Trump’s Neoreaction Connection?

This is what winning looks like. Winning hard.

Peter Thiel, a major backer of Neoreaction founder Curtis Yarvin’s (moldbug’s) Urbit project, gets a seat right next to Donald Trump at a tech company meeting with the president elect. See above picture. Thiel has been a supporter of Trump for some time and even gave a speech for him in October. And before that at the republican national convention. He is also more or less an official advisor of Trump.

Neoreaction has a number of different strains, but perhaps the most important is a form of post-libertarian futurism that, realizing that libertarians aren’t likely to win any elections, argues against democracy in favor of authoritarian forms of government. In this guise, it’s a heretical offshoot of Valley nerd culture, and has particular associations with Thiel. Mencius Moldbug (real name Curtis Yarvin), the “founder” of neoreaction, is a Bay Area programmer whose start-up, Urbit, is backed by Thiel.

Some remarks by Trump on Thiel:

“I won’t tell you the hundreds of calls we had asking to come to this meeting,” Trump said early on, acknowledging Thiel’s advisory role. “Peter was sort of saying, you know, that company is sort of too small.”

“I want to start by thanking Peter,” he continued, “because he saw something very early, maybe before we saw it, and of course he’s known for that in a different way,” perhaps in reference to Thiel’s early support of his candidacy.

Thiel, he added, is “a very special guy.”

He saw something early. You mean like neoreaction and Curtis Yarvin? You mean like CEO of America Trump? Maybe I am reading too much into this, but neocameralism calls for a CEO of America. Both Trump and Thiel are CEOs with experience. They seem to get along well and do so publicly. Very, very few heads of large companies publicly supported Trump during his campaign (were there any?).  Thiel has a direct connection with the founder of neoreaction in the form of giving him large amounts of money. He obviously believes in Moldbug’s technology ideas if he is willing to give him money. Why should we think that support stops with technology?  Honestly, can you say these are bad choices for the new neocameralist joint-stock company of America?

Edit:

Thiel oddly has a Christian connection as well. Apparently he is quite fond of J.R.R Tolkien’s works and has named a number of his companies after things in those books:

Because he is a huge fan of The Lord of the Rings. So far, he has set up six firms (Palantir, Valar Ventures, Mithril Capital, Lembas LLC, Rivendell LLC and Arda Capital) that take their names from Tolkien’s creation.

Tolkien very specifically wrote those books with Christian metaphysics in mind. This is a synchronicity worth considering.

Edit 2:

According to politico, Steve Bannon, who was instrumental in Trump’s campaign and continues as an important advisor, is also a fan of Moldbug’s writing. However, nothing conclusive appears in the article itself. They could have just made it up.

Share Button

Vanity Marketing (for women only)

As I often do, I was browsing reddit when I found the following post by an apparent Singapore native who was annoyed that a bank was advertising a female only credit card…

In my country, only 2 banks here offer women-only credit cards; this is one bank. It’s been around for almost as long as I’ve lived so this is nothing new.

Still, it irks me that there’s all the talk about “gender equality” and “sexism” yet women here can apply for any credit card but men actually have (slightly) less choices.

First, it’s “women are constantly being discriminated by men and aren’t given ample opportunities to prove themselves”. Then it’s “banks are doing this because it’s been shown that women spend more than men due their higher disposable income”. So which is it?

To bad unlike in the US, there’s no statute to protect against gender discrimination, (there is for race, language or religion).

I suppose he is technically right that it is hypocritical to want gender “equality” while supporting gender segregated whatever (in this case credit cards). Even so, taking a “Bu, bu, but the dems are the REAL sexists” analogous line isn’t really worth bothering with. You can’t out-left the left. I reject gender equality altogether so such things don’t bother me per se. There are plenty of instances where men and women justifiably shouldn’t be treated the same. Credit cards are probably not one of those times, but meh, who cares how banks advertise this stuff. It doesn’t matter. Well, I could see banning women from getting credit cards at all because many are irresponsible with money and high debt makes for a poor wife. But that is a different topic.

Even though the above logic holds in this case, there is another reason why the proper response to things like “Women-only credit cards” should be amusement rather than annoyance. Female-focused advertising is, in most cases, a blatant gimmick with no real substance. In the case of a credit card, it probably has higher interest rates or worse conditions than non-female focused competitors. At minimum it is no better than similar gender neutral competitors. The fact that it has a gender focused marketing campaign is NOT a reason to pick it over other offerings on the market. In fact, it is hard to imagine how a credit card could be made female focused in anything but name. Perhaps it gives 1.5% back on any purchase of tampons, cat litter, ice cream, tissues, romantic comedies, and weight loss programs. Jokes aside, female-centric marketing is a naked attempt to appeal to female vanity and/or solipsism in order to bypass sound judgement to close the sale. That such marketing is relatively common suggests that the gambit works reasonably well. If the deception works that well, that means a large proportion of the female population is flagrantly stupid enough to fall for it. Ironically, the marketing which successfully appeals to female vanity and pride directly countermands its justification immediately upon the marketing’s success. Falling for baseless, naked manipulation is a sure sign that there is nothing to be proud of. The success of such branding is a clear and unambiguous indictment of female incompetence at the population level. Hence why I find it so amusing that most women hop right on the bandwagon for such campaigns without even a second thought. The joke is on them.

I think the funniest example of vanity marketing I have seen was when I was grocery shopping a few years ago. I was walking down the medicine aisle when I suddenly saw a laxative that was specifically “for women.” This marketing was absolutely preposterous because intestines do not vary by gender in their response to commonly used laxatives. I would have to look it up, but I would guess the same is true for more esoteric prescription laxatives. I stopped my cart and balked for a minute at the idea of “female” laxatives (or even just that some cheeky bastard would have the gall to shamelessly market such bullshit and it WORKED) before moving closer to confirm my suspicions. Sure enough the ingredients were all the same as every other brand in the aisle. Female laxatives, like many other “female” products, were just a stupid marketing gimmick to make women buy it, at a higher price, over other brands. Think about this for a second. The sales advantage of increasing female buyers more than made up for any sales disadvantage of alienating men away from this product. And this increase happens IN SPITE of it being identical with everything else available and more expensive. Either a whole lot of women are really susceptible to this type of marketing, or else women get clogged up way more than men do [or both]. Even if women get constipated more, that doesn’t change the fact that the “female” laxatives were no different than any other laxative. The pretty (turd?) flowers on the label provide absolutely zero rational justification to chose it as a product over any of the others.

Since our laws require most products list their active ingredient right on the labels, it really doesn’t make sense that “female” marketing should work at all. Maybe this is a guy thing, but I know when I am shopping for something I usually spend a minute comparing price, volumes, active ingredients, other ingredients, concentrations, or anything else that might inform my decision on what to buy. This process of evaluation would almost always make such a transparent gimmick useless (or worse than useless if I was annoyed by the deceptive nature of the label). Especially in the case of the laxatives above, the ladies could easily compare “female” laxatives to the cheapest generic brand and realize what the better deal was. Many, apparently, do not go through this obvious process and marketing female laxatives is a successful sales tactic.

This seems to be true of not just neutral products with deceptive “female” labels, but also for products implicitly understood to be mostly for women. Right out of college I spent a year teaching chemistry and biology at a high school. During one of my chemistry lessons I was rudely interrupted during a very important chemistry lecture by a group of gossiping girls. They were of course talking about which brand of hair care product was the best. Well, even back then I had the general concept of this post about female purchasing habits in my mind. I suspected their concept of “best” products had more to do with labels and gimmicks than with actual active ingredients and effectiveness. As “punishment” I required all of the girls to look up the active chemical ingredient of the various brands, the chemical reactions involved, and give a comparison report in front of the class. I can’t remember exactly which products they talked about, but it ended up having peroxides so it was probably some sort of bleaching agent. Sure enough, my suspicion was correct. All of the brands had the exact same active ingredient at the same concentration. My hope was that they learned a valuable lesson on product evaluation which could save them a lot of money, but I was left with a very distinct impression that they didn’t care at all and were just going to get whatever was most expensive because that was better for signalling status. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink.

Now some people might complain that there are examples of the above sort of things with the genders inverted. However, examples like female credit cards and female laxatives are a different category than the male focused products that I can think of (if you have examples I haven’t thought of, please let me know). Specifically, in the case of credit cards and laxatives, there is no implied gender of the product. Companies are taking a gender neutral product, slapping some gynocentric packaging on it, and hoping female vanity will get them more sales despite the product being in no way changed. I can’t think of any male oriented products which fits this description (A gender-neutral product which gets male-focused marketing).

The most well-known example of a male-focused marketing generally is probably the “Just for men” beard dyeing product.* However, there is a fundamental difference between this example and the two female-focused examples. Hair-dying, and thus its products, is implicitly a female activity because it is all about vanity and vanity is a very feminine conceit. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most or all activities, brands, etc which are considered feminine, outside of child-rearing, are fundamentally related to vanity. Many or most men would gladly choose grey beards over buying flowery boxes of hair dye and sissy-dyeing their beards. Either that, or they just don’t care and see dying grey hair as wholly unnecessary [or both]. The “just for men” brand is very self-consciously trying to counter the perception of hair-coloring as feminine to open up a reluctant market. Despite this direct marketing, I suspect the greying male population is still fairly reluctant to bother with hair dyeing compared to the female population as a whole. Even in this case where men might have some pretty legitimate desire to use a vanity product, vanity marketing for men just is not as effective as it is for women. This is why you never see an objectively gender neutral product labeled for men. Such things don’t work, so they don’t happen

Now before you say this is just me and my anecdotal experiences, I want to remind you that the belief that women are more vain than men has existed since ancient times. For example, in Isaiah 3 the women of Judea are described thusly:

Moreover, the LORD said, “Because the daughters of Zion are proud
And walk with heads held high and seductive eyes,
And go along with mincing steps
And tinkle the bangles on their feet,

Therefore the Lord will afflict the scalp of the daughters of Zion with scabs,
And the LORD will make their foreheads bare.”

In that day the Lord will take away the beauty of their anklets, headbands, crescent ornaments, 19dangling earrings, bracelets, veils, headdresses, ankle chains, sashes, perfume boxes, amulets, finger rings, nose rings, festal robes, outer tunics, cloaks, money purses, hand mirrors, undergarments, turbans and veils.

Now it will come about that instead of sweet perfume there will be putrefaction;
Instead of a belt, a rope;
Instead of well-set hair, a plucked-out scalp;
Instead of fine clothes, a donning of sackcloth;
And branding instead of beauty.

Isaiah also talks about killing all the men to make the women suffer even more. Male Privilege. I hope god never decides to punish women too badly…. In an excellent article which is on another topic, but which also references Isaiah, Albert Nock sees a similar pattern among women in the 1920s and 30s:

The picture which Isaiah presents of the Judean masses is most unfavorable. In his view, the mass man — be he high or be he lowly, rich or poor, prince or pauper — gets off very badly. He appears as not only weak minded and weak willed, but as by consequence knavish, arrogant, grasping, dissipated, unprincipled, unscrupulous. The mass woman also gets off badly, as sharing all the mass man’s untoward qualities, and contributing a few of her own in the way of vanity and laziness, extravagance and foible. The list of luxury products that she patronized is interesting; it calls to mind the women’s page of a Sunday newspaper in 1928, or the display set forth in one of our professedly “smart” periodicals. In another place, Isaiah even recalls the affectations that we used to know by the name “flapper gait” and the “debutante slouch.”

So I think there is more than a little something to this idea of vanity being more common in women, and unscrupulous marketeers using that fact to their advantage. Most “for women” marketing is taking advantage of female stupidity and vanity to make a profit. Most women seem completely unable or unwilling to recognize that fact. Frankly, they deserve to be fleeced if it is really that easy to do. And men should laugh at their folly rather than be mad. (Unless its your wife, in which case slap some sense into her.)

*I have never used a beard dye, and I didn’t research it for this post. Beard hair is obviously much more course than other hair and that may require different formulations or tools. If so that actually makes this a distinct product from female hair dye and thus even less of a suitable analogy.

Share Button

Conversation with a Blue Pill Churchian

Though I am not religious, I do have some Christian friends. These friends tend to be more independently minded and have some serious gripes with the average church because of some commonly held, yet arguably unbiblical beliefs many church congregations share.

Last night, I was hanging out with these friends when we were all invited out to eat by some of their churchian friends. Knowing of my irreligious philosophy and reasonably high level of debating skills, my friends like to instigate debates between myself and churchians when the opportunity arises. They find it entertaining… However, as I have grown older I have come to realize that attacking the core beliefs of the tribe, assuming they aren’t self-destructive, is bad-form and unnecessary. John Derbyshire put this thought succinctly:

The sensible dissident should in fact practice a lot of self-restraint. He should in particular show a proper respect for the idols of the tribe. When I was a teenager back in England it was the custom at movie theaters that when the movie program ended, the National Anthem would be played. Everyone was supposed to stand up and be still for the duration. Well, of course, by the age of sixteen I had seen through all that stupid monarchy stuff — a bunch of rich people living in palaces and doing no useful work. Stand up for them? Not me! So I and some like-minded coevals would bravely sit through the anthem. This generated a lot of disapproval from other patrons, leading once or twice almost to fist-fights. We’d made our dissident point, though.

Now I know that the point was not worth making. Harmless tribal rituals are not to be objected to. They are part of the glue that holds a nation together. That’s a fundamental conservative insight. If you’re going to dissent, dissent about something that matters.

What matters? Truth.

So rather than indulging my friends in some heated argument about whether or not the bible is literal truth, I opted instead to focus on something that is arguable from within the Christian frame. This is of course that of proper gender roles, family values, and marriage.

I began by stating that I tend to agree with the Christian community that marriage is between a man and a woman. The intention of marriage is to force people, many of whom are deeply irresponsible, into providing the optimum environment for the raising of children and to keep birthrates high enough that there isn’t precipitous population declines. Most importantly, widespread traditional marriage works to reduce criminality and other social problems in that generation of children and this effect requires both a mother and a father.(1) Gay “marriage” does not contribute to this goal and thus is not a legitimate institution. It is an idea deprived of purpose and is thus meaningless.

However, overall I view gays getting married as trivial. There aren’t many of them to begin with, and even then only a small portion of them have interest in “marriage.” In terms of numbers, whether they marry or not probably won’t have much direct impact. (Kafkaesque enforcement by the Cathedral of twisted values will have much worse consequences, however). More important than that, though, is this fallacy that marriage in its current form is still a functional institution that is capable of further destruction. Marriage will not be destroyed by gay marriage. It was destroyed, past tense, in the 1970s with the introduction of no fault divorces combined with alimony and child support. The later is supported especially by the informal assumption that children should virtually always go to the mother such that she is the recipient of the child support. The results of these laws is the currently very high divorce rate in the US. The churchian community has not been immune or otherwise done anything significant to halt divorce surging among their members.

Thus, the argument instigated was that while the church may have its heart in the right place, it has completely and utterly failed in its mission of being pro-family as judged by the consequences of its muteness or even support of divorce policies which destroyed marriage. These policies are several orders of magnitude more important than gay marriage. Moreover, the enthusiasm with which single mothers and sluts are readily accepted into the church causes huge problems when naive young men are encouraged to marry them because the church condones them as proper wife material when they are not. The churches’ stances on these issues demonstrate that in this respect they are hardly living up to what it is supposed to mean to be Christian. Such was my opening statement in the debate.

To this, our blue pill churchian responded that all sin is equal and that once Christ has been accepted people truly are born again on earth. Their past mistakes are washed away. Thus, the sluts are not just redeemed in a spiritual sense with respect to the afterlife but also in physical reality they are no longer sluts. This redemption process is capable of making them into suitable wives here and now in their lifetime and no harm could possibly come to pairing them off with Christian men who have actually been following traditional values.

I think I was about to have an aneurysm. As I told him, whatever he may want to believe about forgiveness of sin, we have clear evidence that forgiving whorishness does not make a slut a good wife. I have no problem with the idea of forgiving people their mistakes, but the idea that forgiveness can be equated with removing all consequences of mistakes within physical life is nonsense. I made the following rebuttal up without reference to any specific theology, but it supported my point and that is an important component of debate. I confidently stated that forgiveness of sin applies mainly to concerns of spiritual life after death. Forgiveness does not remove consequences of actions within a person’s lifetime, and can not make a slut into a non-slut. They will have to deal with the consequences of their sin even if forgiveness of said sin allows them to still go to heaven. There is no such thing as a “born-again virgin.”

Feel free to tell me I’m wrong on scriptural grounds. As I have stated previously, if scripture can legitimately be used to justify the born-again virgin position then it is just wrong and should be ignored. We know it is wrong based on studies and statistics that compare the marriages of sluts with non-sluts. Sluts making for bad wives is a reality of the world we live in and no faith-based arguments can overturn the evidence.

With this in mind, I iterated that most deplorable of all was that objectively good men who are good husband material were being thrown on the spikes for the sake sinful whores because of this faith in immediate transformation within a person’s lifetime. Unbelievably to me, he stated that we are all equally sinful. A practicing Christian man who follows abstinence before marriage and otherwise does a fair job at trying to be Christian is just as sinful (say he masturbated once) as the born-again virgin. There is no differentiation between the magnitude of different sins. Small mistakes of one are equivalent to large mistakes of the other. Ridiculous egalitarianism truly is a concept memetically descended from Christian theology. Since this faithfully Christian man is considered to be equally sinful with the whore, there is no reason to treat each one differently based on different degrees of sin. In fact, he stated that it was only right and proper to throw the poor guy under the bus because his suffering would bring him closer to god. Face palm. No wonder so few men go to church these days. They aren’t going to look out for your interests, that is for sure.

The churchian used two scriptural passages to justify these attitudes. He first paraphrased Hosea to support marrying sluts as well as handing money and resources over to them; the later being a justification of the current policies which facilitate wealth transfers from men to women during divorce. In Hosea, god commanded the prophet to marry a slut and have children by her. However, she eventually went back to whoring and she was to be hated and foiled. Despite this, god then commanded Hosea to literally buy her back and supposedly this command can be extrapolated to all men by the churchian’s view. See the paragraphs which he uses to justify his view:

When the Lord began to speak through Hosea, the Lord said to him, “Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the Lord.”  So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.

[After gomer went back to whoring] The Lord said to me, “Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another man and is an adulteress. Love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes.”

So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and about a homer and a lethek of barley.  Then I told her, “You are to live with me many days; you must not be a prostitute or be intimate with any man, and I will behave the same way toward you.”

The above is from hosea 1 and 3 respectively. This is all extremely blue pill and seems to support his claim that the bible is in favor of marrying sluts. However, Hosea 2 is very, very red pill in how it treats the slut. So what we have is a sort of blue pill sandwich with red pill meat:

“Rebuke your mother, rebuke her,
for she is not my wife,
and I am not her husband.
Let her remove the adulterous look from her face
and the unfaithfulness from between her breasts.
Otherwise I will strip her naked
and make her as bare as on the day she was born;
I will make her like a desert,
turn her into a parched land,
and slay her with thirst.
I will not show my love to her children,
because they are the children of adultery.
Their mother has been unfaithful
and has conceived them in disgrace.
She said, ‘I will go after my lovers,
who give me my food and my water,
my wool and my linen, my olive oil and my drink.’
Therefore I will block her path with thornbushes;
I will wall her in so that she cannot find her way.
She will chase after her lovers but not catch them;
she will look for them but not find them.
Then she will say,
‘I will go back to my husband as at first,
for then I was better off than now.’
She has not acknowledged that I was the one
who gave her the grain, the new wine and oil,
who lavished on her the silver and gold—
which they used for Baal.

“Therefore I will take away my grain when it ripens,
and my new wine when it is ready.
I will take back my wool and my linen,
intended to cover her naked body.
10 So now I will expose her lewdness
before the eyes of her lovers;
no one will take her out of my hands.
11 I will stop all her celebrations:
her yearly festivals, her New Moons,
her Sabbath days—all her appointed festivals.
12 I will ruin her vines and her fig trees,
which she said were her pay from her lovers;
I will make them a thicket,
and wild animals will devour them.
13 I will punish her for the days
she burned incense to the Baals;
she decked herself with rings and jewelry,
and went after her lovers,
but me she forgot,”
declares the Lord.

Well, if the story was concluded with this passage, then I would say he was wrong in his interpretation. However, after this passage Hosea was ordered to take her back despite how depraved she was so in my view Hosea clearly supports his case. I suppose it could be argued that this was only meant to apply to Hosea in the particular and no one else because he was a prophet in a specific situation (Hosea’s relationship with his wife was a metaphor for the contemporary relationship between God and Israel), but even if that is true not everyone is going to understand that and confusion will be continual. In this instance the bible has proven to not be a good supporter of traditional values. It clearly opens the door for men to be thrown under the bus for whores based on scripture. This is a nasty strike against using the bible as the foundational text to support traditional values and gender roles. Criticism of the bible from the right, who would have guessed.

He also directly quoted Corinthians chapter 5 to consciously and purposefully support throwing men under the bus.  Let’s see if that fares as badly:

So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Yikes! During the conversation I was quite taken aback by this clear support of throwing men under the bus. Although I clearly don’t agree with what he is trying to support with this quote, I do find it entertaining that he inadvertently implied that sluts and whores are equivalent to the ultimate embodiment of evil. Anyway, thanks to smart phones, the context was made clearer then and there:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough?  Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

To me, this passage does nothing to support the churchian’s argument. If anything, it clearly shows that the exact opposite of what he was saying was advocated. Though, the solution is to expel the sluts rather than accept them while avoiding promoting them as marriage partners. Fair enough, I have no objections with that. In fact, the bible’s solution is better than the compromise of forgiveness without encouragement of commitment I suggested during the argument. In this case, I believe his interpretation was wrong and that the bible is supporting traditional values here.

Is it just me, or does the actual consequence of the churchian thought pattern and action seem more likely to drive men away from the people who give them bad advice rather than bring them even deeper into Christianity? Regardless of its being justified by scripture or not, I have already addressed the belief in born-again virgins and the encouragement of good men marrying them in my “Chastity, Once Lost, is Forever Gone” post, so I guess I will just quote myself:

[The idea of a born-again virgin is] that if a girl repents her actions she can be forgiven and it will be like it never happened. Maybe this can be justified by verses in the bible, and maybe it can’t. Certain Churchians certainly made a persuasive stab at it. Not being a Christian, I will let you know you can save your theological arguments. As far as I am concerned, if this can be justified in the bible, then the bible is wrong. If it can’t, great. If some people can be legitimately and understandably confused on whether the bible supports this then Christian Traditionalists have a real problem. Even if it can be demonstrated through some convoluted means that “born-again virgin” isn’t a Christian concept, ambiguity here is a very big fault with using the book as the basis for the traditional family. That being a slut can’t be taken back should not be ambiguous in any way in the foundational religious document of a society. Chastity, once lost, is forever gone.

Back in my more red pill, less reactionary days it was widely known and accepted among my group of friends that the “born-again virgin” girls were easy prey. And yes, we occasionally went to “singles” church events to find these girls despite not being religious. Lots of them were single mothers. Most would get drunk and have premarital sex with you Saturday night before stomping off to church Sunday morning in hopes of tricking some poorly advised Christian beta into paying for her and her bastard children. The “born-again virgin” status of these so-called “Christian” women is a complete fabrication. Their facade is a purely Machiavellian attempt to maximize their Alpha Fucks/Beta bucks mating strategy. And like the rest of society, the Christian community is far too credulous of these girl’s crocodile tears of repentance. Worse yet, they gladly throw the legitimately Christian men under the bus by pressuring them into dating and marrying these skanks. No wonder men are leaving the church in droves. I would too if I was given shitty advice like “marry the sluts”. I would leave any such organization which thought that way and I would laugh when it was completely destroyed, as it justly should be.

This was more or less the same response I gave our blue pill churchian in the argument.

I made sure to highlight the fact that modern churches are extremely emasculating and attitudes like those promoting the marriage of sluts were driving the trend of low male attendance at christian churches. To this the churchian informed me that the church does support masculine virtues. He obliged my request for him to describe masculine virtues and used adjectives like gentleness, kindness, meekness, tenderness, compassion and other similar things. All of these things aren’t masculine virtues, but feminine virtues. I should point out that he wasn’t using the right definition of meekness which is a synonym for timidness (I grilled him on that). Rather, he thought it meant “strength under control.” Strength under control actually isn’t that bad of a masculine virtue, but meekness does not mean that. I assume that he has absorbed all of these so-called “masculine virtues” from various sermons he has heard, including the incorrect definition of meekness.

With these weak and effeminate concepts of masculinity being preached in churches, is it any wonder that male attendance is down to 43% overall and as low as 35% in certain denominations and churches with female ministers. Female ministers is particularly ludicrous to me. If you claim to believe in the bible, you can’t allow women to even speak at church let alone establish them as leaders. Corinthians 14:34:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

The previous link elaborates on the feminization of the church that drives men away in droves. Here are some select quotes:

Yet, as Murrow (2005a, 8 ) points out, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam all have at least as many male adherents as female ones. Podles (1999, ix) also notes that, within Christianity, the Orthodox Church has a general [sic] balance. The implication is clear: it is not that religion or spirituality per se are inimical to men. Rather, it must be specific forms and expressions of religion or spirituality that alienate men and deter their participation.

‘Perhaps the main focus of those who criticise the Church for having become feminised is that its worship is too ‘touchy-feely’, overemotional or over-personal. This has been derogatorily called ‘Jesus is my boyfriend’ (or, more provocatively, ‘girlfriend’) worship. As Murrow (2005a, 187) argues, “today’s praise music invites the worshipper to assume the feminine role” and praise music can resemble the Top 40 love songs.’

‘It is a commonplace that masculinity is in crisis. Men are experiencing considerable confusion over their identity, in terms of who they are and what their roles are. As the end of the millennium approached, Roy McCloughry reported “a loss of definition and a confusion about what is expected of men… It is amazing how quickly men seem to have lost their confidence”

Clearly this crisis in masculinity in the church (and everywhere else) is quite rampant. This churchian has no clue what masculinity actually is and in fact seems to think a whole host of feminine virtues define what it means to be masculine. I don’t believe this is his fault, honestly. It is the fault of the church leaders who have adopted ideas from feminism (probably without quite realizing it) about the differences between men and women. They then teach these false beliefs to their flock which sets the men trying to do the right thing up for complete failure. At one point, after arguing that even if church leaders forgive sluts their sin when they repent, they should not support chaste men marrying them. It is their responsibility as elders to properly guide young men to proper wives and help them avoid mistakes. His response was that the blind could not lead the blind and these young men should just be allowed to make the mistake. At the time I argued against him. The leaders should be somewhat knowledgeable of proper morality (and consequences of certain actions) and it is their duty to guide men correctly. However, later consideration of his quip made quickly and without reflection has unintentionally won me over on this position. This churchian’s blatantly blue pill, misandric, and factually inaccurate understanding of the male condition clearly demonstrates that church leaders are blind and have no business guiding anyone. Its like someone gauged out their eyes with a pitchfork.

(1) The paper shown studied the differences between children raised in normal families vs. gay “families” and found that children raised by gays are worse off. You should be able to download it at the link provided, but if not go to /r/scholar and you can request it (make sure you read their instructions for how to get it before making a request). The paper is “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” by Mark Regnerus. To view the anti-science response to this article by the cathedral, look for “Politicized science” by Richard Redding.

Share Button

The Neoreactionary Inquisition

(Image Source, T-shirt available)

Writing under my alternative username Nemester, the head moderator over at /r/darkenlightenment, I made a post and a comment in which I discussed entryists and how they might be effectively dealt with. I have gained lots of direct experience with actually dealing with entryists which should be valuable to everyone. The comment thread in question can be found here. To paraphrase, someone asked “Why don’t we just make our own SJW free communities?” Well, we all know the answer to that. Entryists will not follow “live and let live.” If you have a community which does not have sjw values, prig progs will move in and ruin it if given the opportunity. Many may do so unconsciously and unintentionally, but at least some are quite conscious of what they are attempting to do. Enough that they constitute a real threat to any genuine and healthy community. Here is my original comment on the question of how to deal with entryists:

Its not that easy, trust me. Leftists will come in and will try to change the nature of the sub. Generally, we refer to it as “entryism” when they pretend to be moderate or “reasonable” or whatever and slowly shift the overton window. The SJW manual (before sjw was a coined term) is “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. It specifically tells these busy bodies to invade other organizations discretely, even ostensibly apolitical ones, so they can be transformed to push for sjw causes. There really are people out there who consciously invade communities like parasites to change it to fit their utopian ideals, which of course ruins the community in the process and often causes it to dissolve because it no longer represents what it is supposed to represent .

Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

-John Derbyshire, Conquest’s Laws

Over in /r/darkenlightenment and in neoreaction generally, huge amounts of effort has been spent trying to analyze this problem and how best to handle it. We make a great deal of effort to signal in such a way as to be repugnant to sjws. This keeps some of them away, but not all. I also try to make sure that entryists are banned when I find them. Sometimes easy, sometimes not based on comment history. Even today, there were three SJW transexuals in the sub commenting, presumably subscribed, and trying to change the overton window. I don’t think neoreaction could have done anything more to signal that we aren’t fond of sjws, or the treating of a mental illness as if it were normal. If /r/darkenlightenment has a problem with sjws persisting there, then everyone has a problem. Yet there they were. 3 of them. These people are crazy and apparently masochistic. Crazy enough that instead of sticking to their corner of the internet they will invade yours and try to force you to think like them even if they know the established community strongly dislikes them. And they will use deceit in order to do it, per their own instruction manual. Normal people don’t do that.

What is needed for virtually every single community no matter how apolitical is something akin to an inquisition. The inquisition gets a bad rap, thanks to old protestant propaganda. But the catholic church never actually killed anyone, or even stated that anyone should be killed even if found guilty. It was the king of the country that did that. In almost all cases accused witches or whatever were found to be innocent. Moreover, the inquisition prevented a lot of revolutionary mob behavior that killed way more people in protestant countries than ever died as a result of the inquisition. Especially witch burnings. Effectively, the inquisition was a way responsible men could prevent the mob from going crazy and doing stupid shit. To make sure cooler heads prevailed. Think of all the twitter witch hunt campaigns, that didn’t start with twitter. In the case of communities, established and trusted non-sjws (i.e., inquisitors) have to be put in charge with the mission of firmly clamping down on them and ejecting sjws as soon as they are seen. These inquisitors have to be both smart and informed enough to know an sjw when they see them, which can be hard because many are crafty and/or sincere “moderates” who aren’t aware of what they are doing in shifting the discourse leftward. Essentially creating an easier entry point for more radical sjws to follow. There absolutely is no other way. At least no other way that doesn’t require an extreme and directed dedication to preventing entryism. I can tell you right now, that isn’t easy. You really have to be informed on how these people operate, because they will dress up their language to try to appear like they are part of the community and some of them are extremely good at that. It really requires the most competent of the anti-sjws to do something like that effectively, and getting people dedicated and competent enough to start running all of these communities is not easy. Not only that, but unfortunately you have to reject libertarian ideals with regards to freedom of speech. I love freedom of speech generally, but specific communities have to be strict to maintain their culture because there are lots of people out there who will ruin it if given a chance. A community has to formulate their values effectively and clearly and actively enforce those values. If not, they will drift left and eventually become an sjw organization. To me it is clear what the lesser of two evils is.

My answer to the problem of entryism is a strict and authoritative inquisition with reliable and trustworthy inquisitors who have the intellectual capability and necessary knowledge to pick out even well camouflaged entryists and promptly eject them from the community. Easier said than done, but it is a practical plan on effective community governance.

There is just one problem. Wasn’t the inquisition that evil and oppressive church using their power against the poor, oppressed masses? Didn’t they just go out and murder a bunch of people willy nilly just because they were a bunch of fascist pricks? Surely such an institution should not be a source of inspiration. Surely.

Fortunately, I also provided was a link  which elaborates on why the commonly held views on the inquisition, its purpose, and the results of its actions are little more than myth. Myth originating from old protestant propaganda. The original progressives. The propaganda was passed down the generations in the west and eventually was assumed to be truth.

As it turns out, the inquisition was originally formed mainly because uneducated, illiterate mobs regularly found people they considered to be heretics against god and promptly wanted to execute them with some gusto. Or maybe that was just an excuse for a community to kill someone they didn’t like. In any event, one of the main purposes of the inquisition was to give such accused people a fair hearing, with due process and all those inconveniences, to see if they actually were heretics before they were burned to death. Specifically, the inquisition was set up so the accused were judged by someone who was actually able to read. You know, the ones who might actually have some idea about what the bible says god likes or doesn’t like.

As the inquisition took on more complexity from more humble beginnings, this was how it was structured:

Following the most progressive law codes of the day, the Church in the 13th century formed inquisitorial tribunals answerable to Rome rather than local bishops. To ensure fairness and uniformity, manuals were written for inquisitorial officials.

By the 14th century, the Inquisition represented the best legal practices available. Inquisition officials were university-trained specialists in law and theology. The procedures were similar to those used in secular inquisitions (we call them “inquests” today, but it’s the same word).

Sounds really oppressive. Let’s gather a mob and burn them at the stake.

Seriously though, maybe it is just me, but I think I would rather be judged by an inquisitor than an angry mob. Probably just me.

Moreover, unlike non-church authorities and the unruly mobs who saw heretics as evil traitors deserving of a quickly administered slow and painful death, the church felt that true heretics were in fact just lost sheep and deserved compassion. In other words, they should be lead back to the church if at all possible rather than be killed. True to their intentions, most of the people seen by the inquisition were acquitted or given a suspended sentence. Those who were truly guilty were made to confess sin, do penance, and eventually released back to the community. Only those few truly belligerent souls were ever found guilty, and it was the non-church authorities that decided the proper punishment was death. In reality, the inquisition saved many, many people from unruly mobs; far more than ever died from being found guilty. And that doesn’t even consider lynch mobs that didn’t bother getting started because they knew the inquisition would put a stop to it. Chances are that without the inquisition many more than just that minority would have been found guilty by the local yokels and would have gotten their own front row seat at the barbeque.

Considering how often leftist mobs go out of their way to ruin people, can there be any doubt that if they had the authority they would eagerly call for the same people to be killed? I don’t think so. Its a scary thought considering there is an example of mob social media attacks against typically innocent people almost every week. The last few weeks seemed to have even more than usual.

Well, the medieval inquisition seems relatively fair, but that doesn’t seem to have much to do with entryism. The Spanish inquisition specifically turns out to be the actual role-model to consider; at least the last stage.

A good place to start seems to be a summary of the entire life of the Spanish inquisition before picking the part that is best suited to being a guide in combating entryism. It seems that medieval Spain was quite the diverse place owing to various conquests by Christians and Muslims in the area. Muslims, Christians and Jews all lived side by side in the same area and attempted to get along (tongue in cheek). However, in 1391 an angry Christian mob in Barcelona and other towns went to the Jewish quarter, rounded up all the Jews, and gave them a choice between baptism and death for the exact same reasons given every other time in history something like this has ever happened. Most accepted baptism. Later the King of the area, who had made a failed attempt to stop the mob, reminded everyone that forced baptisms don’t count and allowed all Jews to return to their religion. However, most of the new converts decided to remain Catholic. These Jews for Jesus, or conversos, created an initial population which subsequently received a steady stream of additional voluntary converts (3000 alone after one debate between a rabbi and a Christian). However, most retained many of their old customs and the new Christians never fully integrated with the old Christians. Therefore, a new culture of religiously Christian, yet ethnically and culturally Jewish, people was born. Some even had arrogance enough to claim they were better Christians because they were related by blood to Jesus and Mary.

In any event, the new converso class managed to gain a fair amount of wealth and success (probably as a result of IQ differentials which are still present today). This led to old Christian nobles to become jealous and start accusing the conversos of not really being Christian; they believed the conversos were in fact still secretly Jewish and were working to infiltrate and take over the society as part of a conspiracy to destroy it from within. Though I doubt any such conspiracy actually existed, modern scholars, including Jewish ones, have embraced the conspiracy theory as part of a narrative where Jews oppressed by the Catholic church struggled to maintain their faith. Sigh. Who would have thought that Nazis and progressives would find something other than socialism to share in common (Nazi is short for National socialist), and that it would be a Jewish conspiracy theory of all things? Progressives really need to learn some basic logic, if only to maintain some consistency. The reality was most of the conversos were in fact faithful Catholics.

All these agitations and accusations by the mob, and advanced by nobles, is what led to the formation of the Spanish inquisition, which was under the authority of the Spanish government rather than the church. What ended up happening is that old Christians, not under investigation since they weren’t new converts, and practicing Jews, not bound by the Catholic church in any way, used the inquisition to try to settle scores against conversos they had personal issues with. Jews were not subject to the inquisition because the purpose of the institution was to find wayward Christians and set them back on the right path. It never did anything to actual Jews. There were certainly some abuses in the early years of the institution, but that was probably because it was under local authority rather than the church. The pope did in fact try to stop the mob’s undue influence on the determination of guilt, and to make it a policy to throw out questionable testimony. The pope specifically condemned burning people at the stake. This did not initially work because of the secular king’s control, and more substantial abuses (i.e., deaths) were had that were primarily fueled by mob agitation and hysteria.

Eventually, however, the institution was reformed and proper legal practices were implemented. Any potential secret Jews were given due process and most were found to be innocent; those guilty were treated humanely and given an opportunity to do better. These reforms ended up working out pretty well, and the Spanish inquisition eventually assumed its proper role of stopping mob violence.

Staffed by well-educated legal professionals, [the spanish inquisition] was one of the most efficient and compassionate judicial bodies in Europe. No major court in Europe executed fewer people than the Spanish Inquisition. This was a time, after all, when damaging shrubs in a public garden in London carried the death penalty. Across Europe, executions were everyday events. But not so with the Spanish Inquisition. In its 350-year lifespan only about 4,000 people were put to the stake. Compare that with the witch-hunts that raged across the rest of Catholic and Protestant Europe, in which 60,000 people, mostly women, were roasted. Spain was spared this hysteria precisely because the Spanish Inquisition stopped it at the border. When the first accusations of witchcraft surfaced in northern Spain, the Inquisition sent its people to investigate. These trained legal scholars found no believable evidence for witches’ Sabbaths, black magic, or baby roasting. It was also noted that those confessing to witchcraft had a curious inability to fly through keyholes. While Europeans were throwing women onto bonfires with abandon, the Spanish Inquisition slammed the door shut on this insanity. (For the record, the Roman Inquisition also kept the witch craze from infecting Italy.)

The Spanish inquisition got its bad name not from the early episode with conversos, however. Nor from its obviously reasonable response to the witch hysteria. Rather, it got its bad name as a result of the protestant reformation and the propaganda spewing from northern European printing presses. The Spanish decided early on that they were defenders of the Catholic church and that they were in no way going to allow the earliest iteration of the progressive memeplex to infect their country.

Innumerable books and pamphlets poured from northern presses accusing the Spanish Empire of inhuman depravity and horrible atrocities in the New World. Opulent Spain was cast as a place of darkness, ignorance, and evil. Although modern scholars have long ago discarded the Black Legend, it still remains very much alive today. Quick: Think of a good conquistador.

Sound familiar? Na, just a coincidence obviously.

In any event, this last episode is where the Spanish inquisition really shines. They were in fact combating the ancestors of the very same cathedral we still face today and did so quite effectively in the face of their main weapon of propaganda; propaganda remarkably similar to that still used today. Reasonable, informed men worked within the institution of the inquisition to make sure protestant entryists did not succeed in their culture. Even though they were firm, they did not engage excessively in executions or torture relative to their contemporaries. They merely identified entryists and gave them the option to stop trying to destroy the culture from within or face imprisonment. Ceasing to attempt to destroy the culture usually got them a slap on the wrist and they were free to go. It worked pretty well too it would seem. They also did not concern themselves with people who did not claim to be a part of the christian community. If you were part of an out-group, and you maintained your separation, you had absolutely nothing to worry about. Sounds like a good policy. Understanding the exact processes and procedures implemented by this late stage of the Spanish inquisition thus seems like an extremely valuable area of study. They took on the progressives and within their territory they won. At least they won until the protestant countries, and specifically the US, achieved much greater financial and cultural success later and were able to exert enough soft power to disrupt other cultures.

Though clearly neoreactionary communities don’t have the level of authority that the Spanish inquisition possessed, valuable lessons could be learned regardless. Every neoreactionary community requires trusted, intelligent, and knowledgeable inquisitors who can properly, fairly, and compassionately govern them. Inquisitors who nonetheless can be firm when necessary.

EDIT:

Here is another article on the Spanish inquisition.

Share Button

Chastity, once lost, is forever gone

I am not sure, but my impression is that most neoreactionaries do not like or use reddit. Either that or they use names not associated with their blogs. I can understand this because it is true that 99% percent of reddit is a progressive clusterfuck with no end in sight to thought policing. Still, I think the only difference between a progressive sub and a reactionary one is that of proper moderation. It isn’t like these progressive subs don’t have to deal with the more generic type of trolls on a regular basis. Every forum has that problem. Anyway, one place I like to lurk is /r/redpillwomen because I am just curious to see how relatively reactionary ladies think. I almost never post in there because I view it as their place to do their thing. However, there was one recent thread which I couldn’t help but comment on. Essentially, a girl who had been fairly promiscuous, racking up 8 partners by 21, had realized her mistake and wanted to turn things around. That is nice and everything, but I don’t really buy it. Once a slut, always a slut.

Now, I am not a Christian. I happen to agree with a lot of Christian traditionalism because a rational analysis of society combined with a consequentialist attitude ultimately brings thoughtful people to a similar value system as tradition. If more people were thoughtful, we wouldn’t need any of this codified in a religious law at all. Of course people aren’t thoughtful and they are never going to be at any scale so religious law is better than the alternatives. What I noticed about the reddit post is that the sentiment is suspiciously similar to the whole “born-again virgin” nonsense that has become popular in some Christian communities. The idea being that if a girl repents her actions she can be forgiven and it will be like it never happened. Maybe this can be justified by verses in the bible, and maybe it can’t. Certain Churchians certainly made a persuasive stab at it. Not being a Christian, I will let you know you can save your theological arguments. As far as I am concerned, if this can be justified in the bible, then the bible is wrong. If it can’t, great. If some people can be legitimately and understandably confused on whether the bible supports this then Christian Traditionalists have a real problem. Even if it can be demonstrated through some convoluted means that “born-again virgin” isn’t a Christian concept, ambiguity here is a very big fault with using the book as the basis for the traditional family. That being a slut can’t be taken back should not be ambiguous in any way in the foundational religious document of a society. Chastity, once lost, is forever gone.

Back in my more red pill, less reactionary days it was widely known and accepted among my group of friends that the “born-again virgin” girls were easy prey. And yes, we occasionally went to “singles” church events to find these girls despite not being religious. Lots of them were single mothers. Most would get drunk and have premarital sex with you Saturday night before stomping off to church Sunday morning in hopes of tricking some poorly advised Christian beta into paying for her and her bastard children. The “born-again virgin” status of these so-called “Christian” women is a complete fabrication. Their facade is a purely Machiavellian attempt to maximize their Alpha Fucks/Beta bucks mating strategy. And like the rest of society, the Christian community is far too credulous of these girl’s crocodile tears of repentance. Worse yet, they gladly throw the legitimately Christian men under the bus by pressuring them into dating and marrying these skanks. No wonder men are leaving the church in droves. I would too if I was given shitty advice like “marry the sluts”. I would leave any such organization which thought that way and I would laugh when it was completely destroyed, as it justly should be.

That rant lasted longer than I thought it would… Anyway on to the comment. I don’t have much advice for what a girl should do in this situation, but at least I could relieve her of the childish happy talk which women prefer over all other things and she probably finds herself surrounded by.

At the risk of hurting your feelings, I am going to pass on a red pill man’s perspective of this situation. Men by and large aren’t sentimental naturally. For example, every male in my family has agreed that we aren’t going to buy Christmas presents for each other because we don’t care, we don’t like shopping, and like saving money. At most we will buy some beer for each other the day before and get drunk a few times. I made the mistake of trying to arrange a similar situation with a female member of the family and she practically started crying. Well, didn’t expect that. Oops.

We for the most part apply the same mentality to most decisions in life. Without sentimentality, there is only cold facts and numbers. Make some (figurative) charts, add up everything and if there are more pros to settling down fine, if there isn’t don’t. The one (evolutionary) exception which clouds our ability for logical decision making is if a man encounters a girl he perceives to be a Madonna. A Madonna being a chaste, pleasant, virtuous woman likely to make a good mother and worthy partner. One that he can be sure is birthing his own children. Now, it is best for such a woman to capture a man’s commitment when he is young, because that is when he is most naive. I can confirm, men are much more naive (socially) than women, especially when young. Although our skills with tools, building and mathematics generally makes up for that and then some. However, such naivete doesn’t last long in the school of hard knocks we are subjected to. There is no such thing as “You go boy!”

No one coddles and babies us when we feel bad and we quickly learn that the only way to advance ourselves is through convincing people we are correct through cold, inescapable truth. And so it doesn’t take many bad experiences (or lack of experiences) for this mindset to benefit from the cad training provided by the red pill. And of course there is no lack of bad experiences for men. What we learn in such training is that girls with many sexual partners do not make reliable partners (something I don’t think is a problem for men). The probability is higher that a promiscuous girl will either trick us into raising another man’s child that is the product of infidelity, hence the innate (and proper) male aversion to commitment to promiscuous women. Also, it is much likelier that she will prematurely end the relationship regardless of the costs born by the husband and children. That is bad enough by itself, but with the current legal regime, that is a risk no rational man should ever take.

So when I look at your post, I see the ultimate nightmare. A girl with enough partners to suggest a 72% probability of divorce (social pathologist link) and who also has baby rabies. If that doesn’t say divorce rape, I don’t know what does.

If I knew you personally and was considering you as a possible partner or if a naive buddy of mine was, I would advise them to stay away emphatically. I would treat you as if you were totally, 100% responsible for your situation. In a sense you are. People who can’t think of the future or think independently of a degenerate culture should be held responsible for their failure. Red pill men are certainly trying to train younger men to have this mentality (as I proudly do). Women as a whole, despite their greater social acuity, failed to punish the most extreme agitators among them and unfortunately they will now all have to suffer for that mistake. Men may be easily hoodwinked in the social sphere, but after a delay, when we realize as a group what is what, we apply cold and uncaring logic to the plight of those who previously reaped unfair rewards. Not only do we not care, but seeing a bit a suffering results in a bit of schadenfreude.

To be fair, not all, maybe not even most, of your problem is from your personal decisions, or you as an individual. There really is a systematic, society-wide problem in the west. Whoever taught you being slutty was OK is certainly at fault. In addition, if in cases of female relationship irresponsibility, the courts sided with men and didn’t give her the children or other financial benefits, men would be much more likely to take risky cases like yourself on. After all, in such a scenario he can retain his earnings and just find a new girl and not be much worse for wear. The current legal regime in most western countries makes taking a chance on girls like you a much larger risk than it would be otherwise. A risk that no rational person could consider justified.

I tell you this so that you are as informed as you possibly can be. To overcome your situation it helps to know the nature and magnitude of the problem you face. I can’t offer much advice for redemption of your past, but more knowledge doesn’t hurt. Hopefully the women here can help you find a way to move past the dismal statistics all of us guys are looking at.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I fully agree with the traditionalists that their kind of society is the right kind of society. But the method for achieving that kind of society does not mean catering to the feminine imperative’s demands for universal happy talk and the outlawing of truth. It does not involve the pussification of institutions like the church. And it does not involve throwing men trying to do right by scripture under the bus.

EDIT:

In reading the wikipedia article on Crocodile tears, it seems like the phrase was originally popularized as a Christian morality tale by the theologian Photius in his Bibliotheca. It looks like English translations of this are pretty scarce, but something tells me that Christians would gain from getting re-acquainted with it. If anyone knows of an English translation, I think it would be pretty interesting to skim through. Please leave it in the comments.

Share Button

The Missing Links

The Cathedral is a Christian sect that very cleverly adopted the camouflage of secularism so as to more easily infect (memefect?) non-Christians and non-religious institutions in addition to actual believers. This was a natural evolution of the theology given that the constitution of the United States originally sought to keep religious authorities out of government. I think it is instructive to compare some tenets of the protestant reformation to some of the ideas currently held by the progressive elite. The analogy of change in Christian culture to evolution is quite intentional. Natural selection can impose truly remarkable morphological changes to organisms. For example, consider this video detailing the evolution of whales from their land based ancestors. Culture should in theory be much more adaptable and otherwise susceptible to change than biologically physical features. If the process of natural selection can make something more or less like a deer into a whale, then it isn’t so hard to imagine that the process could morph Christianity into modern secular progressivism given the right environment.

In Nick Wade’sA troublesome inheritance he discusses how social institutions are fundamentally based on the aggregation of behaviors of the individuals that make up the population of societies. These behaviors ultimately have a significant biological component. Though in some sense the form of the cultural expression of a population’s behaviors can vary significantly over a short time, the underlying biological dispositions act as a brake slowing the overall change and limiting its manifestations. A lack of prerequisite biological dispositions can prevent effective institutions from being formed. The greater persistence of genes underlying dispositions also make it more likely that abandoned cultural norms could be resurrected. It should not be surprising that when one generation rejects or alters some cultural norm that it can re-emerge in a related, if modified, manifestation since the underlying biology is probably more or less the same. As such, the fact that ideas resembling Christian doctrines persist or re-emerge in secular culture should almost be expected. The following list contrasts older theological doctrines with modern secular progressive principles.

  • The ancestor of egalitarianism is probably Martin Luther’s justification by faith alone. Before that, European and every other culture believed in hierarchies and the idea of priests being the intermediary between god and the average peon. After the reformation, it became believed that anyone could interact with god through faith and through reading the bible. It is this concept that mandated that bibles should be written in all common languages so everyone could read it and become closer to god. At the time that this was first proposed it must have been an extraordinarily radical and new idea. I have nothing against the idea of equality before the law and an equality of opportunity. For example, for everyone to read the bible you would need mass literacy, which is undoubtedly good for society. However, you can see how this concept has gotten more and more extreme ever since to the point that now people are denying that differences exist between races and gender. If you bother to disagree with them they will condemn you with nothing less than righteous indignation. This certainly suggests a religious quality to the belief in egalitarianism. [edit] I recently had a conversation with a churchian who expressed that no sin is of greater magnitude than any other sin. It is all just sin. In other words, a slut with ten partners is no more sinful than an otherwise true Christian who had an impure thought about an attractive woman. A murderer is no worse than someone who tells a white lie in polite company. Clearly the belief that all sin is created equal supports the Christian origin of egalitarianism.
  • Manifest destiny and creating god’s kingdom on earth was originally a very religious idea. In essence, the New England puritans believed that they and the United States were predestined or elected by god to spread certain religious ideals as well as expand in influence. To the puritans and their descendants at least, the creation of the United States was thus part of god’s divine providence and his plan to spread his desired human organization as far as possible. This tradition continued in Progressive Christianity, which gave birth to the Wilsonian progressives who thought up the idea of the league of nations, and eventually FDR with the united nations and other world bodies with an explicit mission to spread progressive ideals worldwide. In essence, this is the idea that history and culture march in a linear fashion to an inevitable Utopian state and requires the work of true believers to be accomplished. Before it was god’s kingdom on Earth, but now God’s kingdom has been replaced by the divine mysteries of democracy, liberalism, freedom, equality, pacifism and other contradictory beliefs. Most other religions in the world believe in a cyclical nature of time and culture. The idea that history moves on a linear trajectory, an arch of progress, is fairly unique to western Christianity and that uniqueness has been inherited by modern secular progressivism. Again, this is not all bad. Technological progress is real and desirable. Neoreactionaries also believe a better civilization is desirable. The problem comes when this is combined with egalitarianism above. That some people don’t seem to fit this narrative of history progressing towards a better society causes a lot of consternation to progressives. To jump-start the progress toward Utopia that has been stalled by the failures of various demographics, crypto-calvinists implement doomed policies that have a philosophical foundation in egalitarianism. Since egalitarianism is untrue, these policies are ill-conceived and ironically usually make things worse.
  • The seeds and concepts of socialism and Marxism existed years before Karl Marx was ever born and were certainly within the reach of the Puritan imagination. Mark 10:25 is a classic example of the Christian attitude towards wealth. Jesus states:

    “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

    Christianity contains the premises that give rise to the belief that wealth is a hindrance to salvation. The legacy of which is an amorphous feeling that all those who are wealthy must be be reprobates. In addition, in John Winthrop’s sermonA Model of Christian Charity he specifically advocates for acts of charity by the rich to the poor. He gave this sermon on the Mayflower during the voyage to America and outlines what we would call wealth redistribution today. This sort of attitude led to the very first experiment with Socialism in America. The initial laws of the puritan colony mandated that all produced goods be collected into a common stock and distributed equally among its members. Colonists had no incentive to work harder because there was no benefit to doing so. The results of greater productivity would be redistributed to others. Unsurprisingly, they worked as little as possible. In William Bradford’sOf Plymouth Plantationhe described the attitude of young able bodied men:

    For the young unmarried men that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.

    As true today as it was in the 1600s, young men did not like being coerced into being cuckolded beta providers for women and children who were not their own. An extreme revulsion at being made cuckolded providers is one of the most fundamentally natural and just aspects of the masculine condition. Men accrue resources in excess of their needs for one reason and one reason only: to gain an opportunity to mate and guarantee the fitness of their biological children. The nature of man will eternally frustrate attempts to impose socialism since it breaks the link between wealth creation and evolutionary fitness. Socialist Plymouth was accordingly frustrated by repeated famines for years until they changed to a more capitalist system that guaranteed men would reap the benefits of their work. Once people were able to directly enjoy the benefits of their labor, food and goods were produced in excess of need and the colony prospered. Capitalism took such a strong hold early on in America not because the founders were inherently predisposed to free enterprise; quite the opposite. Rather capitalism became preferred because their initial attempt at a communal order, which they correctly perceived to be consistent with Christian doctrine, was such an abysmal failure and left such a strong impression that all pretense of socialism was firmly abolished. So great was the change that the new economic system induced in the colony, the holiday of Thanksgiving was invented to celebrate the abolition of socialism and the beginning of more prosperous, happier times. In a fashion contradictory with the previous interpretation of the faith, it became accepted that bounty accrued as a result of hard productive labor could be interpreted as a sign of election.

    It was great for America that the early colonists experienced such a harsh lesson about the dangers of socialism and that it was thereafter successfully suppressed for many years. However, America was still a Christian country and Christian doctrines still carried the dormant seeds that could spontaneously germinate into new strains of progressivism at any time once the initial failure of common property faded from the cultural memory. And, of course, it did as the modern world can attest.
  • Total depravity is the ancestor of modern ethnomasochism among people of European descent. This is more commonly called white guilt, but I feel ethnomasochism better connotes how self-destructive and foolish the attitude, behaviors and policies that result from it are. Total depravity is the idea that man is fundamentally sinful as a result of original sin. Humanity is so inclined to sin that it is physically and mentally incapable of not sinning. As such, man must repent of his innate evil and be thankful for being saved by Jesus Christ because in no scenario would he have been able to save himself from his own fundamental wickedness. Undoubtedly, experiencing guilt is an important part of repenting and of minimizing sin. In secular progressivism, the direct attribution of original sin to every person has been replaced by a direct attribution of responsibility to whites, and especially white males, for the fact that other human groups (i.e., minorities and women) are not able to achieve and thus signal high status at the same frequency as white males. Of course, white males have very little to do with the failings of other groups, but the experience of guilt for sin seems to be a natural part of the biological psychology of Europeans. Opportunistic groups find it convenient to appeal to that tendency to gain political advantages in western society.
  • The book of revelation is an important part of the bible. Therefore apocalyptic imagery has long been popular (for lack of a better word) in Christian thinking. There is supposed to be an end of the world filled with great disaster and at that time Jesus will come for a second time, repel the devil, and establish god’s kingdom on earth. Unlike some of the other doctrines listed here, most cultures and religions make some references to an end of the world that is accompanied by disasters of Biblical proportions. A fear of the end of the world is probably a universal human trait rather than specific to Christians or Europeans. What evolutionary benefit such beliefs could possibly have I honestly can’t fathom. But the universal presence of such beliefs suggest they offer some benefit or are a side effect of genes that cause some other useful phenotype. In a secular society, however, the justification for an end times belief is much harder to come by without recourse to the supernatural. Since people are still compelled, for whatever reason, to hold apocalyptic beliefs something “rational” had to be substituted. Of course that something is human induced climate change. I am not as skeptical about climate change as some. For example, humanity is releasing a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and it would surprise me if that didn’t have SOME effect. Where I differ with the cathedral is in its insistence that carbon dioxide is going to cause some sort of apocalypse that destroys all life and especially human life. Carbon dioxide is a natural component of the atmosphere and plants require it for carbon fixation. If plants have more carbon dioxide available, they will simply grow more easily and likely get larger. Increased carbon concentrations will probably end up being good for agriculture. Plants better able to use the carbon would evolve and sequester carbon at a greater rate, creating a negative feedback to human emissions. In addition, warm periods in earth’s history seem to be better, not worse, for biological diversity. Of course, given that the previous link is from the cathedral, the cognitive dissonance created by this contradictory finding is rationalized so they can maintain their apocalyptic beliefs. They simply assume that climate change is much more rapid this time around and their beliefs are validated. For the most part, climate scientists are underestimating the rapid pace at which evolution can take place. Species seem stable not because evolution is slow, but because environments are relatively stable and species very rapidly reach a stable form that is at equilibrium within their environment. Species can be drastically modified in surprisingly few generations if the selection pressures drastically change. Enough digression; the point of this is that though the cathedral may be right that humans are causing some amount of climate change, it is a non sequitur that this change is going to cause an apocalypse. The evidence they have doesn’t support such a drastic conclusion. If anything, there is reason to believe extra carbon dioxide will ultimately be beneficial. Belief in an apocalypse scenario caused by climate change thus seems more of a religious sentiment than a reasonable conclusion drawn from the data.
  • (Edit:) The American conservative advanced the point the missionary work common to mainline protestants is still alive and well in the form of foreign volunteerism of progressives at the individual level, and so-called “benevolent” foreign policy at the level of government. Rather than repeating the argument, I recommend you read through the article in the previous link.
I am not saying all of the results or desires of Protestantism are bad. World peace, eliminating poverty and hunger, having more wealth equality and strong work ethic* are all reasonable goals. Unfortunately for progressives, you can only achieve your goals when you have an accurate understanding of how reality actually works. In the case of social engineering, that means understanding the biological instincts of man and working with what they are, not what we would like them to be. Benevolent intentions are not good if they result in bad outcomes. Benevolent intentions and bad outcomes are just as evil as malevolent intentions and bad outcomes. Judging by the real world impact, there is no difference. To continue doing things that cause bad outcomes despite evidence that it doesn’t work can only occur as a result of mystical thinking. However benevolent the intention, this makes progressive policies both religious and prone to creating evil in the world.
*Not to be biased towards cultural explanations of behaviors, it may be better to describe it as Germanic work ethic rather than protestant work ethic.

 

Share Button