Posts Tagged ‘religion’

Pagan Christianity

Monday, June 19th, 2017

The Right desperately needs to get right with God.

Perhaps not in the way most would think, this need arises from the confusion about the role of religion in the Right. Some want it to be the basis of the Right and to install a de facto theocracy; others see it as irrelevant; still others argue that conservatism is not based on a single method, as ideology is, and that religion is one part — perhaps not for all people — of a bundle of methods that together make a solution but are not in themselves solutions.

These seem to be prerequisites that can be accidentally made into ideologies. For example, racial and ethnic homogeneity is necessary for a thriving society, but in itself it is not a whole solution, only part of one. Similarly, deposing democracy and equality is a partial solution. Together these and other methods make up a complete society.

For that reason, it makes sense to view religion as not a solution in itself, but also something that at least many of us need. This gets us away from the theocracy that forces us all to become believers, and instead points to rule by culture, which requires strong nationalism to establish.

This takes us in turn to the question, which religion?

Varg Vikernes makes a compelling point for avoiding Christianity. It leads to Leftism, and conspired against our people in the past, not to mention creates the “personal morality” conditions which encourage virtue signaling. In his view, as in Nietzsche’s, it is entirely too pacifistic and fatalistic of a religion.

Onto this we might add one other shining elephant in the room: at least geographically — the Christianity Identity folks have some interesting input here on the origins of Biblical Jews — it is foreign, or simply put not European. The names are not in our languages, nor are the locations, or presumably many of the customs and values.

To this it is important to add that Christianity is also at least from a surface reading, which over time in the hands of large groups is what it will be streamlined to be, it is dualistic, or posits another world where the rules are more real than the rules in this one. In other words, logic is not logic; there is a different logic, more like a human logic, which is actually real.

DARG adds another failing of Christianity, which relates to the personal morality it champions:

The beginning of this is a clarification on the terms sacred and profane. Christianity has made [humans] believe that the sacred is themselves, and equivalent to “tolerance and love” (towards what they define as permissible, of course) and “feeling nice and warm”, and that the profane is everything that opposes that. How convenient. The more historical and philosophical stance, on the other hand, sees in the every-day world, and all that it holds, benign of malignant, as profane; and sees in the world of the exceptional, of man going beyond the merely human, the sacred.

The personal morality of Christianity, and its exoteric nature or tendency to behave like an ideological system more than a deep-learning skill, make it a mixed bag when it comes to religions. It is the great unifier, but that also means it simplifies the message.

Pagan faiths, on the other hand, are monistic — they believe there is no alternate set of rules for the universe, and that all that we need to know can be found in nature, science and logic — and esoteric, or formed of cumulative self-directed learning in which some are naturally gifted to go farther than others. Exotericism is inherently egalitarian; esotericism is innately hierarchical.

In fact, pagan faiths more resemble a philosophy and folkway with metaphysical implications than a religion, or organized spiritual dogma for the sake of shaping mass behavior:

This effort of combining all non-Christian religions under one umbrella was, in fact, a clever strategy by the early Christians to remove the “pagan” faiths altogether. Using the Norse traditions as an example, the Vikings of the early medieval period had no true name for their religious following. In truth, the word religion would have been an unknown, foreign term to them. The Nordic tribes preferred the word “customs” as—like the Greeks and Romans—their rituals, beliefs, and traditions were undefined and fluidly interpreted, orally passed down rather than rigidly studied. There was no all-encompassing word for the belief in the Aesir and Vanir, and the various other beings and deities the ancient Norse worshiped, and there was no written text discussing their practices until the Christian author Snorri Sturluson wrote their mythology down in the 13th century.

Now, the picture gets more complex because Christianity is mostly Pagan. It is clearly a derivative, or rather a compilation and synthesis of the indigenous faiths of lands the Jewish scribes were in contact with, featuring the Greeks whose philosophy they loved above all else. This means that there are Greek, Nordic, Hindu and other faiths retold in the Bible.

There was a reason why formerly “pagan” communities switched to Christianity, namely that it was both mostly familiar and more effective for manipulating herds of people. The exoteric nature of Christianity means that its symbols can be directly adjusted to cause people to behave one way or another. Some of this was positive, namely getting people to leave behind previous antisocial habits.

However, this displacement of the original faiths also led to cultural erasure. When a simpler and more easily understood version of a tradition comes along, especially one that is written, people simply adopt the new and forget the old, which most importantly contains the roadmap to understanding the reasons for the beliefs.

What this means however is that there is a bridge between pagan faiths and Christianity, and that for this reason, we can have faith that is not strictly entrenched in either one, only expressed through it, and that over time, this may change to the simpler and more internal, informal and naturalistic pagan ideation. Consider the Perennial nature of spirituality:

It also makes sense to have some form of metaphysical outlook, perhaps of a Perennialist nature:

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.

If we distill religions to their core and take the intersection, we see a basic starting point that does not necessarily need formalization and, if kept informalized, loses its “human” projection and interpretation, and starts to resemble more the pagan faiths and even older Indo-European religion that our pre-Greek ancestors adopted.

This takes us away from religion as an external constraint that we adopt in order to shape ourselves and become a mass of people acting toward some goal, and reverts it to its original form, which is an observation about the nature of reality that reveals hints of the metaphysical embedded within nature:

As that great non-church and heterodox Christian Rudolf Steiner said: to disbelieve in God is to be, in a real sense, insane; in other words, it is to disbelieve any possibility of coherence, meaning and purpose – which is to regard all of life as a delusion.

…And to deny God within us and the world is to live earthly life in a state of detachment – since we can only observe and never actually participate in reality: we can never know.

In other words, religion is rediscovered by those with clarity of mind who can observe nature; this is the essence of transcendentalism, in which joy arises from understanding the nature of the world and seeing it in logic, therefore wisdom, and therefore beauty and a positive intention toward those of us caught in it, which in turn implies a life-like force to the universe, which per German Idealism — also found in Hinduism — is thought-like, dream-like or composed of thought or information.

In this way, we can see how for the West to rediscover the divine, Christianity must converge on the less formal and more intuitive forms of religious faith, which are the folk customs and existential search of the inner self that produces our classically reflective outlook.

Already we see signs of this. The Orthosphere-style thinkers tend either to embrace Catholicism, or outward-in, religious thinking, or to go the other way and embrace transcendentalism with discipline. This leads to a more naturalistic interpretation of religion that is naturally less obsessed with personality morality and its means-over-ends analysis.

Pagan Christianity, in addition to the Perennial Philosophy traits mentioned above per Aldous Huxley, also has a different map of the cosmos and metaphysical. At its core, this represents a shift from three paths (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) to four:

  1. Information-Space
  2. Godhead
  3. God
  4. Gods

In this mythos, the natural order of a universe comprised of information comes first, and with it the notion that we each have a role to serve determined by our logical placement within this order. Natural law and logic come first, and within them there are other spaces.

Godhead is the animating force of all that we know and the most essential tendencies of the universe. This works within the information-space, shaping us toward the divine and influencing the birth of the gods.

At the top, there is an all-encompassing God which represents holiness itself and less of an active personality than a tendency, like gravity or rain, to order the universe into beauty by balancing darkness and light so that existence itself can prevail. Since the universe is relative, darkness is necessary to emphasize light, much like death gives significance to life.

Below that are the gods, or animistic forces with distinct personalities. These are manifested forces which act according to their own interest, which means that we can respect them without expecting them to judge us or treat us according to some moral standard of our own. They simply do what they do, but they reflect the spirit of godhead, and so are divine while bridging to the profane world of the mundane.

At the bottom are the creatures of Earth and beyond, including humans and plants, who exhibit spirit of their own. These are able to partake in divinity by seeking transcendence and avoiding hubris, but will never fully know what is on the other side because they are limited to a perspective of the physical and individualized.

Perhaps that is enough of a start for now. We have seen how Christianity and Paganism are not that much different, how they share a core, and how we can rediscover that core by starting from reality itself. As with all esoteric things, that represents a doorway opened, and a path upon which each of us will journey a different distance, often down different tributaries.

How Religion May Tear The Right Apart, Again

Thursday, June 15th, 2017

Over at Red Ice, Reinhard Wolff writes a great summary of how operant paradigm shifts produce new ages of history and the challenges to nationalist and traditionalist thinkers from that front:

With that in mind, it’s obvious that we need a new ideology – one that offers room for different religious inclinations.

This new mythos based on the fundamental laws of nature – hierarchy, identity, differentiation, upward evolution and struggle, to name a few. For regardless which stances one takes on metaphysical issues, the laws of nature reign supreme in this world, and civilizations that fall out of the natural order are doomed. This new ideology must support virtue and promotes excellence, strength, beauty, and honor. Most importantly, it must be able to transcend our differences.

Categories can baffle and befuddle us. More important than a particular religion, or even the choice of religion, is our desire to be good. The root of both conservatism and religion is found in a desire to be part of an order larger than the self; this requires enough maturation to stop being fascinated by desires, drama and attention.

That in turn requires a desire to be good, which in turn necessitates realism so that we know what will be good in reality by achieving good results. This forces a split from most religion and politics, which focuses on defining certain methods as good instead of focusing on whether the cumulative results of our actions produce something good and enduring.

In that sense, we do not need an ideology, but a cultural agreement that we wish to be good by doing good, and that religion may have a role in this but only where compatible. Religions will experiencing a type of editing through re-interpretation via this process, and through this, something curious will happen.

While we await the symbolism of a religion of the new age, we do not disagree on content, which is converging more on the pagan than the Christian. The pagan faiths — nature beliefs, not human ones; unwritten, not written; practiced, not theorized — are not the stories of the gods, but a general outlook that includes a belief in a natural hierarchy into which humanity fits and human individuals fit unequally.

If the Alt Right and related movements have a core, it is a rejection of the fundamental idea of The Enlightenment,™ which is that “man is the measure of all things.” Our focus instead is on reality, and how nature plus the divine is the measure of all things, including human survival. That “meta-religion” defines our future more than a specific denomination can.

Evil Hubristic Crowdists Gaslight Your Sense Of Inner Knowledge

Monday, May 22nd, 2017

What is hubris, which the Greeks identified as the great evil of humankind? It is “me first”: a tendency to put oneself above one’s rightful station in the social order. This can be men pretending to be gods, proles pretending to be kings, or people who care nothing for social order or consequences in reality and claw their way above others from some mild sociopathic impulse.

Crowdists, or those who unite individualism and collectivism into a force designed to legitimize hubris, gaslight us constantly by creating the impression that what “everyone knows” contradicts our inner knowledge, found in deep in the self in the intuition, aesthetics and moral wisdom nature has fashioned for us. These forms of knowledge are unique in that they are qualitative, or accept reality as it is but aim for the best possible versions of it, and while found in the inner self are directed toward the world which is seen as a continuity between physical reality, intuitions and any thought-like or metaphysical reality.

You can witness this gaslighting — a reference to an Alfred Hitchcock film in which a character deftly manipulates another by making events seem to be the opposite of how they were observed — whenever the Leftist-fueled media talks about what “intelligent” people know:

The researchers examined different models that had been proposed for explaining why believers are allegedly less intelligent. It selected and revised evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa’s Savanna-IQ Principle. This suggests that what we do and believe has its foundation in the environment of our ancestors.

The researchers concluded that religion is an evolved instinct, while intelligence “involves rising above our instincts.” After all, intelligence and all that comes with it does often involve controlling our instincts in order to allow our minds to reach rational conclusions.

Indeed, as Hawking told Spain’s El Mundo last year: “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation.”

This is the ultimate in human hubris: researchers telling us that those who see more than they do are in fact wrong, and that “intelligence” arises by denying any logical facts which require more sensitivity to perceive. In other words, dumb it down to what the herd thinks is right so we can all stop worrying about any duty to know reality or moral right. Anarchy is saved!

Intelligence cannot be made into a mass-produced, identical creation as this article implies. But what they can do is a classic egalitarian technique: reduce everyone to a level called “equal” by claiming that since all of us do not understand what the most perceptive among us are going on about, those things are simply not real and we are smarter for excluding that wisdom.

As usual, this is an inversion, or the tendency of a group (herd, crowd, mob, gang, cult, clique) to make a term mean the opposite of what it was intended to mean by eliminating the parts that do not apply equally to the group. In that sense, intelligence is reduced to ignorance, beauty to utilitarianism, and justice to treating people of unequal contribution as if they were equal.

You can see this inversion pathology at work in this herd analysis of another idea familiar to readers here, in which having the mental ability to notice differences becomes not higher ability but lower in the wisdom of the crowd:

In a scholarly journal called Social Bias: Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination written by Sabrina Keene, Keene explains social bias, prejudice, and stereotyping and how it affects the lives of individuals from day to day. She explains that:

Individuals who do not fall victim to bias are often able to use such circumstances as motivating factors. Individuals are often afraid of what they do not know. The best defense against ignorance is knowledge. Education and familiarization with the object of a prejudice or stereotype allows the truth to be discovered and applied. Being educated allows an individual the ability to embrace and accept differences in other, and aids in bringing society together.

As Keene perfectly explains, a person who falls victim to stereotypes and prejudice is likely to feel defeated and have negative connotations towards others. People of color that experience color-blind racism everyday can either fall victim or use this newly found ignorance to their advantage. When people begin to familiarize themselves with racial discrimination toward people of color, even if it doesn’t apply to them personally, there are able to gain a newly found sympathy for the individual.

Once a social bias is destroyed, society gets one step closer to eliminating racial discrimination due to less people spreading the negative ideals and more people being educated on the effects of discrimination and why they can cause people of color to feel anger toward those trying to suppress them.

Read this one in inverse: the real social bias is the notion that pleases everyone, which is that we are all the same. This allows individualists to bond together into a group united on the selfish notion that we do not need standards, purpose or values in common, but we can all do whatever we want and society should foot the bill.

Diversity, or racial egalitarianism, emerged from egalitarian thought in the early days of the French Revolution. It lives on through the idea of “workers of the world unite,” which is a handy way of saying that if you discard any allegiance but to a paycheck, a crowd of great power can be formed to seize wealth and authority from those who are naturally more competent at using them.

In both of these circumstances, Leftist propagandists identify thinking that requires inner knowledge and contemplation of reality as ignorant, and replace it with their own dogma, essentially arguing against depth of knowledge in favor of having the “correct” knowledge according to egalitarianism.

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.

Discovering The Nature Of “Control”

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

Amerika has taken the lead on the Right in criticizing the unifying method of our society: control, which serves only the individualistic ego, as opposed to cooperation, which requires a purpose and therefore invokes questions like “who are we?” and “what should we be doing?” which make it unsuitable for consensus politics.

Control is a philosophy of mass motivation: break people down into individuals motivated by external material reward, create a fungible crowd, demand that it do and believe the same things, and keep it individuals in constant fear that they will “stand out” from the crowd as having violated the fundamental principle of the crowd, and simultaneously motivate them to “stand out” by demonstrating their allegiance to the idea that unites the crowd. This creates a mass of people who are fundamentally inert in their confusion but can be used as means to an end; the trap in control is that control only serves itself, and those who hope to use control find themselves being swallowed up by it. Control is at first power, and later, inversion of the will through its enslavement to the need to continue and further control.

More voices on the Right are joining a critique of the nature of control:

This system, which still dominates the present-day power structure, has some troubling aspects that help to explain the growing dysfunction and decline of our society. I want to draw attention to two in particular.

First, because power is based on control rather than on ownership, there is a constant need to justify it through appeals to the emotions of the masses. Rather than being defined by the interests of the masses, democracy is defined by what can be sold to the masses, which is definitely not the same thing. Secondly, the need to demonstrate competence outweighs the need to have actual competence.

The great irony is that these two characteristics are produced by a system dedicated to efficient control and getting results, but in effect they work against efficiency and results.

The defining attribute of control is its focus on external features and motivations. This pairs handily with equality, which insists that people are essentially the same, and that changes in behavior and motivation are regulated by their position in society, wealth, power, education, social group and other factors that are outside of their personalities.

External factors are those, in other words, outside of individuality itself: the moral and realistic choices of an individual based on what that person understands and values. The “understanding” portion of that calculus involves a good deal of genetic determinism, since intelligence and most preferences are biological in nature and thus heritable.

Control can only be opposed by cooperation, which requires a sharing of purpose and values, both of which arise from internal traits and are assessed through gut instinct and intuition including aesthetics. Cooperation unites unequal individuals in the pursuit of a shared goal, knowing that while each may benefit differently, all achieve the baseline benefit of reaching that goal.

The way to understand inner traits is to explore the nature of thinking:

We discover true hypotheses by attaining to a clear knowing, by achieving a transparency of thinking. (Such transparency must, in practice, be achieved actively – not least by rejecting false assumptions.)

Truth is then seen – but it is not imposed on us; it is possible to know and to deny (that is a consequence of human agency, or free will).

The proper conduct of science involves attaining this clear seeing – which is a question of attitude, which is dependent on motivation: on wanting, more than anything, to know.

External thinking does not focus on clear understanding of the world, but instead is inward looking toward human individuals and their impulses or reactions to stimulus. Internal thinking is more reflective, contemplative and most of all, quiet. It suppresses the cacophony of desires, whims and responses that normally fill the human mind, and sees the world as close to as it is as possible.

What this leads us to is the most interesting of hybrids: a realist approach to philosophy, anchored in the fundamental ideas of religion, namely that for those who can think, clarifying the mind, finding eternal values and pushing aside the dual social and emotional impulses of humanity to discover something approximating a moral adaptation to existence.

“Modernity Is Not An Option”

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

On Red Ice TV, philosopher Nick Land expands Neoreaction into an Alt Right critique of modernity, making for a highly interesting interview.

Land has packed every essential concept in the cluster of dissident anti-modern thought — postmodernism, aristocracy, post-democracy, religion, identitarianism and extreme libertarian anarcho-capitalist viewpoints — into a series of statements which explore the depths of each of these through their interconnections.

While this requires more time and patience than many interviews, being more of a graduate-level seminar than a pop media product, his breadth of understanding and analysis of the intersection of these different ideas makes Mr. Land’s interview an informative listen. Great to see the Red Ice crew bringing this influential thinker on-air!

Man Without A Nation

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

If the Alt Right wants to reform conservatives, it will have to wean them from patriotism, religion and hard work. Together these three things form a false nation comprised of a state and certain public behaviors which are ultimately egalitarian, therefore always drift Left toward Communism.

Conservatives may be the most self-defeating group in history. Their first problem is that they are not unified on a single idea like the Left, which both historically and philosophically centers around egalitarianism.

Their bigger problem is that conservatives select their ideas based on what is popular, which is always what is most convenient for the individual. The average person does not want to interrupt their lifestyle of easy jobs, shopping, watery beer and television.

For this reason, when confronted with real problems, their solutions are always individualistic: “I want this ability for myself while others do crazy stuff around me.” The flaw in this logic is that the crazy stuff only grows in popularity and takes over society.

This lazy, morally corrupt conservative thinking is the norm. It expresses the desire of individuals not to rock the boat or inconvenience themselves. Their solutions are selfish as a result, involving what these individuals want as part of their “lifestyle.”

Not only that, but these conservatives actually drive people away because their proposed solutions are so mind-bendingly stupid. “Get a good job, work hard, go to church, wave the flag and own guns!” is a ludicrously selfish and short-sighted response to a civilization in decay where most people are existentially miserable and a good many are essentially slaves caught in a trap of low wages, high prices and greedy predators both in employers and the products they must buy to survive.

Humans are exploited, and conservatives refuse to recognize that, and society is collapsing, something conservatives defer recognizing by bloviating on about “the Benedict option” or other mentalities which sound like dropping out but really are merely justifications for continuing to accrue wealth for themselves while paying lip service to fixing the rot at the core of our society.

Then again, this problem is inherent to Caucasians and other high-intelligence populations: they become trapped by their own cleverness, which means they find a way to navigate the immediate crisis to get the best possible option, but not ultimately a solution. They are clever, but not clever enough.

Leftism is energizing because it recognizes human exploitation and conjures up what looks like a systemic change. Everything is bad, it says, so we will do something else. Conservatives have no equivalent answer until you get to traditionalists and Nietzscheans, and those are a small group who might as well be speaking Greek to the rest.

In the meantime, conservatives fail to win over people because it seems that conservatives are defending the system as it is instead of working toward improving it. The entrenched, defensive and backward-looking nature of conservatism solidifies this perception.

To the average person, the dialogue seems fractured. The person speaks up about all that is wrong in the world, and how the current system does not address it, and conservatives basically say to keep the current system and then succeed within it at the expense of others. This grates on even the hardened!

This creates a kind of helplessness. Both Conservatives and Leftists want to preserve the modern system; this makes them natural allies who agree on a goal but disagree on methods. Conservatives also, by working to preserve a fundamentally Leftist system, admit defeat from the outset and seem “cucked” as a result.

Conservatives enable Leftism through conservative reliance on these three substitutes for an organic civilization:

  1. Patriotism. Conservatives love patriotism, which is loyalty to a Leftist state, founded as “classically liberal” which as a type of egalitarianism naturally drifts toward more extreme methods of equality such as Communism. In addition, patriotism replaces the organic vision of “Us” — a people joined by purpose, principle and heritage — with the inorganic and centralized idea of the nation-state, which is basically a government that rules territory and waves the flag any time it wants to bomb someone.
  2. Religion. Like Patriotism, religion creates a replacement for the organic nation which is based in rules and symbols, not reality. The Church famously does not care who it recruits so long as it has warm bodies, and so serves as an international attractor. The Church is like a nation unto itself, united by the ideology of a few dogmas of religion, and it acts against the organic nation by trying to control it.
  3. Work. All of us like to apply ourselves; jobs, however, are not self-application but its opposite, a game based on appearance and not reality. These make people weak and neurotic. In addition, they neutralize people by taking up all of their time and, by giving them an “identity” within society, compete with their natural identity as part of the organic nation with a role to play toward its health. This subverts any interest they have in real things, and replaces it with allegiance to an economic system.

By defending this system, conservatives consent to their own enslavement and resist the necessary realization that what we have now is fallen and must be replaced and rebirthed in order to have any goodness to it. They offer non-solutions which tend to involve dubious wars, which makes them doubly unsavory.

The difference can be visualized with a metaphor. Education consists of learning things; school is separate from education in that one can excel at school without any desire to learn much of anything. Those who get good at the system get ahead.

All of these substitutes for the organic nation are systems which will be gamed, and because that is easier than achieving real-world goals, soon all will aim for gaming the system. This replaces purpose with external goals which quickly become corrupted.

Leftism thrives in this environment because it has a single goal, which is to destroy the existing organic nation and replace it a mass of people who can be controlled. All of the pleasant noises about egalitarianism are cover for having the Crowd be in control and able to manipulate others.

When conservatives want personal convenience above all else, they turn toward Leftism as a means of being socially accepted by others. They translate it into a conservative form, which is based in the individual and not the group as a means of not criticizing the group.

If you wonder why modern conservatives seem to talk so much and achieve so little, this is why. They are unwilling to challenge the status quo at its root assumption — equality — and therefore get absorbed by it, marginalizing themselves into loud complainers who focus only on their own success.

At this point, the Leftist death spiral has accelerated so rapidly that many find themselves to be like me, a man without a nation. The only flag to which I could show allegiance is tied to the State, and the State is by nature a Leftist organization, so is insupportable.

We who would oppose this decay are fragmented by our own individualism, our lack of agreement on what must be done, and our fear of opposing the elephant in the room, which is the concept of equality itself. The sooner we rise above that, the sooner we can prevail in this do-or-die fight.

Rebirth Of The Spirit

Saturday, May 6th, 2017

Life provides infinite chances to fall into infinite loops caused by paradoxical thinking. For example, the Antifa groups who complain about attributes of fascism — repression, censorship, “racism,” brutality — soon find themselves exhibiting those same traits. And some of this is natural; for example, if you want to bust pedophiles, you will spend much of your time exposed to kiddie pron.

German novelist Günter Grass wrote a novel called The Tin Drum, and through it produced a powerful metaphor for the 20th century: it is like the incessant beat of a drum, repeating the same phrases, so that the sheep herd to do whatever is the current fanciful notion of how to avoid the free-fall decay of a once-great civilization.

Ideology is like that tin drum. It must be beaten, repetitively, and even if in new patterns it sounds out the same ideas. The basic idea of ideology is that the weakness of society, which is externalization in both (a) socialized cost and (b) conformity, can be harnessed like a factory to make people who each march to the beat of the tin drum toward a centrally-determined goal.

After all, this is what democracy, fascism, communism and socialism have in common. There is a central command which issues control orders. Then, everyone obeys these equally. Even if that central command is elected as in democracy, soon an Establishment forms which controls what happens more than the current candidate.

This means we need to be suspicious of those external orders or anything which behaves like them.

Control orders invert existing ideas and institutions. They do this by changing these things from goals in themselves, to methods which serve the purpose of more control. This means that no matter how hard you try to make something work, it will defeat you, because the meaning behind the symbols has been altered to be its exact opposite.

Consider (perhaps) the problem of Western Civilization. We know that it has fallen; it grieves us to say this. In turn, we realize that it needs a rebirth, and on some level, we all know that this cannot be done externally. We are not going to be able to elect a single candidate, make a single law, or even create a fanatical dictatorship to enforce this.

The cultural wave which brought us Brexit, Trump and perhaps Le Pen shows us the force of internal motivation. Across the former West, the natural leaders in communities from all walks of life have started to become cynical about the inertial direction of our civilization, and this has caused them to want alternatives to more equality, diversity, democracy and consumerism.

That has placed them at odds with both the Establishment and the herd, which chases trends but only catches on to them after their peaks, so that it is always pursuing what worked yesterday in the hopes that it will make them popular tomorrow. This is why consumer fashion today mimics high fashion ten years ago, and why most investors rush in to buy a “hot stock” only to find its value has faded.

While this cultural wave is refreshing, it is only the first stage; it is formed of doubt and resentment of what exists now, and does not yet have in mind another direction. It will need to give people an alternative to modernity in order to succeed.

For us to find that alternative, we need a spiritual rebirth. The problem with this is that it cannot be done externally. For this reason, all of the Rightists flocking to variations on patriotism, religion and working hard are failing just as solidly as those who insist we can achieve our rebirth through racial separation alone. There needs to be something to tie all of these together.

Perhaps the worst of the tin-drum-bangers are those who have flocked to the Church and are using it as a substitute for spiritual rebirth. The church is still an external force; it cannot change what is in the soul. Using it as a substitute for that internal change will effect an inversion.

Among the various dissident Right groups, there seems to be a competition for who can find the oldest church and cling to it like a life vest. Some favor Catholicism, but others are unhappy with anything but full eastern Orthodox. But ultimately this becomes a form of ideology as well, a symbol standing for the whole, and it will not bring victory but defeat.

We know modernity is a horror. Civilizations die because society ceases to become a means to the end of a good life, but becomes an end in itself. People learn to play the game. This is why nothing changes: the game rewards inertia, and in mass groups, inertia arises from fears. Fears of insufficiency, or of having made the wrong decision and being suddenly uncool, dominate the human mind. Ideologies of inclusivity salve these fears, and this quickly attracts a mass which seeks convenient mental answers, and those who offer pleasant illusions become powerful on the wave of this crowd, in industry, government and even religion. This is why all of these things have taken on a bureaucratic character and become abusive. This abusive behavior leads to all of us acting out unnecessary tasks in order to demonstrate ideological obedience. This is the end result of ideology, even well-intentioned ones.

The spiritual rebirth we need is within and cannot be enforced by an external doctrine, or by going through rituals, or even through fervent dedication. It must be a change in our will. We must cast aside the doubt and fear, and fully desire to restore the West again. This requires rejecting intermediaries like the Church or fascism which are ultimately symbols standing for the whole. We need to cultivate in our hearts the desire to be good, to rise above the rest, and to put everything to right. We cannot rely on any external forces in lieu of this inner force.

In discovering this inner force, we cannot shape ours thought by anything but intuition. We know what good is because it is what not only survives in nature, but creates a greater qualitative degree of beauty, accurate observation of our world, and a desire to exist in union with the order of the universe, which steadily improves itself by qualitative degree, as we see in how our thoughts evolve and how natural selection makes eagles and hummingbirds from sparrows. Since we know good, we have only to discover a will toward it in our souls.

Our future consists of divergent paths. A society based on externalization and control, or a choice for something different. We will not know what it looks like until we begin walking the path toward this new choice. We know for certain however that it begins in the formulation of our will toward something good, instead of finding new ways to bang the tin drum.

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.

Conservatism Failed Because It Refused To Reject Equality

Thursday, May 4th, 2017

All of those of us who reject fanciful notions of ideology in favor of hard realism are conservatives, or at least conservatives in training, but conservatism as a movement failed because it did not hold back Leftism at all. Instead it rolled over and sold out its people for twenty pieces of silver, or a few media appearances and a book deal.

Conservatism failed because conservatives agreed with Leftists on the central tenet of Leftism: equality. They did so through a cunningly disguise that allowed them to appear as an alternative to Leftism, while hiding their egalitarian belief.

This was the notion of personal morality, or a form of moral individualism that separated the individual from the consequences of his actions. In this view, it does not matter what the long term results of an action are, so long as that action adheres to general rules that conservative considers righteous. The rules become a replacement for reality, which is equivalent to the Leftist replacement of reality with ideology.

For a Leftist, the end result of an action is secondary to whether the right method was used. It is always right to equally distribute wealth and defend the individual in his pursuit of whims whether these are real or illusory. While Leftist morality is based in the herd, conservative morality is based in the individual as judged by the herd, and so ends at the same result.

Both are toxic because they replace realism with proxies such as a morality of the individual which is based in how the individual appears to others as fair, kind, generous and accepting. Conservatives have created many such replacements for reality, starting with religion and patriotism, but they can take other forms too.

As the logical consequences of race realism (inevitable in a Diversitopia) are grasped and the ideas emerging from the theory are fully apprehended, along with what that portends for any philosophy which still clings to the penumbra of moral universalism, there will be a panic among Christian tradcons from realizing race realism is at odds with their teachings and professed beliefs.

They wouldn’t be entirely wrong in thinking this. Race realism subverts at least the superficial tenets of the New Testament. (The Old Testament was too genocidal and tribalistic to be anything but comfortable with race realism.) A generous reconciling between racial reality and Christianity/Tradconism (the Bene Gesserit Option) might suggest that post-modern Christianity has a cramped and incomplete understanding of the Bible, and that having lost touch with the more ancient, less New Agey Biblical injunctions the modern Christian is impelled to defend antiracism as a proxy for defending his religion from what he perceives as lethal heresies.

Traditional religious conservatives, like many other conservatives, deny race realism because they are still in love with the idea of equality.

Outside of the world of equality, we recognize that people are biologically different and that this determines their behavior for the largest part. That includes limits on what they can understand and their degree of impulse control. Nietzschean conservatives — extreme realists, grounded in biology more than religion or social feelings — view people as biological creations first and rational, thinking beings second, in varying degrees according to the individual, family, class, caste, ethnic group, personal habits and other limiting factors.

When we say that we reject equality, it means that we also reject the idea that people are little programmable units who can be fed the “right” input and made to behave as we wish. People are different; one of the basic tenets of conservatism is that most issues must be understood on a case-by-case basis instead of blindly through rules and categories. Nothing is equal, and no people are equal. We are individuals.

Ironically, individualism suppresses individuality. Individualism puts the whims of the individual first before reality, other people or an organic entity such as civilization. This causes people to live through their whims, instead of engaging in enough contemplation of the union of self and world to understand themselves. This is why Leftists tend to be robotic and zombie-like.

Recognizing that people are not equal means that we must breach several Leftist taboos. First, it means that people in society are ranked according to genetics, like the hereditary caste systems advocated around here. Second, it means that there is no one rule for everyone and no universal truth, only a need to place our most realistic and forward-thinking people higher in a hierarchy because they literally “see” things that others do not, and that others cannot comprehend.

Equality is the root of our disease, found in the individualism that sprouts once a society is wealthy and powerful enough to have beaten back immediate threats. People fall into introspection, or navel-gazing, but not the kind that wonders about the universe; instead, they become prisoners of their own egos because they have lost purpose that unites them to the world out there.

If conservatism has a statement on humans to counter equality, it is “they are what they are.” Like plants and animals, people are regulated by their genetics. They can improve on this through social capital, or things they learn from the culture around them, but they cannot fundamentally be changed from one thing into another.

On the Right, war is brewing — a civil war. The egalitarian conservatives, who tend to advocate PRWH, are going to war with the realist conservatives. But only the latter group is distinct enough from Leftism to escape being absorbed back into it through a process known as “entryism” which is consistent with Conquest’s Second Law of Politics.

Recommended Reading