the fact that we take a “religious” view of our survival: we are at war against evil, which sometimes wins with no rhyme or reason, but is always with us and so we must always be at war against it. We cannot use external forces to shape ourselves internally — such an approach is properly known as “materialism” — but must reverse our egos, which insist that we control our worlds, and instead nurture inner forces to manifest as external order in balance with both intuition and the natural world around us.

Julius Evola described this pagan world of tradition:

What most distinguished the pre-Christian world, in all its normal forms, was not the superstitious divinization of nature, but a symbolic understanding of it, by virtue of which (as I have often emphasized) every phenomenon and every event appeared as the sensible revelation of a supra-sensible world. The pagan understanding of the world and of man was essentially marked by sacred symbolism.

…On this basis, all the great pre-Christian cultures shared the striving for a supra-natural freedom, i.e., for the metaphysical perfection of the personality, and they all acknowledged Mysteries and initiations. I have already pointed out that the Mysteries often signified the reconquest of the primordial state, the spirituality of the solar, Hyperborean races, on the foundation of a tradition and a knowledge that were concealed through secrecy and exclusivity from the pollutions of an environment already in decay.

If there is a core to paganism and traditionalism, both of which overlap with a strong sense of “place” including nationalism, this is it: a Platonic understanding of form and pattern, in which all events and objects are manifestations of an underlying order in which all things have unequal places.

Since this pagan core forms the basis of the Perennial Philosophy which is also found in Christianity, it is sensible to say that Christianity is pagan, with additional ideas grafted on, but put into an unfortunate form. In this way, it is clear that the West will be neither non-Christian nor non-Pagan, but probably a bit of both for some time as the original faith is resurrected in its esoteric — cumulative and unequal — form.

There is more to say on this, but it should probably occur in a subsequent post.

Paganism Cannot Unite Europe; Christianity Can, But That Will Be Our Doom For Reasons Unrelated To Christianity

Tuesday, May 30th, 2017

Über-Right-wing mastermind Varg Vikernes has been engaged in a video dialogue with Swedish trad-Right guru Marcus Follin, a.k.a. “The Golden One.” The topic of their discord appears to be Christianity, with Follin arguing that it can unite Europe and Vikernes arguing that it cannot.

In his recent interview with Amerika, Ramzpaul argues that “Paganism did not bind all of Europe, Christianity did.”

Who is correct?

Some analysis oriented toward logical fact will show us that they are all right, to varying degrees, but that the question may have become mangled by our modern orientation in thinking. To see this, we have to look at the nature of what it means to unite a nation or a continent.

There are many ways of uniting a nation and we might rank them from “strong” to “weak.” The weakest are things like ideology, economics and politics. These are unions of convenience and reflect no inner impulse by people to work together toward a certain ideal. Others are intermediate, like religion, which is still external, where the strongest are internal, like race and tribe.

We should also consider the degree of unity. It is not hard to get people to act together in self-interest, but this produces the side effect of people acting against unity because self-interest is stronger than what binds them together. If the unity of a group is based on a weak force, it will rapidly disintegrate and the group will devolve to the lowest common denominator.

So our question is not a binary — unites/does-not-unite — but a question of degree and specific topic areas, namely what is united and how long-lasting those bonds will be.

One cannot unite a nation or a continent by religion. Religion straddles the line between internal and external. It is internal because religion is understood through the intuition, but that applies to general religious feeling, and not a specific religion. As a result, we are left with only the external, which is what might be called a religious dogma, for lack of a better term.

Modernity specializes in using the external to control the internal. You see a symbol, decide to obey it, and that influences how you think about the world. You are controlled and shaped as part of a mass of people because everyone is equal, so numbers matter more than quality of person or the unique insights of that person.

Internal motivation however requires understanding and cannot be communicated through symbols. It can be sketched, outlined, silhouetted, hinted at and described, but the actual thing cannot be conveyed between one mind and another. The person must be able and ready to reach that stage on their own, no matter how much hinting and nudging goes on.

This means that by trying to force people to unite on religion, we are being very modern and forcing the use of external traits to shape internal ones. In this capacity, religion behaves like an ideology — comparable to Communism or egalitarianism — in which the mass shows obedience to the ideology, and for doing so, is accepted in the group.

At its core, this method fails because the idea of ideology is external manipulation, which means that the individual is acting for reward and to avoid threats. This means that they do not actually internalize the ideology, but obey it like a traffic cop, tax auditor, or meter enforcement. They obey because it is convenient, but the real principle taught is self-interest.

Paganism recognized that only culture can bind us. Culture is both external and internal, in that anyone from a specific area has at least a genetic affinity toward the values of that culture. Through culture, an interpretation of religion arises that fits the specific group and enables them to be effective in using it.

Culture however cannot stand alone. People do not spontaneously unite around culture because it is intangible. It consists of sentiments, aesthetics, “gut feelings,” intuition and other completely organic and non-symbolic components. Culture requires strong leadership formed by an aristocracy instead of the weak leadership — bound with weak forces — of authoritarian states.

Aristocracy is strong power because it has the right to be arbitrary. A king does not have to prove that there should not be a block of ugly apartments next to a cozy neighborhood; he just orders it, on the basis of his judgment and aesthetics being superior in terms of understanding natural order (i.e. more “divine”) than those of others. Usually the king is right; the herd is always wrong.

Now this causes us a problem, because we have one strong way of uniting a nation or continent (aristocracy/culture) and many weak ways. The problem with the weak ways is that they will work at first, and then fail catastrophically.

Consider the history of Christianity. It was adopted for practical reasons because unlike Paganism it was written down and could be understood by the average person. It united the continent. But then, clashes between kings and churches arose because they were competing for power. The singular power of the kings had been broken by a weak force.

Within a few hundred years, Christianity then began its death cycle, and today the only people found at churches are the old and sick. Was this a problem with Christianity?

As it turns out, no: it was a consequence of using a weak force where we need a strong force. Christianity can only thrive under aristocrats because they return it to its proper role, which is spiritual guidance, and it must like a wife defer to the husband for questions of leadership, safety, long-term planning and war.

If we unite under Christianity, it will become an ideology, and we will then have a false unity and a controlling force followed by its collapse and our reversion to the lowest principles of self-interest. Since a particular religion like Christianity is external, it controls by self-interest, and when it fades, only that principle remains, but all restraints on it are gone.

Ancient societies operated not through a single method, like ideology, but through many heterogeneous methods in service to a few strong principles. Aristocrats were those who got to the bottom of any question, and with this knowledge, then asked themselves what they could do to make the situation turn out for the best. Wisdom and nobility together were the requisite abilities.

Weak forces fail for the same reasons all human groups do. They become proxies for reality, and then people learn how to game the system by working the proxy, and forget how to achieve the results they want in reality. The letter of the law becomes more important than the spirit of the law or its goals, and the group collapses.

In other words, Follin and Ramzpaul are right: Christianity can unite Europe. But then, Varg is also correct: that weak unity will then destroy Europe, much as it proved problematic in the past.

This does not mean that Christianity is a bad thing per se, only that it is the wrong thing to use to unify Europe. Until we remove democracy and restore aristocracy, Europe will not unite except on weak forces, which will collapse into quasi-anarchy like ideology, economic systems as motivation, and politics have.

At the same time, we must consider what Europe should look toward in terms of religion. But that is a question for another post, perhaps tomorrow.

Why Christianity Is Dying

Saturday, May 27th, 2017

When Christians wonder why the pews are less full, the answer is simple: Christianity has, like Leftism, followed an individualistic path that glories the self and denies reality, including its metaphysical aspects.

For the most recent guffaw on this topic, witness the suicidal Christian desire to use invaders as pew-fillers:

Some say it is an act of demographic conquest. Others argue it is a product of a failed American foreign policy. But one of America’s best known apologists says the crisis for the Christian West could be a new opportunity to win converts to the faith.

Joel Richardson, New York Times bestselling author of “The Islamic Antichrist” and the new book “Mystery Babylon,” says missionaries should not overlook the unique opportunity they’ve been given with the current wave of Muslim immigrants.

“Throughout history, the Lord has always used catastrophes for His own redemptive purposes,” he told WND. “This is exactly what He is doing now with the current Syrian war and the global Muslim refugee crisis. Obviously mass Muslim immigration to the West has innumerable long-term problems. Any casual glimpse at Western Europe reveals this. European secularism, socialism and multiculturalism have failed to incorporate the Muslim immigrants.”

The above treats Christianity as an ideology, which is what all individualists tend to do. Their beliefs are designed for their protection as individuals, and they need a herd to enforce those beliefs, so they create a network of rules designed to force others to not do anything that interferes with the ability of the individual to be individualistic, a condition in which they externalize the cost of their own behavior to society at large and profit from the exchange.

Christians of this nature want to build an army of true believers and they do not particularly care who those people are so long as there are many of them. Quantity, not quality, as usual. The downside of this is that the newcomers always adapt Christianity to their own needs, as any culture does, and soon we are back at square one.

But in the meantime, this author will get his headlines. His books will sell because his congregation is desperate for anything which makes a threat seem like a non-threat, and therefore, justifies the standard conservative behavior of doing nothing and paying taxes to fund the large government they hate.

And through his success, that of Christianity and society at large will be diminished.

Where The West Went Wrong

Wednesday, May 17th, 2017

We live among the ruins of the once-great Western Civilization.

What we think of as “our civilization” is in fact an impostor, a parasite living on the wealth and innovation of the past. It appears to be the same, but really they played the old shell game with us, and switched out the cup that had the penny under it by baffling our eyes with quick hand movements.

Instead of having a funeral, we should have a baby shower. From the ruins of the Old West, our Ersatz West was born, and from the ruins of that, we can raise up a New West which has the potential for countless years of greatness.

But people want to know where we went wrong, and there is nothing but a surplus of broken opinions that blame symptoms or details of the process and fail to see the root.

For example, the venerable Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn lunges in the wrong direction by blaming atheism:

But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.

What is more, the events of the Russian Revolution can only be understood now, at the end of the century, against the background of what has since occurred in the rest of the world. What emerges here is a process of universal significance. And if I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire twentieth century, here too, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God.

The failings of human consciousness, deprived of its divine dimension, have been a determining factor in all the major crimes of this century. The first of these was World War I, and much of our present predicament can be traced back to it. It was a war (the memory of which seems to be fading) when Europe, bursting with health and abundance, fell into a rage of self-mutilation which could not but sap its strength for a century or more, and perhaps forever. The only possible explanation for this war is a mental eclipse among the leaders of Europe due to their lost awareness of a Supreme Power above them. Only a godless embitterment could have moved ostensibly Christian states to employ poison gas, a weapon so obviously beyond the limits of humanity.

Let us instead apply some realism: every effect has a cause, and so if men lost God, there was a cause for this loss, as Fred Nietzsche famously pointed out. We cannot literally kill God, but we can kill our ability to be receptive to Him. And if men have forgotten God, it was because another god took His place.

Some would argue that this nu-god is science. Others would say money. I contend that it is something far older: control. People want to feel a sense of having control over their lives, and this becomes addictive, and soon extends to how they work with others. That then forms a social standard. At that point, people no longer trust intangibles like God or doing the right thing; they want that sensation of power over others, which is different from leadership because it serves only itself, and not a goal innate to civilization like attempting to lead it.

In order to see God, and to want to be realistic, we must first want to be good. There are two directions in life: either we aspire to what is good, or we do what is convenient and rationalize it as good. This is true of all goals; we either realize them, or we fail and then rationalize our failure as someone else’s fault, the task as not worth doing, the rain as having tripped us up, and other excuses and justifications. This is the nature of humanity: we either stay honest, which is a narrow thorny path, or we allow ourselves to rationalize and so, corrupt our thinking.

From Plato we see a powerful metaphor:

When discord arose, then the two races were drawn different ways: the iron and brass fell to acquiring money and land and houses and gold and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things. There was a battle between them, and at last they agreed to distribute their land and houses among individual owners; and they enslaved their friends and maintainers, whom they had formerly protected in the condition of freemen, and made of them subjects and servants; and they themselves were engaged in war and in keeping a watch against them.

Once society was geared toward “virtue” and the “ancient order,” meaning a type of natural order hierarchy in which balance was maintained between unequal parts. Then, having achieved money, the group no longer could share a purpose, and so they “agreed to disagree” and separated into middle class bourgeois style people who each built up their own pile of money and used civilization as a means to that end.

When civilization goes bad, the first thing that happens is that words change their meanings to reflect how they are commonly used. This usually means reversing that meaning entirely so that the original intent, which requires more than convenience from people, is not brought up in polite conversation. Through this method, society inverts its own values.

Even if we educate everyone in God, Patriotism and Working Hard, these terms will become inverted; this is exactly what we have seen happen to religion over the past centuries. Man forgot God because man forgot how to locate God, because man forgot how to appreciate God, because man forgot that the good has the greatest utility and value of all.

Biblical Support For Monarchy

Sunday, May 14th, 2017

From The Orthodox Life, an insight into the Biblical necessity of monarchy:

Lacking a monarchical form of government, every man in Israel “did that which was was right in his own eyes”. Instead of promoting peace and freedom, this state of affairs produced a nation full of people with hardened consciences:

The recognition and acknowledgment of God’s holy standard is a foundational necessity for repentance, and this fact is poignantly made in the book of Judges. This book spans several centuries, and covers numerous cases where Israelites raped and murdered one another, while committing flagrant forms of idolatry. Significantly, the book simultaneously repeats the refrain that “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25). We would be appalled just to read that Israelites were willingly committing acts of wickedness. But how much more shocking it is to hear that they committed these acts without even comprehending the gravity of their evil! It is ghastly to imagine that men can rape and murder in spite of their consciences. But it is even more mind-boggling to think that men can rape and murder in agreement with their consciences. Men’s consciences may become so seared that they don’t even feel guilt when committing such acts. People in such a state may express sorrow for getting caught, but they are not yet in a position to exercise true repentance. Before godly sorrow and meaningful confession can take place, the conscience itself must first be pricked. (Source: The Sacrament of Confession)

…The phrase is used again in the context of kidnapping, and also as a finale to the entire book of Judges:

Therefore they instructed the children of Benjamin, saying, “Go, lie in wait in the vineyards, and watch; and just when the daughters of Shiloh come out to perform their dances, then come out from the vineyards, and every man catch a wife for himself from the daughters of Shiloh; then go to the land of Benjamin. . . . And the children of Benjamin did so; they took enough wives for their number from those who danced, whom they caught. . . . In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:20-25)

In each case, notice that the phrase “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” is paired with the phrase, “In those days there was no king in Israel”. In other words, the lack of monarchy implies anarchy. The consciences of the populous were insufficient for bringing righteousness to the nation. A godly king was needed.

Morality and realism are parallels throughout history. Benevolent gods advise their population to do what is to their advantage in acquiring the best possible life, and this includes both earthly and metaphysical principles. Both are exhibited here: without leadership, people make stupid decisions and do what is immoral, because that is the nature of the human individual.

Without monarchy, society turns to anarchy. This does not happen like flipping a light switch, but gradually, as things do in nature. Like most paths to death, the path away from monarchy consists of many small details conspiring to make a miserable situation. If we heed the wisdom of the past, we too will turn from democracy and its subsequent anarchy and pursue aristocracy instead.

Exploring The Dream World

Friday, May 5th, 2017

When the topic of religion arises, as it inevitably does, a conflict between content and form emerges. Many of us out here agree with the general content of religion — belief in a higher order than the material, a sense the universe operates toward some purpose, and the notion that moral awareness is necessary — but find the form in which is placed, mass religion, to be alienating.

In fact, it is difficult after extensive experience of life not to believe in an order that animates this world beyond the mere physical act of things bumping into one another. Atheism — the opposite of the scientific approach, agnosticism — seems more an assertion of the human demand to be able to do whatever we want without being forced to see that much of it is unproductive or dysfunctional. Like most Leftist tropes, it is based in preemptive self defense against being wrong, a denial of risk, and reflects a deep inner neurosis.

Once one gets past the power of doubt and fear, or at least most of it, an order emerges which defies both organized religion and the ugly, pointless quest of atheism. Bruce Charlton calls it the “universal dream world”:

One aspect of this is that there are multiple references to the idea that the dream world is a realm of experience which is universal – in other words, dreaming is a single, vast domain – with distinctive qualities, different from the waking state – that is potentially accessible by all people.

Charlton must be read carefully because like the better authors of the past, and almost no one now, he uses language deliberately and intends it as a descriptive tool, where multiple factors are mentioned in combination, than a categorical or linear one that assigns a single value to a thing and uses it to control its boundaries.

What he describes as a “universal dream world” is something like material reality, or more specifically, space. It is a space of ideas, which he shorthands as dream, because it is not linear, but based on similarity of the shape of ideas such as is expressed in metaphor, simile, art and dream.

His thinking runs parallel to that of both transcendentalists and those who explore German idealism, a system of thought that states that reality, while empirical or “objective” in the parlance of the internet, is comprised of something like thought at a level lower than, or producing of, materiality. Heady stuff but it expands on the misunderstood Plato, who expressed something like the Hindu idea that the pattern of an action matters more than the material in which it is rendered.

Immanuel Kant created the foundation of this belief in the modern West, arguing that we see life through the filter of ourselves, and can only know the underlying reality through intuition, suggesting that we can derive principles of our world at its highest level not through rationality, but through something like the dream/metaphor state:

Kant holds that the objects of human cognition are transcendentally ideal and empirically real. They are transcendentally ideal, because the conditions of the cognition human beings have of objects are to be found in the cognitive faculties of human beings. This does not mean the existence of those objects is mind-dependent, because Kant thinks we can only know objects to the extent that they are objects for us and, thus, as they appear to us. Idealism with respect to appearances does not entail the mind-dependence of objects, because it does not commit itself to any claims about the nature of things in themselves. Kant denies that we have any knowledge of things in themselves, because we do not have the capacity to make judgments about the nature of things in themselves based on our knowledge of things as they appear.

The point Kant made that is vital to our understanding is that the human mind filters reality for what it can understand, and rationalizes this into a representation of reality. This correlates to the Platonic understanding of reality as a shadow on a cave wall, projected as the silhouette of an object from behind the eyes of the viewer. We see only what we can cognitively grasp.

From this runs two parallel observations: first, that there is more to the world than meets the eye; and second, as Plato also noted, that causality arises not from objects in motion, but from objects in the right pattern, similar to chemical reactions and the arrangement of atoms, electricity and the placement of electrons, and even music, where the right vibrations in the correct sequence produce a sound regardless of what instrument it is played upon. The idea is greater than the form in which it presents itself to us.

If the idea is supreme, the question arises as to the origin of idea. Some argue for a second world, or a dualistic perspective, in which the true forms of things hide; this view, called “neo-Platonism,” was popular for its perceived compatibility with Christianity. A more sane perspective sees ideas as something that are emergent in the material objects of our world, implying a cause to that effect found elsewhere within the world, perhaps in what Kant suggests we filter out.

And so, we have found a probable candidate for the “universal dream world,” one that is more pagan than modern, but can be accessed through the teachings of most faiths. In the pagan concept, the world included places which could not be visited by physical travel alone, such as lands of the dead or places where the gods resided. In their minds, the material space we know as physical reality was the smallest part of reality, dwarfed by spaces resembling ideas where metaphysical activity occurred.

Taking the view that our world is the result of these other spaces, and that these spaces are comprised of something thought-like and being part of this world, respond to our actions as transmitted through re-arrangement of pattern, including that of thought itself, we see a reason for the accessibility of this dream world: we are connected to it through a certain type of thought that actually alters patterns in our brains to be more like the root archetypes of objects, and thus creates an affinity to them because in an informational space, those things of similar shape or idea cluster together, being built from the same archetype.

With this, we unlock the secret of prayer. Those who discipline their thoughts to be closest to the objects they reference can then address the patterning of reality that will be expressed by those thought-objects, and through a creative process like mythic imagination, can exert influence on that space which then translates into this space. Meditation and prayer focus on the raw archetypes of objects through our intuition and in doing so, can have influence in the physical world.

This theory finds compatriots in others that attempt to explain the synchronous and seemingly non-biological nature of consciousness and thought, including the work of Roger Penrose, which attempts to demonstrate quantum physics applied to consciousness:

Artificial intelligence experts have been predicting some sort of computer brain for decades, with little to show so far. And for all the recent advances in neurobiology, we seem no closer to solving the mind-brain problem than we were a century ago. Even if the human brain’s neurons, synapses and neurotransmitters could be completely mapped—which would be one of the great triumphs in the history of science—it’s not clear that we’d be any closer to explaining how this 3-pound mass of wet tissue generates the immaterial world of our thoughts and feelings. Something seems to be missing in current theories of consciousness. The philosopher David Chalmers has speculated that consciousness may be a fundamental property of nature existing outside the known laws of physics. Others—often branded “mysterians”—claim that subjective experience is simply beyond the capacity of science to explain.

Penrose’s theory promises a deeper level of explanation. He starts with the premise that consciousness is not computational, and it’s beyond anything that neuroscience, biology, or physics can now explain. “We need a major revolution in our understanding of the physical world in order to accommodate consciousness,” Penrose told me in a recent interview. “The most likely place, if we’re not going to go outside physics altogether, is in this big unknown—namely, making sense of quantum mechanics.”

He draws on the basic properties of quantum computing, in which bits (qubits) of information can be in multiple states—for instance, in the “on” or “off” position—at the same time. These quantum states exist simultaneously—the “superposition”—before coalescing into a single, almost instantaneous, calculation. Quantum coherence occurs when a huge number of things—say, a whole system of electrons—act together in one quantum state.

What is significant about this work is that it implies pattern states as opposed to linear causality, and by extending it to a quantum arena beyond the reach of normal physics, implies something close to metaphysics, perhaps a cousin.

Naturally this seems a bit heady for moderns. We are comfortable with chemical reactions and electrical circuits, but find this metaphysical spaciness to be a bit much. But then, in comes quantum physics, which tells us that an observer influences what is observed, and suddenly we are not so sure. If looking at a particle can fix its direction, looking into a pattern can also influence its direction, even if we do it not with our eyes but with some intuitive inner part of the mind.

What we have here is the idea expressed in the Perennial Philosophy, which is that religions intersect on some truths but describe them differently, usually through metaphor; this is not a “common ground” to all religions, or a validation of any specific religion, but a pointer to the aspects of reality which all religions hope to reveal and explain. That they do so unequally, and in the midst of other cultural and historical carryovers, does not change the importance of this fact.

Keeping this in mind, we can look at Western religion as it is now as a deviation from this fundamental understanding. Some of the brighter transcendentalists, like Meister Eckhart and William Blake, understood this view and used Christianity as a metaphorical pattern language for explaining it. They are rare, in that most religion converges upon the needs of its audience, something that is mostly cultural but eventually becomes social and political as a civilization ages and becomes unstable.

Nietzsche said “God is dead.” But how many read the full quotation?

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

Friedrich Wilhelm “Fred” Nietzsche is telling us above not that God has died, but that he has become undiscovered by humanity because the form he took was no longer relevant to us, both through our degeneration and through the changes in our learning. In other words, we have either abandoned or outgrown our religious imagery, or both. We need a new vision of this eternal truth.

Christianity has come under fire from many sides, mostly for the idea that a content and form division exists. The content of Christianity may be correct, but its form — which succeeded because by writing down the religion in simplified form, it “democratized” spirituality and philosophy and removed them from the domain of exceptional thinkers to that of the common person — may do what form often does, which is alter the content by shaping it to fit the mode of expression. Think about translating Beethoven into hip-hop, or Dante into emoji, or even the Sistine Chapel ceiling into a comic book. Something is lost, and it may be attitudinal more than anything, a vanishing grandeur or appropriate vision of our human world through history and myth.

Very few philosophies can be said to be complete. Most focus on one aspect of the field, like epistemology, and then try to draw other conclusions from that beachhead. With German idealism, a philosophy was discovered that explained all fields at once. It even included implications for morality, in that if the world is partially inscrutable, our task is to make it reveal itself so that we know what is real so that we can make moral decisions on that basis. Ancient philosophies tend to be this way, expressed half in literature and half in religion, revealing the seeds of ideas in order to launch people on a journey of discovery that constitutes the completed philosophy in degrees.

If we have a future philosophy, it must cross the bridge between faith and realism. It can be metaphorical, as in the past, but it must also fit with what we know of the modern time. A morality of personal dignity and implicit pacifism, as occurs in Christianity, ends in a sense of universal brotherhood of man that is based on the false assumption that all people see the same world. That type of morality has receded into the “faith” category as humanity, liberated by The Enlightenment,™ has shown itself to be entirely Simian in its behavior, albeit hidden behind lengthy speeches, fine clothes, high technology and altruistic public intentions.

Dr. Alex McFarland identifies the reasons for a attenuation of faith in the newest generations:

1. Mindset of “digital natives” is very much separate from other generations. Millennials are eclectic on all fronts—economically, spiritually, artistically. There is little or no “brand loyalty” in most areas of life.

2. Breakdown of the family. It has long been recognized that experience with an earthly father deeply informs the perspective about the heavenly father. In “How the West Really Lost God, sociologist Mary Eberstadt correctly asserts, “The fortunes of religion rise or fall with the state of the family.”

3. Militant secularism: Embraced by media and enforced in schools, secular education approaches learning through the lens of “methodological naturalism.” It is presupposed that all faith claims are merely expressions of subjective preference. The only “true” truths are claims that are divorced from any supernatural context and impose no moral obligations on human behavior. People today are subjected to an enforced secularism.

4. Lack of spiritual authenticity among adults. Many youth have had no — or very limited — exposure to adult role models who know what they believe, why they believe it, and are committed to consistently living it out.

5. The church’s cultural influence has diminished. The little neighborhood church is often assumed to be irrelevant, and there is no cultural guilt anymore for those who abandon involvement.

6. Pervasive cultural abandonment of morality. The idea of objective moral truth—ethical norms that really are binding on all people—is unknown to most and is rejected by the rest.

7. Intellectual skepticism. College students are encouraged to accept platitudes like “life is about asking questions, not about dogmatic answers.” Is that the answer? That there are no answers? Claiming to have answers is viewed as “impolite.” On life’s ultimate questions, it is much more socially acceptable to “suspend judgment.”

8. The rise of a fad called “atheism.” Full of self-congratulatory swagger and blasphemous bravado, pop-level atheists such as the late Christopher Hitchens (whom I interviewed twice) made it cool to be a non-believer. Many millennials, though mostly 20-something Caucasian males, are enamored by books and blogs run by God-hating “thinkers.”

9.  Our new God: Tolerance be Thy name. “Tolerance” today essentially means, “Because my truth is, well, my truth, no one may ever question any behavior or belief I hold.” This “standard” has become so ingrained that it is now impossible to rationally critique any belief or behavior without a backlash of criticism.

10. The commonly defiant posture of young adulthood. As we leave adolescence and morph into adulthood, we all can be susceptible to an inflated sense of our own intelligence and giftedness. During the late teens and early 20s, many young people feel 10 feet tall and bulletproof. I did. The cultural trend toward rejection of God—and other loci of authority—resonates strongly with the desire for autonomy felt in young adulthood.

Leaving aside the parts of this are creations of Leftism, which adores atheism because it smashes belief in anything but ideology, the majority of these relate to a religion that is misunderstood, applied to the wrong things, and have in general lost utility because it no longer connects us to the universal dream world or anything like it.

We have grown up in a time of rationality, enforced not just by technology but through social pressures, as has been consistent since The Enlightenment,™ when it was proclaimed that the human form came before natural and divine order. The whims of humans, and their choices, were separated from their results in reality, including at any metaphysical level that is present. This separated what is actual and real from what is “rational,” or can be explained in human logic, which is usually after-the-fact and designed to justify human choices that made no sense in the first place.

Instead of looking for a rational version of faith, as Christians have for the past half-millennium, it might make sense to look instead for a realistic metaphysics. This is what Charlton, Penrose and others are doing: rebirthing our faith in God by taking that eternal truth and explaining it in forms that fit our society now, and in doing so, lift it partially from its decay.

When a civilization goes bad, all of its institutions, including language and understanding, are corrupted. A religion cannot be built on words, but it can be created from understanding, even if that understanding is still alien to most people today. A seed of insight, followed by the more naturally inquisitive, can reject the old form of religion and give it a new form, at which point it will make sense with our learning in the intervening years.

How would one go looking for a realistic metaphysics? The first step is monism, or realizing that the rules of this world apply, and nothing that is or seems arbitrary will work. The second step is to take Plato seriously, and recognize argument that the physical world is the effect of some informational or thought-like larger portion of the world. Finally, we reach the stage where Charlton is, where we are staring into an infinite space made of ideas, and learning how to program it with our minds.

We know that the physical universe acts as a calculating machine. Darwinism is calculation; species are refined by a series of tests embodied in individuals, with more accurate answers prevailing over the rest. Christianity, by seeming to assert the equality of souls, contradicts Darwinism and reduces us to a world of social values only where each person is viewed as a programmable object. The opposite is true: people are not programmable, but history is, by ensuring that through “good to the good, bad to the bad” that only those who embody the ideals of sanity and health prevail. Leftism seeks to reverse that, of course, because it wants us to live in a world where our whim and desire command reality around us, instead of the other way around. It is a form of individualism for this reason: equality means that no one is wrong, and everyone is accepted, such that we can never be at risk of failing in our understanding of the world, which is itself an attempt to blot out the reality that some understand more of existence than others.

If monism is correct, then the metaphysical level works like a calculating machine as well. Its universal dream space is then programmable, at least by those who understand it, and is the opposite of arbitrary, but instead is intensely logical. At that point, our only philosophy consists of understanding this world, and working with its forms, so that we can adapt and improve ourselves at the same time.

Most modern people focus on themselves. They feel the world has become incomprehensible and has probably gone bad, so they focus on themselves. This translates into moral preening, or symbolic actions instead of realistic ones. Unfortunately in a time of decay, most religious thought follows this paradigm as well, resulting in its irrelevance. The sooner we resurrect the relevance of religious thought, the sooner it can become a tool in our chest dedicated to restoring Western Civilization.

Religion alone will not do. The conservatives who bang the same tired tin drum of patriotism, religion and working hard have missed the point: none of those are solutions, and they amount to moral preening because of their non-solution status. Instead we need to realize that our civilization has crashed and burned, and now we face the long task of resurrecting it, including its understanding of metaphysics and religion.

Speaking Up In Defense Of Religion

Tuesday, May 2nd, 2017

Curt Doolittle throws in an interesting critique of religion and suggestion for its renovation:

So, when you say ‘religion’, we all need the services provided by ‘religion’ whether or not we consume them directly or indirectly through others.

The question is whether we need supernaturalism, fictionalism, and outright falsehood. The answer is demonstrably no.

…There is no reason we cannot cause the production of truthful religion by the suppression of fictional religion. History replaces myth. Fiction fictionalism. Science superstition. And the natural law of men, resistance against suggestion, deception, and predation.

Some of you have experienced the writings here critical of religion as a substitute for restoring civilization and religion as a form of neutralizing agent for conservatives, and might wonder what the approach to religion is around here.

The answer is that the Right is divided, as the question of religion always seems to divide, between those who are mostly-religious and those who are mostly-conservative. The latter want real-world solutions, where the former have varying degrees of concern about the real world, and essentially want a theocracy and for conservatism to be based entirely in religion.

Raging realists find ourselves in a tight spot. By nature, we see that there is no ideology-type solution to our problems, such as demanding that we become theocratic; we also, however, note not just the utility but the joy of religion, and the greater-than-even chance that it is at least metaphorically correct.

Most people would expect raging realists to break for the quoted passage above, and while Doolittle writes a good many good things, on this point some clarification exists. Religion is meant to be metaphorical and to describe that which does not translate into our physical logic and narrow human perspective. It is designed to raise us up above all that to see the big picture.

Those who embrace the doctrine of parallelism see the necessity for religion to exist in parallel to realism; that is, if one contradicts the other, something is wrong. No god misleads his people, but there are a good many religious fanatics who are living through their emotions and are oblivious to logical and real-world questions. Those are dangerous, like the race fanatics or class warfare fans.

Doolittle makes a good point, which is that religion-as-it-was is not surviving. Despite the attempts of orthodox traditionalist types to out-extreme one another, on the whole the churches are dying as they shift Leftward, a consequence of their interpretation of Christian morality as personal and not civilizational.

On the right, we mourn the loss of tradition, but who wants to go to one of these churches and hear the equality-dogma rephrased in a new form? Furthermore, how are we to support something which seems to not only work against us now, but in the past, fragmented the rule of kings by competing with them, further tearing down our fragile civilization?

Perhaps we can renovate it. Maybe. Perhaps we can overcome its foreign roots. But it seems a complete error to try to modernize it, and thus to most likely twist its meanings. A better approach would be to recognize that religion is metaphor for what cannot be described literally, and we should not try to make it into materialism.

As one who finds the evidence of God (and gods) to be more likely than not, it strikes me as a mistake to make religion into an ideology, but also a mistake to make ideology into religion, which is what we will do by materializing faith. Instead, we live in an age where we need guidance more than ever, and we find it only through civilization restoration and a return of religion to its rightful place.

Conservatives Need To End Confusion About The Roots Of Western Civilization

Friday, April 28th, 2017

The big problem with living in a collapsing civilization is that by defending parts of that dying empire, you further its survival instead of allowing it to pass peacefully along and be restarted. This has been the flaw of conservatism all along.

For example, if your government has become corrupt, defending it in wars and paying taxes merely helps it achieve its evil aims. The more you try to fix it without scrapping it, the more it gains power to do more bad.

It becomes tempting to defend other things that, in a functional civilization, would be good. By doing that, you end up protecting parts of the decline simply because they are better than other parts.

In addition, people find inverse scapegoats, or “proxies,” that they cling to. These seem like good things, but by distracting from what actually must be done and absorbing the resources that need to go toward that, they become methods of self-defeat.

To clarify: it is not that these things are bad per se, but they are not the solution we need, and therefore are both a distraction and a fatal mistake.

For example, Fred Reed writes about the place of Christianity in the West:

Renegade Jews founded Christianity (most Jews soon wished they had not), as a sort of heresy that got out of control, lost all resemblance to Judaism, and eventually stretched across Europe, Russia, North and South America, Australia, and the Byzantine Empire. In all of these it shaped the culture, art, philosophy, literature, the very framework of mind. Much of this was superb and remains unsurpassed.

And what a magnificent thing it was! The traveler of today may have seen the gorgeous churches of Cuzco in the Peruvian Andes, Norman churches in Sicily, and Notre Dame, Salisbury, the wonderful cathedral of Barcelona, the Hagia Sophia, the ceremony of the Russian Orthodox. The artistry, the engineering needed to build many of them in times without structural steel are astonishing. Today in Mexico, in town after town one finds the churches on the central plaza, all different, many splendid, places of quiet and meditation. In any of these them, before Protestantism cast its drab cloak of half of the faith, a traveler could enter and understand everything he saw.

This is a typical conservative attitude — remember, they are the people of “patriotism, religion and working hard” (PRWH) — that ignores the fact that Western civilization was constructing great architecture and developing great art and philosophy for many years before Christ. Even if we ignore the Greeks and pre-Christian Romans, there are the Indo-Europeans who wandered through Asia and left behind many great civilizations, all of which display the things he writes about above, although most are lost to time.

Please do not mistake this for an anti-Christian rant. I love old churches, many of the Christian rituals, and the Christian sexual morality which was probably appropriated from the pagans but which modern-day pagans have not retained. Chastity and virginity are forces upon which one can build a great civilization by creating honest people and loving families. All those who want to destroy civilizations — I am thinking of Leftists here, and big business — oppose this type of self-discipline and honor.

As a traditionalist of the perennialist school, I view religion as literature. We live in one world, and reality has one truth, but it is described in many forms, most metaphorical because the metaphysical and eternal does not translate well into specific language. There are insights to be found in all of the great faiths.

However, Christianity has two big stumbling blocks. The first is that by being a religion of the Word, it makes itself accessible and exploitable in a way that esoteric faiths do not. The second is that, no matter how much of it was borrowed from European sources, Christianity ultimately has a foreign origin. This is not an anti-Semitic charge; it does not matter which foreign group did it, and we can even like and respect them as I do, but they remain foreign and so does Christianity despite centuries of Europeanization.

Instead this essay encourages those on the Right (realists who see a need for a qualitative approach to existence) to look at the Europeanization, and not Christianity. Everywhere our people have gone, we have made things that are both great and specific to us, capable of appreciation but not duplication elsewhere in the world, because they are an outpouring of our souls and genetics, two things that are linked because — like it or not — genetics determines much if not all of how we see the world.

Reed goes on to typical conservative “woe is all” thinking:

The future? Christianity seems to be dying out. A resurgence is hard to imagine. It simply isn’t suited to the modern world. The Old Testament in particular is ugly and immoral and its magical events I suspect are too much for the modern mind.

You might call this a victory for paganism. The pagans, believers in mystical events and an underlying order to all existence, have the same contemplative outlook that Schopenhauer praised in Christianity. This fits with how I define Western people, which is that we are reflective or prone to analysis not just of material but of meaning and pattern to existence.

Keep in mind that I write this as someone who finds great inspiration in many Christian writers and thinkers. In my view, they are speaking a different dialect of the same language we see in Greco-Roman, Nordic and Hindu paganism. However, paganism unlike Christianity is monistic, informal and idealistic or based in the idea of the world being composed of something that acts like thought or idea.

By targeting proxies instead of our actual goal, conservatives doom us to repetition. Christianity rode along with the West for some time, but its focus on personal morality caused people to turn their gaze from the future of civilization, and instead to focus on being moral for the sake of appearances. We cannot fix that; we need a more warlike, comprehensive, forward-looking faith.

Like the other parts of PRWH, religion is a proxy. We cannot save the West through religion. We need to simply restore Western Civilization, and while for now Christianity is a strong signal perceived to be Western-ness, focus on it obscures both our roots and the moral need to fix civilization at the same time we behave morally on a personal level.

Patriotism, the P of PRWH, also misleads us. It has us defending government and democracy with their inherent assumption of equality, which is contrary to the founding method of the West in hierarchy based on what is correct and good, not what avoids violating moral commandments. If you need a holy book to tell you not to murder, rape or steal, your civilization is already in freefall.

Working hard (WH) also misleads us by focusing on equality instead of results. Someone can utterly fail, but because he “worked hard,” he is praised. In addition, this retasks our brains away from the important question of what we should be doing toward the method of work itself, which quickly invents infinite avenues to distract us from reality.

What made the West great was its sense of social order plus our people. Our genetics are our roots. Our heritage is what makes us different from the rest of the world, and makes us alone capable of restoring the West. Any target other than saving our people, genetically, and restoring social order is a false target and thus, an enemy.

Recommended Reading