To most people, there are only two options: inherent belief to human purpose in the universe, or an absence of anything resembling purpose or belief. The latter are commonly called nihilists.
A sensible version of nihilism cuts to its core, which is distrust of all things perceived through the human mind:
Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence.
The fundamental separation here occurs through the recognition that values, communication and truth are proxies or intermediates for reality. Our brains will recognize conclusions about the world, encode them in tokens and share them with others, but then the tokens become more important than results in reality. The same happens with money, popularity, religion and systems of control.
For this reason, nihilism is not what most people think it is, which is giving up on knowing reality at all or caring about the consequences of our actions. Instead, it is a refusal to let the human symbols for reality supersede reality itself, a condition known as solipsism which is the root of most common human errors.
Since most people are solipsistic, they want an excuse to give up on reality itself, not its proxies. They do this by strengthening the proxies instead of focusing on reality, or cause-effect results in the world outside our heads. One way to do this is a fanatical “anti-relativism” that emphasizes devotional truths, but the other is fatalism, or proclaiming that all reality is pointless except that in the human mind.
The kiddie form of nihilism arises from this, and ends up being a brew of individualism and anarchism, or essentially an individual without obligations to be correct in his or her statements. This allows the individual to justify inaction and selfishness as some form of “higher truth.”
And so, what does nihilism say about faith? First, it rejects the idea of any belief; in other words, there must be a source of spiritual understanding based on the world and its patterns, much as we know anything else. Next, this spiritual understanding cannot be communicated, only achieved by those who go along the path of cumulative learning.
Nihilism thus rejects exoteric faiths, or those based on the idea that we can communicate metaphysical or spiritual understanding through tokens, or that faith can be adopted on that basis. Religious texts can inform our understanding, but the source of the understanding comes from finding similarities between what is there and what exists in the world.
The root of metaphysics through nihilism is the same radical skepticism toward humanity that is found in most religious texts. Most humans, being monkeys plus language, have low capacity for analytical thinking or any real passion. Instead, they focus on the ego, externalizing choice to factors such as bodily impulses, socializing with others, and following what the group does.
An examination of the external world however reveals a potent clue: patterns, not physical matter, rule the day. That is: matter arranged in patterns has properties beyond its immediate physical presence, and these patterns can appear in different forms of matter and have the same effect, which means that patterns are more important than materiality.
The classic example of this is a chair. It can be made out of wood, stone, metal, plastic or even human bones, and still serves the same function. The design of the chair — four legs, a platform and a back — is where the magic lies, not in the plastic or bone. In the same way, forms of organization of groups or ideas have greater power than what they are written on or the tokens used. The idea is all.
From this realization comes the first honest spirituality. When life is seen in terms of patterns, those patterns can be compared and arranged, showing how reality is structured. This is separate from purpose, because that is a choice of the individual human, but those choices reflect the moral composition, intelligence and honesty of those individuals.
In turn, this places an emphasis on thought, or at least thought that is consistent with the world around it, making it a continuation of the world in the mind. Here a fine line arises: the world is thought, but not just any thought, since most human thought is a closed-circuit feedback loop of the impulses of the body and ego, and unrelated to the broader world.
When one sees the world as thought, something better than inherent purpose emerges: a sense that the world is calculating, or transacting change toward an ongoing end like evolution itself. Our thoughts take the same pattern, which is that many options emerge and are slowly whittled down to a final model, which is then refined qualitatively or in terms of degree of efficiency, accuracy and elegance.
At that point, the world takes on a new perspective. Instead of the world being the cause of thoughts, thoughts — or the evolution thereof — are the cause of the world, and it reveals its tendencies toward beauty and goodness through the seemingly endless creativity of nature and the many possibilities it gives us.
Through eyes that have realized this truth, a forest becomes not just an object of beauty, but a sense of beauty joined to function, revealing a pattern of thought that emphasizes something we can only call holiness. It takes us beyond the requirements of mere utilitarianism and shows us that the universe points in a different direction, toward an experience of greatness and existential pleasure.
With that, we realize that life has given us a clue: it is not random after all, nor is it ugly. Instead, it is us that are ugly. We resist a world that would push us to greater heights because we fear losing control. And yet, the world tries for beauty, which is how we know that we are immortal and that striving for excellence is worthy. Only then do we join the eternal pattern of our cosmos.
Among us now come many who have staked all of their hopes on a single tool to fix a complex situation, for example, religion. Many especially among our most learned and thoughtful believe that society must begin again with religion as the tool that makes this happen, but they would produce the worst of possible results, much as happened when Hitler treated race the same way: as a tool.
Our time is ruled by social popularity, democratic voting and consumer-based industry. We are accustomed to creating tools, whether physical or institutional, that shape people around us by forcing all of them through a filter. In this filter, they must either obey the dogma or face some kind of sanctions, although those seem only to fall on the good taxpayers and not those who make lives of crime.
The problem with tools is that they not only fail to contain meaning, or knowledge of goals (“ends”), but that they actively displace meaning. Your mind only has so much space of focus, and if all of the focus goes into methods (“means”) instead of ends, then the reasoning behind doing things is lost. This allows fools to compete with the wise by emulating them, and the audience cannot tell the difference.
Of those people who want religion to save the West — fundamentalists, evangelicals, some traditionalists and pentacostals — the analysis remains consistent because it has been so for the past two hundred years. They talk a good deal about morality, and how they will set an example, which turns out to mean they will go to their church, drop out of society at large, earn money and pay taxes.
In short, they will not fight the enemy, but will enrich themselves, and in the meantime, be the good stupid little sheep that any parasitic system needs. If you want to know why people are fleeing churches, it is that the Christian conservatives act like morons, and the rest of the flock is too busy trying to be hip, young and liberal so they can get some of those donations, but it never works for long.
People who are trying to use religion to save the West have made religion into a political organ. They want to use it like a tool to filter people and force us all to obey what becomes a de facto ideology. In other words, they make religion into liberalism by attempting to use it as a force against liberalism.
A more sensible vision, as offered on this site, is that we will not have a single over-arching theory as liberals do. Even conservatism itself has two general planks, time-proven methods and transcendental goals. Religion is part of this, possibly an inseparable part, but it is not the core. The core is a desire to be realistic and from that, to choose what is best for ourselves and recognize that the rest of humanity will not. That leads to something like our four pillars, varied methods shaped around the goal of excellence through realism and self-discipline.
In other words, our basic outlook has to be evolutionary. We rise because we target excellence, but most of the world will always be a human wasteland because most people are dishonest because they are solipsistic, in the eternal weakness of humankind. Our big brains become mental bubbles in which we live while life passes by outside, and we waste our time on garbage instead of making greatness of our days.
Every part of life demands greatness. Even the simplest acts of craftsmanship, agriculture and day-to-day leadership can be improved qualitatively as an infinite dimension. There is always room to be go further, but it is not through a change in methods, but through refinement of our understanding, self-discipline, aesthetics and other inner skills.
We do not know what the future holds for us, but it seems likely that there will be a rebirth of Western religion. This will occur through a desire to restore the West by finding reality, and will emerge from our focus on what is real, which includes religion but is not limited to it. Religion in fact can serve as a proxy, a game or a legal puzzle, for understanding this reality. The tool then becomes the master, and the master the slave.
This religion may even be a revitalized Christianity. Writers like J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Paul Woodruff and T.S. Eliot have given us a vision of what that might be like, with Tolkien and Woodruff leading the pack. But more likely, the strength of Christianity — its communication through fable and laws — will be its downfall. In our new complex era, we need something more.
Another writer, Michel Houellebecq, expresses something else: admiration for Christianity, but recognition that its vitality has faded, and so it needs to be restarted and renewed, if not remade in our image. We do not need a Western religion; we need a religious Westernism, a belief in ourselves in our goodness that includes the will to find God in all things, but not through the tired manipulations of the flagging church.
It is likely that the Western religion will be like our original pagan faiths, unwritten and in fact, not formalized. It will not be used as a tool, where the religion is the means of changing our motivation, but will be discovered as part of daily life. The ancients might have said to us that they did not have religion, only an awareness of an order within the patterns of life, and that this transparency allowed them to avoid turning it into a dogma, an ideology and a tool.
Our original religion comes from nature and is based in the idea that nature reflects a more complex order than man, because man must fit into this order. We study patterns and from them, can make some conclusions which are firmer than any material objects in their prevalence in our lives. For example, we notice that life seems to strive for beauty, balance, harmony and purpose, always refining itself toward greater complexity which is a form of simplicity with many layers, not lots of unconnected detail in the modern “complex” way that is really ornamentation.
To the ancients, religion was inseparable from any other form of knowledge. They knew that the natural world was everything, but that it had layers which are not visible to the living, and it has spaces to which the non-living pass, but that these are battlegrounds not of good versus evil but order versus randomness, with evil being an agent of that randomness because it is moral selfishness, or hubris.
Their beliefs were logical and rigorously ordered, not symbolic as the Asiatic religions were, and they were not backward like the process of using religion as a political tool. Instead, they sought to put each thing in its place, and then improve everything qualitatively according to the order found in nature. This is a more mature faith than what we have now, and the only type of belief that can aid us in our task of restoration.
As we look toward how this civilization has failed, the inevitable question arises of whether or not we can reverse the decline and avoid it again. The civilization that can find a path around this pitfall, which destroys most advanced civilizations, will inherit the future of humanity.
To reverse our decline, we must understand at least somewhat how it came about, and what sort of civilization design or structure will avoid or at least strongly resist this type of entropy. Many suggest the pithy phrase “throne and altar” to refer to a society ruled by aristocrats and administrated by kings.
This proves to be a poor idea however for a simple reason: it divides power. Kings function well when they have unlimited power and are not constrained by precedent, but are instead informed in tradition, because this enables them to uphold the principles of tradition without having to repeat the methods approved of by convention.
In addition, having greater wisdom than most, kings tend to be well-informed of the existence of the metaphysical, partially from having brains designed by nature to separate human patterns from ones found in non-human nature, and through that, to determine both what is real and what is excellent for humans among that set of options.
What a healthy society needs is a king who understands religion, not a priest playing the role of king, because while religion reflects an actuality understood at a personal level, making religion into an organized entity requires having leaders, and if those compete with the kings for power, it creates the same instability that fractured European societies in the past. Instead it makes sense to have a king with religious leanings informed by a matrix of aristocrats who support him and provide internal criticism, also being fully educated in the religion of the land.
This will not be a popular view. People want solutions that, like the designs of our democratic time, involve a balance of powers. They fear what happens when a king has unlimited power. But by doing so, they hamper power, and by making it ambiguous, create a contest for it in which we fight each other instead of focusing on cooperation.
Conservative Christians who had despaired of the country’s direction under President Barack Obama—and of developments such as the legalization of same-sex marriage—now expect to wield influence in an administration that they helped bring to power.
They are pressing for a ban on late-term abortions; expanded accommodation for religion in the workplace, at hospitals and elsewhere; and, above all, the appointment of conservative judges.
…In the long term, many evangelicals are hoping that conservative judges will overturn rulings on social issues including gay marriage and Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case that established a nationwide right to abortion access.
This post is not a rant against religion or religious conservatives, but it is a warning about “the religious Right,” who are a single-issue special interest group that has a tendency to hijack the greater Rightist agenda toward realism and replace it with a highly symbolic agenda. This is also not to say they are wrong on issues like abortion and gay marriage; in fact they are correct. However, they have put the details which will emerge from the bigger picture before achieving that bigger picture, and thus they are defeat monkeys who will (as they did in the 1980s) parasitize and deprecate the Right.
One of the great illusions of our time is that religion is impractical when the opposite is true. The practice of spirituality has intense real-world value and is necessary for making sense of the parts of our world that are not physical, including the condition of our own minds and the self-discipline required to rise about the default bog-normal Simian state of humanity. Religion, like history and literature, compiles human knowledge of what worked best and worst over the years, giving us directions instead of static rules.
For this reason, any realistic movement will discover a need for spirituality in time, and more importantly, will end the insanity of the society around it so that it can nurture a spiritual or religious movement without it getting obliterated by the chaos around it. This allows for a boostrapping process of civilization renewal: a feedback loop is established between power and culture, with the former protecting the latter so that it can grow and inform and expand the former.
Trying the opposite approach — hoping for a religious revival that somehow fixes everything else — ends in tears because religion is part of but not equal to the process of civilizational restoration. The religious fanatics will either retreat into their own bubbles, or campaign for power, and by pursuing symbolic goals rather than realistic ones, fail to achieve long-term popularity and thus quickly be dispensed with as they were in the 1990s. No one is sorry to see the PMRC or moralistic groups — including non-religious ones like MADD — pass on.
Right now, the last thing we need is a religious crusade; we need hard practical change for survival, including the removal of the triad of demographic genocide laws — affirmative action, anti-discrimination and civil rights — that ensure our people are last in line for jobs, housing, benefits and as a result are effectively being driven out of society. We need to protect ourselves so that in the future, with greater health, we can then create a healthy society, including but not limited to religion.
What we need then is a rise in “Rightists with religion,” or people who want realism plus transcendentalism including religion, instead of “the religious Right.” This seems counter-intuitive but it provides us with the basis for civilization renewal, and within that, the rebirth of religion that is as realistic as the civilization, without all of the symbolism and emotion that might make us put the cart before the horse.
As Neoreaction fades into a type of extreme Libertarianism that guarantees it will be absorbed by demotist forces with credit cards instead of ballots, more are considering the basic idea of Reaction itself: that modernity, based in equality applied by government, is a path to suicide and that we need cultural, religious and leadership guidance instead.
One form that appears fascinating is Christian Reaction, or the group of Reactionaries who base their worldview in a resurrected Christian nation instead of a purely leadership or cultural solution. The good side of this is that what they advocate is necessary and positive; the bad side is that sometimes, it can replace other things that need to be done, and become a scapegoat or false solution.
Where the Christian Reactionaries are most correct is at their core, which has two parts:
Morality. Civilizations die because their citizens become individualistic after there is too much tolerance for not-good people, usually during wartime or plagues when extra hands are needed. The natural tendency of civilization however is to increase social order, so that more survive, and to spare lives from the horrors of the pre-civilization era. The only way to restrain this natural entropy is to have a society that is morally alert to all transgressions, no matter how small, and constantly shedding those who are inclined toward any path other than good. This seems too extreme to most, so they settle for throwing out the extreme bad instead of generally removing the failed, and Christian Reaction has no patience for this.
Self-Discipline. Spiritual practice occurs through the denial of impulses and a redirection of that energy toward wholesome things. In particular, prayer and meditation increase focus, especially among the intelligent, who are otherwise prone to become chaos monkeys indulging in personal pretense and thus splitting society into many directions, few of which are relevant. Christian Reaction emphasizes personal growth through self-discipline and the necessity of it as a basis for society as a whole.
At the end of much of philosophy, we arrive at these two concepts as the only way to slow or prevent civilization decline. It cannot be done with authority alone, nor by filtering out the bad alone, because it is necessary to redirect the normal and intelligent toward the good, including things that seem “un fun” like chastity, relative sobriety, pride in tribe, and focus on moral goods — aspiration to excellence — above all else.
Unfortunately, Christianity today is a ruin and it has been for many centuries. In particular, the Catholic popes interfered with the absolute rule of the kings, introducing the kind of committee politics that specialize in making bad decisions in order to avoid upsetting the varied special interest groups sitting at the table. At this point, almost all churches are fallen, chasing Leftist ideals as a vain hope for restoring the people who once attended, forgetting that people come to church for the kind of discipline, purpose and guidance that only religion can provide.
In particular, the Catholic churches are worst about this, identifying with the victim narrative and opposing any kind of strong and healthy power that might compete with the church and papacy. This makes them toxic in every way and prone to thwarting the exercise of necessary changes. Traditional Western European focus is less Protestant than anti-Catholic, as we saw with the Nativist movements and the conversion of much of Europe. The popes thwarted the kings, and so sensible people ejected the popes.
Many on the Christian Reaction front call sensibly for a renewal of Christianity through a return to its core focus, including its Greco-Roman, Nordic Pagan and Hindu roots, among the many other influences that were compiled into the Bible. The point here is to not get caught up in specifics and rules, but look at the purpose of the religion, which is a meditative realism leading to transcendental understanding.
Some advocate a monistic Christianity. This is important because its opposite, dualism, argues for the presence of two worlds: a perfect heaven and an imperfect earth. This causes disregard of what happens in this world in anticipation of the next, and conveys the notion that the rules of this world are nonsense or illogical, both of which propel Christians toward emotional but unrealistic paths.
If Christian Reaction has its way, a future Christianity will be both more militant and more naturalistic. It will not fall into the easy excuses of being individualistic or ignoring the world. It will be an active, warlike Christianity that even Fred Nietzsche could approve of. For this reason, even metaphysical skeptics have reason to explore Christian Reaction.
Perception is regulated by conceptual understanding. What we know how to recognize in the flood of data coming in from our senses, we can mentally process. Everything else slips by into chaos.
If true knowledge is possible, it must come from valid concepts. Because these can be shared between people, they must exist outside of people, or be in the world like neo-Platonic forms.
Therefore, those who think purely in terms of concepts will be accurate, which means that we can think without evidence and achieve understanding of the universe.
In essence, pure conceptual thinking is how we understand reality.
Charlton attributes this schema to Rudolf Steiner’s early philosophical book The Philosophy of Freedom, but alert readers here will recognize the actual root of this idea: Immanuel Kant and his idea of intuition as the basis of a priori understanding.
In my own writing, specifically the unpublished Parallelism, I expand on the basic concept of the black pill and how it leads to understanding reality.
Humans have big brains, and those receive stronger signals from themselves than the world, which is a problem especially because we know the world through our memories of it, encoded as tokens based on our conclusion of the relevant parts to us. This comes after we filter the world, as Charlton notes, through what we know to look for, living in “a representation of a representation” as Schopenhauer argues. We never come in contact with the raw data because it would be like trying to drink from a firehose and would paralyze our reaction times.
Consequently, any process of understanding involves separating what we know to be true from what is merely signal reflected back from our big brains. We have to navigate our assumptions, emotions, impulses, neurotic mental chatter and tendency toward quick absolute categorical judgments in order to do this, among other perceptual pitfalls and glitches.
At this point, we must consider “evidence” versus “logical fact.” Evidence is what we can derive from our perception, but as illustrated above, it is already heavily filtered through our conceptual outlook. Further, it is based on material factors, such as how parts of reality interact, but blind to pattern which represents the organization of reality and its structure (analogous to Platonic forms). Evidence therefore is best for figuring out how to do things like make gasoline engines or grow crops, but not so good when it comes to questions of understanding reality under the surface formed of the interaction of material objects, like seeds plus water equals plants.
Logical fact, on the other hand, consists of looking at the organization of these material parts and deriving principles about how they work. Mathematics and philosophy are the closest to this field because they analyze patterns and their transformation, but these become difficult because we are unsure that what seems logically true corresponds to reality, which is wily and has twists and turns and emergent complexities. Enter parallelism: the idea that patterns occur in parallel across multiple domains, including thought, energy and matter.
With parallelism, we can see what patterns recur in multiple places in our world, and use these as the basis for understanding new input. This works through a type of metaphor that is more exact than what we expect from language. It requires precision about the nature of each pattern and why it works as it does, animating the structure with an understanding of purpose.
At this point, we are starting to get somewhere. We have a way of knowing what is true beyond any immediate circumstance because we can see the pattern in multiple places and its function or role is consistent. At that point, we are able to discipline our thought to being like that of the universe, and in so doing, realize its logical basis. As discovered by the German Idealists, the universe behaves in a thought-like way, and appears to respond at the level of structure as we would expect thoughts to do so.
Now we have moved beyond materialism. We see first the world as a function of order or pattern, and next, that structure as resembling thought, which works by having multiple impulses and selecting whichever one is compatible with everything that already exists, or is parallel to the rest of structure. This enables us to see the universe as having an inherent mode of operation and intent, one that is initially foreign to the world of human intent, which reflects our interests within the structure as we perceive them without knowledge of that structure.
This in turn requires us to look into what the intent of the universe might be. It seems to specialize in making beauty out of nothingness, but also, by holding to a hard line of logical fact that punishes that which deviates from compatibility with its order. Through processes like natural selection and entropy, it destroys that which is disorganized and reshapes the rest into greater degrees of order, balance and efficiency.
From this vantage point, we can see the nature of a divine force or something like one: benevolent in intent, rigorously logical in method, and focused on urging us upward toward greater order, versus our tendency as human monkeys to scatter in divergent chaotic directions in pursuit of our personal illusions, desires and other artifacts of having a lack of focus toward the divine. We are evil not because we mean badly, but because our thought and thus behavior is not disciplined.
Since we have ventured into metaphysics, we might take a look at an old theorem of Plato’s. We can see cause-effect relationships in everyday life, but now we know that these are a product of a thought-like structure to the universe, which like a computation seeks to resolve a problem constantly in order to refine itself; think of a self-programming computer, always testing its own code to find what works better, and replacing the old code with the new, more precise algorithms.
This means that in addition to regular cause-effect relationships, there is a bigger cause-effect relationship formed of compatibility between patterns and a steady pressure toward upward organization. This no longer acts like self-interested material objects, but a purposeful Designer who is starting us as dust and working us toward a god-like level, or as close as we can get.
In addition, we know that this causal space of pattern is much larger than the physical objects in which it manifests, meaning that our material world is the smaller part, and the world of thought much larger, implying not a dualistic “second world” but an extension to this one formed of the patterns as the universe intends them, not our perceptions of them. In this space, which is so large as to be infinite, information matters more than material, and here we see that the presence of our minds as information agents can have applicability beyond our physical selves.
None of this was unknown to the ancients, but then again, instead of checking Twitter every thirty minutes, they were sitting in darkened caves in deep thought guided by regular breathing and a suppression of the chattering monkey creating a background hum inside our heads. Clarity of thought, and eventually metaphysical experience, came naturally for them.
As we look toward peeling back the layers of the onion that is modernity, realizing that it started from a lie and that the only way to beat it is to head in a contrary direction, it makes sense to return to this focus on meditative understanding of structure. It does not contradict the realistic imperative that we adapt to material reality, but shows us a stage in which to go once we achieve basic sanity, and a basis for a spirituality which does not — like almost all existing forms of religion — lead us further into the illusion of ourselves.
The Book of Jude warned us well of the advent of Cuck Christianity. The relevant verses follow below.
16 These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage. 17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” 19 These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.
The 2,000 year old warnings found in Jude’s little-known epistle ring true as Christianity continues to degrade itself from the Passion of Christ to the legalism of the Pharissee. A vote against the will of these Real Christians, is indeed a toll pass via the express lane of AC/DC’s infamous Highway to Hell.
The gist of the conflict is that Christians, who have decided that Donald Trump is so evil and immoral that any vote for him is to approve of and even become complicit in his sin, are questioning not only the character but the salvation of those who support the GOP candidate. This condemnation encompasses even those reluctant and melancholy warriors for conservatism who are voting for him as a strategy to stop the advancement of a leftist political agenda that dominates a corrupt Democratic Party…
Are we really laid over for torture at the hands of Crom’s Devils if we urge our compatriots to vote against the type of people who are frustrated that Hurricane Matthew didn’t clean out more trailer parks to effectively scare the sheep about Global Warming? It depends on which whinging voice of Cuck Christianity is out there a-preachin’ it for Hillary. There are two versions of this sort of Neo-Judaizer Heresy – weak and strong.
The truth is, with headlines about Clinton’s emails, terrorist attacks, the Obama Administration’s advancement of transgenderism in the military, etc. I have been actively reconsidering my opposition to Trump. I’ve done it in conversation with friends, in prayer, and in quiet time dedicated to considering the future. In short, I see the election of Hillary Clinton as the antithesis of all my values and ideas on what fosters sound civil society in this country. Further, she should be in jail.
Once you’ve pretty much decided the opposition candidate is Alicia Capone, you’ve basically laid out your moral duty. You vote for the guy that will chain her up and parade her through Georgetown as part of his inaugural triumph. To weasel out of condign retribution against said career criminal, you’re stuck having to tear down the individual on the other side to a level of base deplorability that requires you to support Attila the Hag. And then get the muck off your hands a wee bit better than poor, old Lady MacBeth ever could.
So we get the predictable riffs about how Trump isn’t ¡PROLIFE! enough to fit in with a Congress that never had the guts to put a single piece of Pro-Life legislation on President Obama’s desk. We’ll elide past the historical illiteracy necessary to plant the axiom that a pride of Conservative Lions exists in today’s GOP. Let’s be sporting and temporarily let our #NeverTrumper claim that Trump could undermine this thin red line of heroes. I issue this intentional walk to get after the nasty beneath the beatific Churchian exterior.
When I see Christians defining deviancy down to justify a political decision, I see a real problem for the church. When I see Christians saying we have license to choose bad men because God chose bad men, I see the sparks of apostasy…The level of fear many of my friends have towards what a Clinton Administration may bring has turned to desperation and desire for a protector….While I concede they may be right, what I see is a level of desperation causing them to place their trust in one strong man instead of God.
The poor dears are just scared and don’t know any better. In the end, the accusation reads that any Christian of holds his nose and votes for Chairman Donald over Dear Leader Hillary has been frightened, unmanned and reduced to a gibbering blob of Glenn Beck worshiping at the foot of Trump Tower rather than the sacred cross. I’m sure the son of Jerry Falwell who recently said pleasant things about Mr. Trump has taken down all the Crucifix art he owns and replaced it with Trump Fuzzy Dice instead. Such ridiculous and small-hearted ecclesiastical nastiness hasn’t been this fashionable since Jimmy Carter won the Iowa Caucus in 1976.
There is also a stronger version of this heresy afoot that fears no killer rabbits. It preaches the fire and brimstone as if Making America Great Again would erect once more The Tower of Babel. If an angel descends and then Reverend Metaxas from Texas bursts into blue, incandescent flame, I will humbly seek forgiveness and admire the wisdom of Ed Rogers.
I wonder if this is the end of the evangelical movement within the Republican Party. Trump’s strength in South Carolina, of all places, is alarming. Many evangelical leaders, who can be so quick to point out the moral failings of others, are strangely silent concerning Trump’s shortcomings. How can they reconcile fidelity to their faith with a vote for Trump? How do they overlook Trump’s personal qualities and behavior? What about the morality of entrusting the presidency to someone with the temperament and questionable judgment we have all witnessed from Trump? I would like some answers. I find it hard to believe evangelicals are supporting Trump because of his policy positions, since he doesn’t have many. They can’t be supporting Trump because of his faith or godliness…
Alas Babylon, Ed Rogers. Alas Babylon. Rather than acting like he has the right to question the faith of churchgoers who vote athwart his divine commandmants thundered down to the mere mortals in the pews, he should ponder another question. How can a church that by all fair-minded and rigorous accounts is having its ass flambéed on any given Sunday like the 2008 Detroit Lions justify questioning the temperament and judgement of its rapidly declining membership. Maybe the people who no longer seek out salvation in the same church as Ed Rogers kinda-sorta have a point.
The starting Center from that Detroit Lions team looked in the mirror and saw reality. “I’ve got to live with this.” He lamented. “I’ve been here eight years. This is on my resume.” If we wake up on November 9 with a 50-49 Hillary victory, this will be true of #BibleThumpForNeverTrump. They will get to live with it as well. They will have elected a POTUS who will empower, hire and enrich a set of functionaries who at least empathize with the sentiment that nothing quite smells of lovin’ like an Evangelical in the oven.
Every single last one of these slimy #NeverTrumpers thinks they can leverage this betrayal to climb out of The Basket of Deplorables that Hillary has assuredly assigned them to and land a fat “loyal opposition” gig at CNN, Fox or K-Street instead. There were people like this all over China and Russia during these countries’ respective Communist Revolutions. They were the ones that got lined up against the wall and shot first.
Even the feckless and maladroit British Army leaders that lost the Thirteen Colonies were smart enough to significantly demote Benedict Arnold after his treason. They could not afford to see this sort of thing rewarded. It’s something for a #NeverTrumper to chew over for a bit if they ever seriously and sincerely reconsider their current trajectory into moral oblivion.
The truth is hurtful to the professionally brilliant and intellectual. The more heavily invested these people become in pseudo-erudite nonsense for their paychecks, the more they have to step lively through the dangerous minefield known as reality.
Rutgers university professor of social pyschology Lee Jussim attempts this subtle introduction of hard truthinto fantasy land below.
But as biased and destructive as these images may be, many stereotypes – fixed characterisations of specific groups – turn out to hold kernels of truth. In fact, even if vicious stereotypes are always inaccurate, that hardly disproves what most everyday people think of African-Americans, women, Jews, Muslims, or any other group. Which raises the question: what do people actually believe about groups, and are those beliefs inaccurate?
The rest of us, who live in our suburban peasant huts rather than the Ivory Tower of academic bliss, lack the luxury of believing in that which is not. Normal people are forced to interact with the world rather than study it from altitude and distance. That immediately puts us afoul of the fundamental assumptions of microeconomics. We, as consumers of reality, are always forced to make our decisions in a state of imperfect rather than perfect information. This forces us to have to rapidly overcome an information asymmetry, or risk making a series of poor decisions.
So we have to reach for more information under time duress. We need to get smarter and we need tog et their quickly. In Computational Operations Research, we can “plus up” a sub-optimal decision process via a heuristic. A heuristic is a logical law that simply sets the value of some X equal to a value k per each type of situation. We commonly call these “rules of thumb.”
So what happens when we have to operate in the complex system of a diverse population and don’t have the time or opportunity to figure out everything about everyone. The survival mechanism that kicks in in the face of our obvious information asymetry is to develop social rules of thumb.
To apply this, first divide all of these diverse and unique human beings into comprehensible equivalence classes that enable you to take comprehensible data. The observer assigns them variables like a physicist studying some bizarre new particle. Race, Social Class, Religion, Ethnic Origin, Spoken Language and anything else you can use to organize a recognizable sample.
Then the observer studies the sample and attempts to deduce rules of behavior. It allows him to state the following proposition: “If I encounter individuals in group X, under situation Y, I should do Z.” If the observer then tries out behavior Z, then reality will judge the accuracy of the underlying hypothesis. If it works, the observer and all his merry drinking pals will repeat behavior Z and tell all their buddies to do likewise. If behavior Z works everytime like Colt .45, it will become a social rule of thumb. Group X may not like or appreciate this, but they have just been stereotyped.
The more diverse and chaotic a society becomes, the more and more we need these rules of thumb to quickly and effectively negotiate social terrain. Diversity and disorder require an increased reliance on stereotyping. It’s like Pokemon Go. You’ll never be able to catch ’em all. People will increasingly rely on stereotyping.
So if stereotyping is E-vil, if it offends you personally, then you need to get rid of the conditions that necessitate the more frequent creation and use of stereotypes. In the end people stereotype because it works like hell.
The Alt Right contains multitudes — Traditionalism, Nationalism, Identitarianism, Theocracy, National Socialism/neo-Nazism, Libertarianism, Paleoconservatism, Social Conservatism, Neoreaction and the New Right coexist within it — all of which contribute to its character, but each Alt Righter finds one dominant over the others in his own thinking.
However, the penultimate sin of this artistic foray by Spencer et al. is its imposition of a wholly non-historical, secular, and privately-conceived image upon a decentralized movement designed to defend hundreds of millions of souls descended from millennia of historically and religiously-rooted European history.
In other words, this Alt Right logo does artistically what the European Union’s constitution does legally – it erases European history and replaces it with an abstract, de novo interpretation of who we are to become. It is wholly utopian and idealistic. But that is no surprise considering whence it came.
This illustrates why the Alt Right is composed of an intersection of those many impulses above: any “one right way” approach to restoring Western Civilization tends to become a special interest that eclipses all other needs, resulting in a single change to the status quo that leaves the bulk of the decay intact.
One Right Way philosophies include White Nationalism, which wants to eject or destroy some Other groups but not all, and then merge all white people into a vanilla milkshake under the current democratic regime. This fails because it leaves the conditions which will re-create our present state intact, and by focusing on a scapegoat (Others) instead of actual problems like Western Decline, democracy and individualism, strengthens those forces.
Theocracy/Orthosphere in its purest form is a One Right Way philosophy — ironically, one that is endorsed by many American Republicans. In their view, we need everyone to convert to Christianity, and everything else will work itself out. For most, this is simply an excuse for inaction. With a respected source such as Faith and Heritage, more is at work, but the problem still remains.
For the F&H guys, European = Christian. For them Christianity came first, the people and their culture second. This quixotic miscomprehension is their perpetual downfall. The understanding that Christianity took hold in Europe because it was compatible with the European mindset is incomprehensible to them.
In other words, they have it backward: Christianity did not make Europe, but when Europeans “Europeanized” Christianity, they made it into a religion that could unite Europe. It did not not through Christianity itself, but through the expression of the European mindset through Christianity.
This clashes with the modern view of Christianity, which is that Christianity is the tool of producing civilization. In that view, everyone is capable of becoming Christian and being saved, and this “system” in turn saves the society around it. Not only history but common sense suggests that is not so.
Repeat after me: people are not equal. (It almost rhymes.)
People are not equal. They have different capacities for understanding. If you follow Human Biodiversity (HBD), you know that intelligence fits into a Standard Distribution where only the far-right side is capable of in-depth understanding of the complex history of a people and its relationship to God found in the Bible. This is why we have clergy; they are learned, elite interpreters of the holy Book.
Rejecting equality means that not everyone is capable of being Christian, of being saved, and that doesn’t jive with the feel-good understanding of God that modern Christians pursue. It just does not compute that God would create people who cannot be saved (even though this is Biblical).
Let us look at the scripture:
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. – John 6:44 (ESV)
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. – John 15:16 (ESV)
So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. – Romans 9:16 (ESV)
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. – Romans 8:29 (ESV)
The above passages are traditionally used to support Calvinism, or the notion that human beings are born good or bad and cannot be molded from one into the other. This is highly controversial in our egalitarian times, since it implies that human intention is less powerful than the world of nature and God, which contradicts the individualism incipient behind our modern democratic beliefs.
Romans 8:29 makes this clear: God makes people who are receptive to Him, and by the reflexive principle, not all people are receptive, and the ones who are not are hostile to God. Those who are receptive to Him are so because of the way God made them.
Much like the question of Christianizing Europe versus Europeanizing Christianity, this question hinges on causality. The ability to receive God must exist before a person can receive God, as in the esoteric “Traditionalist” view; this rejects the idea that receiving God creates the ability to receiving god, in the exoteric and democratic convention.
That ability to perceive and receive is the essential component and must come first. Without it, there is no belief in God, only superstitious peoples like in the third world and Western New Age cults. The other verses support this view: God installs in some of us the ability to perceive God.
From an Alt Right view, this means that we must have a hierarchy, and raise those who understand God/nature/logic above the rest so that the best can rule the rest. It may also imply that those who oppose God, because they cannot be “fixed” or “educated,” must be sent elsewhere so they do not threaten the society of those who receive God.
Europeans have a tendency toward ability to receive God, but not all of them can do it. In the past, whether in pagan societies or Christianity, Europeans have sought a transcendental worldview and a metaphysical understanding of their world. This separates them from other groups, and shows why it was Europeanizing Christianity and not Christianizing Europe that is responsible for the positive contributions of Christianity in Europe.
It is time to acknowledge that the enemy of all sane people is modernity, because modernity is insane. The conventional view of modernity is that it is related to technological progress, but this is backward. Modernity is the condition that turns technological progress into dystopia by mismanagement.
This is the face of modernity. There’s no way to tackle a specific issue in it, because the whole thing is wrong. Sure, we could make rules about stopping at intersections, but then you need a cop in every intersection to enforce that rule, or people learn they can get away with it, most of the time, thus they don’t change the behavior. Similarly, we’d have to assign an infallible cop to every single person out there to prevent littering, toxic waste dumping, or sodomizing rape. Even worse is that no matter how many rules we write, there are always new ways to do something that is technically legal yet completely devoid of moral consideration for society and nature as a whole. You can make sodomizing rape porn illegal, but someone else will find something legal that’s similar and will market it, and they’ll be cheered on by those around them because hey, everyone loves money.
Modernity is the cause of this. We often think that our time suffers because it has no unifying philosophy, but the situation is even worse: our unifying philosophy is one of making no decisions. Instead of having a government you trust, you have the “freedom” to escape actions by your government, since it is assumed that you and the government will never come to accord on a sane way to live. You wanted a sensible job? Too bad – it’s more important to have competition so that if your job sucks, you can devote the next month to finding a better one. Let the jobs that suck continue to exist, so long as we have the freedom to choose a lesser degree of suck. We’re so afraid of legislation that we resist any restrictions on development, so if people destroy your neighborhood by covering its forests with concrete, your can move to a less-destroyed neighborhood.
Inevitably, such systems spiral out of control, because of two principles: relativity, and time. Relativity is a problem in that you can find something that sucks less, so you pick that instead instead of fixing the problem. Time compounds that by introducing a succession of greater suckstates, and you keep picking the lesser suckstates, until at some point the less-sucks sucks as much as the original, and you still have no recourse to change it – you’re looking for something that sucks less, instead. Everything affected by this model is a vortex of decreasing standards that eventually culminates in either apocalypse or third-world-style anarchy. But remember, you need that “freedom,” because instead of fixing the problem and creating a sensible government, we want you to be able to defend yourself against all governments.
This is clearly diseased reasoning, if looked at from an architectural perspective, but since such things don’t pay, no one does. No one is willing to target the whole of modernity, for at least the simple reason that it makes change a seemingly large task. I think it makes it a simpler task, as when we’ve found out where we went wrong, we can systematically replace those beliefs with something healthier. But in a modern time, we’re used to external ways of change. Use money as a carrot, and the law as the stick; “educate” (brainwash) people, or make them sign off on decisions like bureaucrats. We understand force, and treating humans and nature alike like machines, but we don’t understand internal motivation, or how we could actually make people understand what they do and why. Reversing this attitude would alone undo modern society, and would give us a clear and relatively easy path of change.
William Faulkner treated this subject tangentially in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech way back in 1950:
Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only one question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat…Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, and victories without hope and worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands…I decline to accept the end of man….I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet’s, the writer’s, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past.
The gestalt we find by combining the many details of society’s failing shows us that things are not well; things are diseased and destructive. We are oblivious to them not because we ignore the details, but because we pay attention only to certain details, and we do this because modernity more than being a “thing” is a state of mind. We look at the external forces we can impose, the qualitative measurements we can use, or the ways we can manipulate each other and thus feel clever about ourselves. These are passive ways of looking at the world, and as they don’t encompass all of it, they constitute only a certain segment of its detail, and leave us oblivious to the larger picture.
In other words, modernity is a mindset, not a thing or a specific process, including technology. It is a human system of organization that corresponds to the later stages of civilization, at which point its strength — a reflection of concentration of resources in areas like technology, military and economic might — is at a peak, but it is highly internally divided and likely to hit the pavement soon.
Another way to describe this mindset is as a pathology, or a repetitive behavior which is triggered independent of its results, so that it is repeated even when it fails:
Modernity is not tangible. It is an idea, thought or notion, like the worst of our afflictions. Obesity starts with ignoring the consequences of calories. Alcoholism starts with a denial of the effects of alcohol. All insanity begins with the thought that reality follows our minds, not the other way around.
Any number of false enemies will come your way. These fakes rely on your frustration and difficulty articulating why you are upset. Their goal is to make you fight them, so they gain through guilt and necessity a place at your table. These are parasites, but not the cause of our misfortune.
The real enemy is a thought. Other mistaken notions resemble it in that they are not immediate in result. You can get away with the deception for some time. You may even be able to fake it on a regular basis. Eventually, the disastrous results come due.
Modernity is now showing us its ugly side. Across the globe, governments have bankrupted themselves in pursuit of liberal programs. Societies have become dysfunctional, families ruined, daily life a miserable imitation of TV shows, and jobs and commerce have taken over souls.
Leftism and modernity are inseparable. As Bruce Charlton writes:
The way I would conceptualise matters is that government and politics will always be based on some view of the Human Condition. This may be implicit rather than explicit. At present, all mainstream politics works on the assumption that what is important is hedonic (in one way or another) and confined to mortal life.
A ‘Religious’ society is to be taken as short-hand for a society built on the assumption that this is *not* the bottom line, but a means to an end which extends beyond pleasure and mortality – although of course religions vary widely as to what that might be.
Your description fits into the Religious category – although I suppose it is more like an individual spirituality than what is normally considered A Religion – nonetheless its scope is religious.
Here he refers to the same psychology that Faulkner identifies above. Healthy societies worry about moral purpose, and whether or not their actions are producing a benevolence toward life itself or not. Unhealthy societies focus on people and keeping the group together by offering inclusion in exchange for obedience; we call this control.
Control denies our inner traits in order to focus on ways to manipulate us so that everyone is doing the same thing. This assumption of identical motivations, which is closely related to equality, forms the basis of social control or control by the appearance of our actions to the judging minds of others, which determines whether we can be part of the “in” crowd or are ostracized and left with fewer options, since people advance each other socially.
This leads to a situation where all values are externalized:
While our society is divided into left and right, its fundamental impetus has been from a liberal viewpoint, in philosophical terms. This viewpoint is the idea of fundamental human rights and equality, meaning that we all get treated the same way regardless of wealth or quality, and from that, we get “justice.” Both Republicans and Democrats embrace this view, and even far-flung parties like Greens and Nationalists seem to, which means that in our political outlook, there is no deviation from this assumption. We view equality as the highest good, the individual as the highest pursuit, and wealth as the means of that pursuit, and anyone who doesn’t agree with that is worse than a Commie or a Nazi, they’re a failure and probably a sociopath.
In our desire to be equal as people, we have denied the person within: the internal traits and preferences that make each of us who we are. We can be measured by our wealth, or our height, or our wish list on amazon.com, but what defines us as individuals has nothing to do with these external factors. It is a combination of personality and abilities. We want to be remembered not only for our skill at guitar playing, but for what the songs we wrote conveyed and made real to others. We want to be known not just for participation in public beach cleanup programs, but our own private choices and sacrifices that helped keep waste out of the world. Even more, we want to be known for how we treated our friends, how we raised our families, and the things we valued enough to die for them, as a life is looked over when the living is done. These are all internal factors, and they are denied by modern society in its desire for external equality.
And so what is the root of modernity? There are two types of civilizations, at the most basic level:
Forward motivated. In these societies, people decide what is right and then do it. In this world, the cause is a moral or aesthetic need, and the effect is translating that principle into action.
Reversed cognition. Societies of this type argue from convenience, looking at what is already present — materials, humans — and find a compromise that includes all of those to hold the society together.
The latter approach may be referred to as rationalism, because it rationalizes from material and social reactions instead of planning what might be ideal.
The difficulty with this approach, as people brainwashed in modernity see it, is “Who decides?” They are accustomed to “systems” or control structures where all people participate in formalized, universal activities and when they demonstrate exceptional obedience to the principle of control — equality — they are chosen as leaders.
In saner times, people realized that inequality of ability is a fundamental aspect of life itself, and that learning is esoteric or dependent on the ability of the person and how much cumulative knowledge they have already mastered. For this reason, such a society is hierarchical or based on leadership structures like the military.
That in turn implies an interesting quandary: when we need the best, we must ask the best who to choose, because per the Dunning-Kruger Effect, only the best will recognize others of that ability, just like only geniuses recognize other geniuses.
In such a group, the process is started when a threat troubles the tribe, and someone makes it go away through heroic or insightful action. At that point, this person becomes selected as one of the best, and can choose others to form part of a leadership cadre or caste.
These societies have existed for time immemorial. Their order is not older, but simply more evolved than what we have now, which is mob rule plus lots of regulations to try to make equally insane people sane. This order has four cornerstones and is how, in any age or place, one produces a healthy civilization.
Modernity is the inversion of this. It was crafted by those who wished to seize power. Their goal was to abolish hierarchy through equality and then, by using the same tactics of snake-oil salesman, conning the herd into doing their bidding. Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel are contemporary versions of this psychology.
Ironically, such people come about because of the success of a civilization. When societies succeed, they implement order and institutions which then allow those who could not survive without civilization to survive. The more brain-dead labor is needed, the more deleterious mutations accumulate in people who cannot exist without a narrow path of instructions guiding them.
This tells us what society must do if it is to avoid downfall: it must constantly produce more of the intelligent people, and pare down or eliminate those who are foolish, or cannot survive on their own without civilization. This requires a society willing to be more like the Spartans, who sacrificed defective children to avoid contaminating their gene pool.
An ideal way to do this gently is hierarchy keeps power in the hands of the best, and limits the options of the worst, encouraging them to leave the civilization and try their luck elsewhere. All orders break down over time, which is why “systems” do not work; what does work is keeping quality of citizenry and thought high to discourage the lower.
Modern people — to those who have crossed the abyss of thought that separates modern people from reality — seem robotic and confused on this point. They cannot conceive of anything other than a system which makes guarantees based on universal, formalized action.
In fact, the path to health is like that of nature. No universality, because people are not equal; no formalization, because systems are easily gamed by the cynical but defective. This is the natural order to which our ancestors aspired, and if we are to reverse modernity, it is what we must target again.