( The Conflict Series)

 

Part 999 – The Cycle of History

Histories

Grammars of Civilizations Tell Us All We Need to Know

1 – Aristotle Wrote Proto Empiricism: Reason, Naturalism, Proto-empiricism, Law, Calculation. (Truth)
2 – Sun Tzu, and Confucius wrote Wisdom Lit. Lao Tzu crossed the line into the questionable. (Wisdom)
3 – The Indians wrote both mythology and wisdom literature, bordering on political science (Wisdom)
4 – The Persians wrote supernormal and supernatural wisdom literature. (Utopian Universalism)
5 – The Egyptians wrote Ritualism Supernatural (Animism, Anthropomorphism, heathenism ) Doctrine and Ritual.
6 – The Abrahamists wrote Mythology, Rebellion, and Lie and Destruction of all of the above. (Utopian Lie)

Grammars of the Classes Tell Us Something as Well
by John Mark

Aristocracy: War “We will apply violence in whatever way necessary/beneficial – up to and including war conquest and colonization – in order to suppress parasitism upon our productive group/tribe and to keep it from becoming weak or losing (any form of) capital.”

Upper: Law “Due to our wealth and influence we have the opportunity to affect the rules of society in a way that benefits us – sometimes the way we affect the rules can be good, sometimes bad (e.g. buying/owning corrupt politicians to write rules that allow us to privatize gains and socialize losses to everyone else).”

Upper Middle: Science (Econ) “We are looking for a competitive advantage so we like to use science/R&D/innovation to give us an edge. We make economic arguments (often libertarian) because we don’t want our efforts to get ahead to be hindered.”

Middle Class: Philosophy “We wish we had more power than we do, but we feel we have a shot at getting more power or at least affecting those in power, plus we often don’t like what the upper class does when they act in their own interest, so we put a lot of effort into thinking and talking about how to make sense of the world and what those who have more power than us should do (what we wish they would do). (What we often don’t realize is the upper class doesn’t give a rip about what we think they should do.)”

Working Class: Religion “We want/need something to make us feel better about life and give us a safe, reassuring sense of community (we don’t have much else). Religion fits the bill.”

Underclass: Intuition “We are not smart but we don’t know it (Dunning Kruger), and we are low status, hate being so, and don’t know how to (are unable to) fix it, so we instinctively feel the world is not fair and those more successful than us must be cheating somehow. Thus leftism/socialism/communism/SJWism tells us what we want to hear and we are extremely enthusiastic about it because we have no other strategy in life, or ability to come up with or carry out any other strategy.”

INDO-EUROPEAN: THE LANGUAGE OF AN UPPER SOCIAL STRATUM?
By Kurt Stegmann von Pritzwald (Professor of Philology at the University of Marburg)
(Sociologus, Vol.V, No.1, 1955, pp.56-67)

SUMMARY:

During the Early Neolithic period there roamed, over the multilingual area inhabited by Northern, Corded-Ware, and Banded-Ware folk, companies of men who used horse and wagon to establish a certain degree of communication. To make themselves understood by the local populations they used a Semi-Indo-European lingua franca. This improvised language was characterized by infinitives, with non-Indo-European and Indo-European components. From these “hosts” there separated linguistically a narrower group which strove for the observation of a “proper,” by sifting the vocabulary and fixing sentence structure. The members of this language community recognized one another through the adherence to “proper form” which led to a still closer union. With this, linguistic expression had transcended the purpose of communication pure and simple, and the societal function of language came into play. Even if we retain the thesis of a compact Indo-European cradle-land, we must assume the existence of an aloof group as the originator of the “proper form” of the Indo-European “high” language. It is more likely that this group became aware of its own singularity distinguishing it from the rest of society, and managed to establish itself as the bearer of a colonial or other position of power.

The development of High-Indo-European forms is based on the sentence, a characteristic which distinguishes it from the isolating method of the Semi-Indo-European language mixture. This led to a well designed style appropriate for communicating deeds and reports, a step on the road to the epic style which marks the entrance of nations into history. Through the distinction of agent and action, noun and verb, subject and predicate, this style transformed a sensation language into a formative language of civilization, guided by definite rules, to which the far-reaching bands of warriors had to conform when rendering account of their travels and adventures. The relationship between the Semi-Indo-European lingua franca and the High-Indo-European upper-stratum language reminds of Homer. Homer forced the colonial jargon language of the Greek dialects into the forms of epic art.

Before the beginning of the Bronze Age the report style had already developed into the language of the upper social stratum. This “high” language, distinguished by important ethical content, became the pattern for grammatical development. The upper stratum used this means of expression to foster an aristocratic ethos and a firm mastery of the environment. In the social realm it created the patriarchal family order and a mixed authoritarian-cooperative power structure.

Magic, Indo-Europeans and The Taming of The Mass

From an anthropological perspective, traditional magic practices were perfectly adequate to a certain level of development. In this sense, ‘authentic’ magic aims at clarifying a psycho-technique (self-discipline) with a specific goal in mind; it guides man into the appropriate form for a given project. It either prepares man to bear without excessive anxiety the hostile pressures of a universe that he does not yet control, or it helps give free reign to certain instincts and repress others, so that he can accomplish more successfully a certain undertaking.

With this type of magic, man had learnt to manipulate himself. He had given himself a self-chosen nature, and had succeeded in his hominisation. Hence, authentic magic constitutes the original ‘know-how’ of human self-domestication, and the domestication of the psyche by consciousness, organised by a science that was born through reflection on the know-how of animal nature.

Magic degenerates as soon as it claims to find application to a relation diverse from the one instituted between consciousness and psyche: that is, between man (as living being) and the world (as event), under the wholly imaginary pretext that the human psyche participates in the cause of that event. It then leads to a cosmological theory that is entirely unfounded. On the other hand, where this reflection allows him to isolate the true terms of the ‘magic relation,’ man acquires an exact description of himself and his circumstances, and of the position he occupies within the living world. He transforms himself, from then on, into the domesticator of the living world.

Hundreds of thousands of years after hominisation, it was with the Indoeuropean/Neolithic Revolution that another type of man emerges. Having learned what ‘moves’ himself, man tries now to ‘move’ animals and plants according to his wishes and needs. As far as social animals are concerned, he intends to take on a directive role, becoming the leader of the pack. Similarly, having attained a superior consciousness—thanks to the correct understanding of magic—he presents himself as aristocracy in relation to the rest of society and affirms his own sovereignty.

With the advent of Indoeuropeans, man’s taming of the living world occurred in parallel to the taming of the mass—by the elite. Hereafter, ‚religion’ comes to be the ideological system that will serve to ‘tie fast’ society and subject the group to a certain influence.

Our Original Origin

‘Indo-European’ is the term used to designate a language spoken at the beginning of Neolithic times and ‘discovered’ during the nineteenth century via the new discipline of linguistics—linguistics becoming a proper science in the process.1 Since every language presupposes users, the discovery of the Indo-European language represented the discovery of a group of speakers—the Indo-Europeans—and consequently of a people and a civilisation whose true characteristics were brilliantly delineated by Georges Dumézil, among others.

We know today, with some certainty, what was entirely unknown at the end of the eighteenth century: that an ‘Indo-European’ people lived in the remote past,2 and that their language was the direct ancestor of a great number of languages spoken in both ancient and modern times. The Romance, Germanic, Celtic, Baltic, Hellenic, Slavic, and Indo-Aryan languages were and are among the most important of these languages. We also know, with no less certainty, that the Indo-European heritage has lent conformity, in a decisive way, to the cultures that gave birth to ‘European civilisation.’ This heritage still carries, at least through its linguistic credentials, a certain ‘world outlook’ which, although fragmented in its substance today, remains active as a constraining force of representation, giving structure to our mental framework.

Through the semantic roots evident in all the derivative languages, a certain way of life can be reconstructed—as well as the geographical position occupied by Indo-European speakers during the unitary phase preceding the first dispersal, probably around the third millennium BCE.

Anthropology and ethnology indicate that these people manifested a precise, characteristic racial physiognomy. Such a physiognomy anticipated the present Europid race in its varieties, concentrated today in Europe and in the countries whose populations migrated thither from Europe. It may still be detected today in particular strands of the populations settled in present Iran, and in northern parts of the Indian subcontinent.3

From the intersection of linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, and other related sciences, it is possible to depict this people—hunters of white skin, tall stature, and dolichocephalic crania. A people emerging from the fogs of the last glaciations, and coinciding with the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution and the introduction of agriculture into Europe, formed a unified civilisation which extended from the Baltic and Northern Seas, from the Danube and from the Rhine to the Königsberg-Odessa line. This civilisation was based on animal farming, fishing, and navigation, developed an advanced artisanship, cremated the dead, and used a supple, sophisticated language to express abstract thought and convey nuance. From the forests of Northern Europe, its descendants initiated the greatest of human adventures. In a succession of conquering waves they moved across the world.

From analysis of the religious, politico-social, ritual, and other generic cultural traditions extant in the historical civilisations born of this common Indo-European matrix, it is possible to form a global picture of our ancestral past—and roots.
Georges Dumézil devised the term trifunctionality to describe the character of Indo-European society—which comprised three main groups, corresponding to three distinct functions.4

The first function was associated with sovereignty—regal and priestly—and with everything that concept implies: power, knowledge, wisdom, magic, leadership of the people—and, consequently, politics, law, religion, and representation of the community abroad.

The second function may be traced back to war, struggle, effort, and physical strength in all its peaceful and bellicose aspects: defence and military requirements, sport and energy. It incarnates heroism, personal courage, spirit of sacrifice, readiness to action, and bravery.

The third function finds its original principle probably in the idea of fecundity—human and animal—to which the ideas of love, voluptuousness, and pleasure were later added. It is related to agriculture, herding, and the crafts; to economic production and wealth—and is identified with the idea of quantity and large numbers. This function was governed by the principles of temperance, moderation, and limitation.

Mythology was divided in the same way: each social group had its own god or family of gods to represent it, and the function of the god or gods matched the function of the group.

Our ancestors practised not only a division of labour into three orders, or of society and the pantheon into three classes: the three functions present in man and in the cosmic order have been bound to innumerable facts and notions.5 Those ancestors also theorised on this division and produced an ‘ideology’ (Dumézil’s term): a global outlook on the forces creating and sustaining the world—on the balance, tension, and conflict necessary for the good functioning of the cosmos and the polis, the societies of gods and of men.

But surely every human group must experience the need to be led, defended, and fed; every individual must satisfy the needs of heart, stomach, and spirit. Dumézil responded repeatedly to those sceptics contesting the originality of the Indo-European trifunctional system. He argued, for example:

In the ancient world, neither Egyptians, before they entered in contact with the Sea Peoples, nor Sumerians, Elamites, and Hurrians, nor Mesopotamians before the dominance of the Kassites in the area, nor in general Semites, Siberians, or Chinese have ever had a similar structure as the dorsal spine of their ideology and social life. One observes either undifferentiated organisations of nomadic tribes, where everyone is at the same time combatant and farmer; or sedentary theocratic organisations, where there is a king-priest or a divine emperor and a humble and homogeneous mass of subjects; or groups where the witch doctor, despite the fear his craft may inspire, is just one specialist among others.6

The structural, descriptive notion sketched above derives all its significance from the framework provided by a peculiar set of values. According to the Indo-European ideology, the good functioning of a society implies a situation of dynamic balance between the three classes or castes, corresponding to the three functions of the sovereign/sacral, the martial, and the economic. In contrast to our modern Western model, the economic sector was specifically subordinated—as viewed from a hierarchical rather than a functional perspective—to the other two functions. In this sense, it is legitimate to describe our present Western society as characterised by a pathological hypertrophy of the economic function, and the values and spirit that sustain it. The quantitative perception of social facts from which, along with much else, the modern idea of political democracy originates, here finds its source.

It would be easy—at least given the reductionist mentality that impregnates our culture today—to infer that the Indo-European ideology expressed a sort of contempt for the values of productive work, wealth, fecundity, or pleasure: that it practised exclusion from, and subordination to, the warrior and sovereign functions of economic activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the Indo-European ideology, the three functions are not reducible to each other: they are equally indispensable, and they have equal social dignity and full autonomy in their respective areas. The third function had a distinct identity and role that was as important as those of the other two: it had its own gods and participated in its own way in community life.

This predilection for differentiation was also reflected in the horizontal subdivision of society, which was structured not as a division between masses and individuals, but as a people whose genius, personality, and aristocracy were the sources of expression, conception, and representation. Indo-European culture exalted such values as loyalty, sense of belonging, and distinction of roles. These values constituted the ethical, psychological, and political foundations of a system that favoured the assertion of such natural principles as hierarchy, selection, and territoriality, rather than their denial.
Hence, from remote times, political and social life manifests itself as extremely articulate—in contrast to those theocratic state organisations where the position of subject is essentially that of king’s slave7—and based on the participation of all members of the social body, as representing the aggregate of free men. This organic participation occurred at different levels, starting with the *genos (great exogamic families) and *wenos (the community created by the alliance of several *genos) and proceeding to an assembly of *pateres, who would choose a primus inter pares to accomplish the function of *reg-s (king) whenever there was need to find unitary guidance and representation for the whole people.

The distinction of roles was also expected in respect of gender. The culture of our ancestors was indeed patriarchal, patrilineal, patronymic, and patrilocal. But as with the three functions mentioned above, this gender division sought to articulate a society which claimed to be complete. In this context, women were not only admitted as members of society but honoured in their particular domain:8 the relationship between the sexes was seen through a prism of complementarity, as expressed in the androgyne myth. This notion probably derives from a sense that a world view based on difference and inequality is one also based on the acknowledgement of diversity. Accordingly, the ‘other sex’ was considered an enrichment, rather than a ‘curse’ arising, allegedly, from ‘original sin.’

Women were fully integrated within the socioeconomic and cultural structures of the community and performed, among other tasks, the important one of transmitting the tradition. Similarly, sex was experienced as part of the dialectics of joy and sacredness—an attitude that would later be defined as quintessentially pagan. Marriage was founded on distinction of roles, on honour, loyalty, and reciprocal respect. Sexual freedom was not repressed or negated by the idea of sinfulness, but regulated by a natural sense of dignity, by a consciousness of the role one was expected to play in society, or by eugenic principles. The wife’s role was not perceived as inferior to the husband’s: there was no single, universalist, egalitarian, reductionist role to which everyone had to submit, regardless of sex, religion, or social position—in short, regardless of identity.
It is significant that Indo-European ‘patriarchy’ contemplates the active and necessary participation of women in family rites, while Judaism and the religious customs imported into Europe with Christianity forbid it: e.g., the consecration of the Eucharist. From the Jewish-Christian point of view, the mere notion of priestess is blasphemous.
Finally, to the Indo-European world applies the distinction between shame cultures and guilt cultures. While the latter are defined by a ‘morality of sin’ based on a system of revealed dogmas, the former bases its ‘ethics of honour’ on the idea of self-respect, implying a direct bond between the individual and his socio-cultural environment. Shame and glory are the two main forces of social pressure and repression, as opposed to guilt cultures where that role is enacted by the notion of sin. While in guilt cultures, the blame is typically objectified by reference to a third supreme party—which is why they are linked to a universal and metaphysical ideological system—the Indo-European world view is inexorably bound to the notion of a plurality of gods. It expresses mythically both a radical anti-universalism and a cohabitation of men and gods: it presumes both a oneness and ontological autonomy of reality, and a sacredness of world and nature. The divine impregnates all nature, including its human manifestations: for example, it is involved in art, excluding any manifestation of iconoclasm; and politics, rendering absurd a separation between church and state, or between civic and religious duties. Specifically, the divine is not extrinsic to man, but represents a dimension achievable through transcending the self—a concept captured in the exemplary figure of the hero, typically one of mixed human and divine descent, and founder of his own lineage.

This is because the Indo-European gods do not consider men to be their rivals. The great deeds of human beings aggrandise not only humans, but also the gods. Far from men being forbidden to achieve renown for themselves, such is the very thing that justifies their existence and earns them a claim to eternity. ‘My journey home is gone, but my glory never dies,’ says Achilles.9 This is also declared in one of the more famous maxims from the Edda: ‘Men die, as do beasts, but the sole thing that does not die is the renown of a noble name.’10 Whereas the Bible displays its intention of limiting human sovereignty by a series of prohibitions, the religions of ancient Europe bestowed a heroic dimension on the man who exceeded his abilities and thereby shared in the divine. Where the Scriptures look on life with a blend of distrust and trepidation, paganism in its beliefs hypostatises all the ardour, intensity, and pulsation of life. It is easy to understand how members of these cultural types—Indo-European and Jewish-Christian—viewed each other as atheistic.

Based on the vigour and expansionistic strength conveyed by this ideological and conceptual patrimony, Indo-European culture became the matrix of all historical European civilisations. Its latest offshoots include ourselves.

 

 

Heroism Is Our Group Strategy

Man is a social animal. In order to realize himself, he must create both himself and his society. In relation to this self-creation, individuals incarnate and actualize different values. The ‘mass man’ and the ‘founding hero’ may be considered the extremes within the sociological parameter that measures the historical value of human beings. The former is a ‘non-humanised man,’ whose drives are not directed towards a culturally determined objective. Incapable of cultural self-determination, the mass-man ends up as determined from time to time, and at random, by chance or by contact—especially human contact. He follows without knowing it. On the other hand, the founding hero, or self-actualized man, projects an idea about himself and the society to which he belongs—and realizes it. He is a creator of cultural facts. To varying degrees, all individuals partake of both sociological categories. This allows, within a given culture, the organization of society and the establishment of a dynamic game between poles.

The pre-existence of a given culture offers the chance for the individual where mass values predominate. Given social traditions and education, he may be brought up to repeat the process of human self-creation offered in the received cultural model: he may incarnate a social type, hence becoming integral to the social group, the people. The repetition of this process of integration, codified in each culture, corresponds in its simplest form to the rites of initiation. In modern societies, this process is organized through education systems and is reinforced by the techniques of social conditioning.

It might be thought that the individual in whom the creative value prevails would, logically, be led to reject the culture and values he inherits in order to affirm his own originality. However, this occurs only in cultures that are old, decrepit, unadapted to historical necessity. In young, vital cultures where the humanizing force of the social type is maintained, the creator takes upon himself both the preservation and improvement of this type: he endeavours to raise it by his own example, hence affirming himself as a person.

Furthermore, in a young culture the model remains wide open and appears as process still in progress. It is perceived as remaining susceptible of new interpretations so long as there are domains of human activity in which the model is not yet incarnated. The creative value is the quintessentially historical value. And this is why in every age the founding heroes—the geniuses, the great artists—are venerated. It is also why more value is given to an original work than to its copy, even where the latter is in every respect identical.

Personality is not the extolling of individual selfishness; on the contrary, it is the highest expression of a society, of which it represents the consciousness and superior will. Personality aspires to realise the highest idea it has of itself, and of the other—that is, of its own society. Hence, in a particular historical moment, personality proves itself by responding to the socio-cultural imperative of that time; it is recognised, accepted and followed precisely because it satisfies the unconscious aspirations of a community and of a people. There is constantly a component of sacrifice in personality, and in some cases this may involve extreme renunciation. That is why whoever offers himself up for the welfare of a society or of a culture becomes heroised. By taking on himself society as a whole the hero places himself, rightfully, at the pinnacle of the social hierarchy.

When a culture no longer fulfils this human need, a chaotic mass society is formed and its members—devoid of a cultural ‘type’ with which to identify—become a crowd, a mob. Then comes the time when a founding hero, aware of the decomposition of his own society and culture, may emerge and undertake the required revolution: an act of conservation through which human nature, mortally menaced, may be preserved.

Areté – Transcendence

The tragic urge to self-overcoming (transcendence) may be identified as the only way man and his presence in the world may be ennobled, and this was the primary element of traditional Aryan ethics. It is what the ancient Greeks called areté, the quest for excellence: the act of living up to one’s full potential.

For Aristotle, the doctrine of areté included the following virtues: andreia (courage), dikaiosyne (justice), and sophrosyne (self-restraint). In Greek mythology, Sophrosyne was a Greek goddess. She was the spirit of moderation, self-control, temperance, restraint, and discretion. She was considered to be one of the good spirits that escaped from Pandora’s box and fled to Olympus after Pandora opened the lid. The complex meaning of sophrosyne, so important to the ancients, is very difficult to convey in English. It is perhaps best expressed by the two most famous sayings of the Oracle of Delphi: ‘nothing in excess’ and ‘know thyself.’

Since Propertarianism recovers and transfigures the founding myths of Indo-European culture, when it comes to specifying its particular tenets such features as the following might be listed: an eminently aristocratic conception of the human individual; the importance of honour (‘shame’ rather than ‘sin’); a heroic attitude towards life’s challenges; the exaltation and sacralisation of the world, beauty, the body, strength, and health; the rejection of any ‘worlds beyond’; and the inseparability of morality and aesthetics.

The highest value for an Aryan ethics undoubtedly lies not in a form of ‘justice’ whose purpose is essentially interpreted as flattening the social order in the name of equality, but in all that may allow man to surpass himself. Since to consider the implications of life’s basic framework as unjust would be palpably absurd, such classic antitheses as noble vs. base, courageous vs. cowardly, honourable vs. dishonourable, beautiful vs. deformed, sick vs. healthy come to replace the antitheses operative in a morality based on the concept of sin: good vs. evil, humble vs. vainglorious, submissive vs. proud, weak vs. arrogant, modest vs. boastful.

Promethean Fire: Aryans, Semites & Science

The world today is dominated by technology as never before. It is impossible to travel anywhere without seeing some manifestations of the technological wizardry that has shaped life on the planet today—particularly those innovations developed at the time of the Industrial Revolution. One crucial—and typically ignored—feature of this astonishing technological revolution is that the great technological innovations which have set the pace for the entire world are exclusively the product of a tiny minority of Europeans. One of the particular traits of Indo-European languages, already noticed in the nineteenth century by such philologists as Wilhelm von Humboldt and Ernest Renan, was their implicit capacity for abstract thought—a precondition of any sort of scientific theory and praxis. Renan was also the first to establish a connection between religion and ethno-geographical origin. He contrasted a ‘psyche of the desert’ found among Semites—’the desert is monotheistic’—with a ‘psyche of the forest,’ characteristic of Indo-Europeans whose polytheism appears to be modeled on a changing nature and a diversity of seasons. He observed that the intolerance of Semitic people is an inevitable consequence of their monotheism. Indo-European peoples, before their conversion to Semitic ideas, never regarded their religion as absolute truth. This is why there is found among these peoples ‘a freedom of thought, a spirit of critical inquiry, and individual research.’ Techne (technological development)—the appropriation and control of a surrounding environment via technology—may be considered a trait defining the ‘specifically human.’ It is an inevitable companion to the progress of human knowledge; however, it also describes something that has been devised and developed in a peculiar way only in the Indo-European context: from the Battle-Axe culture war chariot to the laser and the moon rockets designed by Wernher von Braun. In particular, modern technology is closely linked to the West—to a culture underpinned by a ‘compromise’ between Europe and Judeo-Christianity. Following the Christianisation of Europe, paganism survived underground in several forms. It survived in folk beliefs and traditions; in ‘heretical’ trends inside or on the margins of official religion that have extended even into the present; and in a collective unconscious that finds release chiefly in music, and in science and technology. In this sense, science and technology may be interpreted as arising from the impact of long-standing monotheistic repression of the European collective subconscious, and from the contradictory process of secularisation and emancipation to which this repression gave rise, and which began with the Renaissance. What doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger…Let us remember the names of the American rockets and space programs of von Braun’s times: Thor, Atlas, Titan, Jupiter, Delta, Mercury, Apollo. None was called “Jesus,” “Forgiveness and Love,” or “Holy Bible.” In Man and Technics, Spengler wrote: ‘To build a world oneself, to be oneself God—that is the Faustian inventor’s dream, and from it has sprung all our designing and re-designing of machines.’ The Jewish-Christian tradition—and the ‘grand narratives’ it produced—is explicit in the rejection of the Faustian temptation. Nietzsche remarks in The Antichrist that ‘such a religion as Christianity, which does not touch reality at a single point and which goes to pieces the moment reality asserts its rights at any point, must be inevitably the deadly enemy of the wisdom of this world, which is to say, of science.’ Man must repress his ‘pride’: he may not eat the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge, lest he create instruments competing with the perennial nature created by God. It is sacrilegious behavior, as the myths of the Golem and the tale of Frankenstein remind us. As in the past—when opposing dissection—the Church now condemns contraception, genetic engineering, and biotechnological research in general. It is not difficult to see why egalitarianism is anti-Promethean. Every new advance in technology is an advance in respect of the ability of some to control others. If one considers, as in the Bible, Rousseau, or Marx, that it is an ethical duty to condemn the exercise of control or power—the domination of man by man—then it is easy to perceive that such epochal mutation as our societies are experiencing will produce new vertical division between man and man, and between society and society, just such as the Neolithic Revolution provoked: namely, (1) differentiation between the body of consociates and the aristocracies that came to exercise political power, creating cultural forms and directing community life; and (2) the fact of certain societies coming to dominate others. Any dream of independence and self-determination—individual or collective—any sort of political, economic, or cultural sovereignty—may be realised only through the technical means necessary for such ambition. Science is a domain which the European mind has monopolised, and technology a tool that can make man into a god. These must be especially valued by Europeans if they are to mount a primordial, Faustian response to life which can recapture and transcend the Indo-European outlook for post-Neolithic man.

Yoga & Indian Philosophy. a Bio-Cultural Diagnosis.

I. Instant Enlightenment

Consider the following facts about the spiritual landscape in the USA: contemplation is enjoying its biggest revival since the Reformation; science and spirituality are usually seen as allies and combined into ’empirical spirituality’ or ‘evolutionary mysticism’; elements of Buddhism and Hinduism have become so mainstream that Newsweek declared in 2016 ‘we’re all Hindus now’; half of Americans claim to have had a mystical experience; “Inner Engineering: A Yogi’s Guide to Joy” by Sadhguru became a ‘New York Bestseller’ two years ago; Yoga has become so prevalent that approximately 14.9 million Americans (most commonly women) are estimated to incorporate some form of this practice into their lives; and Yoga practitioners expend up to 5.7 billion dollars per annum on yoga classes, products, and retreats.

One would say that most people, though nominally adherents of an Abrahamic religion, actually embrace what Aldous Huxley named ‘Perennial Philosophy’: a type of Christian-Hindu syncretism which he used to offer as remedy against the ‘Brave New World’.

The trend is similar in the rest of the Western world. For example, 15.7 million Germans are currently practicing yoga or are at least interested in starting to practice; and Yoga Day, an international initiative of India enthusiastically supported by all EU governments, is celebrated in most European capitals since its inception in 2015.

The current embrace of eastern spirituality, the combination of science and religion, and the Yoga boom began in earnest with the Californian counter-culture. Aldous Huxley and a group of three other British expatriates played a key role in its development: Christopher Isherwood, Gerald Heard and Alan Watts. All four were public school-educated English gents, emerging from the remains of the British Empire.

It is significant that the latest Yoga fad had begun with the hippies and the Flower Power. On previous occasions, interest for Eastern mysticism has always coincided with moments of dejection or despondency in Europe.

Although it was during the sixteenth century that Europeans became aware of the existence of the old sacred books called ‘the Veda’, when Jesuit missionaries began to learn Sanskrit, the classical language of the Brahmans, it was not until the nineteenth century – once the curiosity of the learned world had been roused not only in England, but especially in Germany – that India became a ‘Paradise of Philosophers’ in the imagination of Western man.

After the disaster of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, Schopenhauer was the first to transpose into Kantian language the metaphysics of the Upanishads, which he was wont to describe as ‘the consolation of my life’ (The World as Will and Representation).

Amid the carnage of I World War, Keyserling opposed in “Travel-journal of a Philosopher” the Hindu quest for inner perfection against the Western obsession with productivity and Romain Rolland thought to have found in Gandhi, Ramakhrisna and Vivekananda a universal gospel which would reveal, beyond any antagonism of race, ideology or religion, the ‘polyphonic unity of all men’. Herman Hesse, in “Siddhartha”, contrasted the spiritual values of the East with the utilitarian techniques of the West.

II. the Grammar of Intellectual Fraud

Although the Indian Subcontinent has produced a broad range of religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) and speculative philosophies, they are all linked by the textual resources, cosmology, concepts, rituals, and practices of Yoga.

The chronology of earliest texts describing yoga-practices is unclear, but Hatha Yoga texts emerged around the 11th century. The ‘Hatha Yoga Pradipika’, written in Sanskrit, is among the most influential surviving texts. It conflates folklore and myth, magic rituals, claims to medical knowledge, and psycho-physiological techniques. These practices and disciplines have remained unchanged for at least 1000 years and are still taught by the diverse gurus and more or less official institutes of Yoga which pullulate around the world.

Among them:
– Alcohol abstinence and fasting, non-violence, chastity and dietary restrictions;
– One-pointed focus and intent pursuit of one object (ekagrata);
– Static physical position to reduce physical exertion to a minimum (asana);
– A set of breathing techniques where the breath is intentionally altered (pranayama);
– Nosetip gazing (nasikagra drishti);
– Contraction of the perineum in order to facilitate the retention of semen during ejaculation (mula bandha);
– Chanting of magic syllables, words or phonemes (mantra).
According to its masters, the purposes of Yoga were: a/to heal mental and physical disease; b/ acquire magical powers (siddhis); and c/accomplish ‘the mystical union’ (samadhi).

A/ Healing
– Western medicine has been in progress since the times of Avicenna, who was a contemporary of the author/s of ‘Hatha Yoga Pradipika’. Is it unfair to compare the steady increase of life expectancy around the world, driven in not a small part by the advance of modern medicine, with the therapeutic results obtained by Ayurveda, the traditional yogic medicine?
Bringing to mind the Aristotelian distinction between doing wrong by omission and by commission, Australian philosopher and bioethicist Julian Savulescu reminds us in “Medical Ethics and Law”: ‘To delay by 1 year the development of a treatment that cures a lethal disease that kills 100,000 people per year is to be responsible for the deaths of 100.000 people, even if you never see them’.
For example, when Gandhi’s wife was stricken with pneumonia, British doctors told her husband that a shot of penicillin would heal her; nevertheless, Gandhi refused to have alien medicine injected into her body, and she died.
– Many studies have tried to determine the effectiveness of Yoga as a complementary intervention for cancer, schizophrenia, asthma, and heart disease. The results of these studies have been at best inconclusive.
– According to the latest reports, meditation is no better than watching TV.
– Veganism may be described as ‘postmodern nutrition’. It is often pure ideology, biased activism, and almost always not supported by medical facts (limited nutrients during pregnancy and growth). Looking between the lines at vegan arguments, one finds a pathological attempt to avoid any kind of suffering: the pacification of all life. The fact is that we simply would not be here as a species if we had not eaten meat. Our brains would never have grown to the size they are unless we had access to the protein which meat provides.

B/ Power
‘Siddhis’ are spiritual, paranormal, supernatural, or otherwise magical powers, abilities, and attainments such as knowing past lifes, knowing the minds of others, reducing or expanding one’s body at will, teleportation, levitation by counteracting the pull of gravity, or walking on water. As the reader of these lines can imagine, none of these phenomena has ever been empirically verified.

It is true though that some gurus manage to regulate their sympathetic nervous system in astonishing ways, which could indicate the absence of a clear line of demarcation between the voluntary and involuntary functions of the nervous system. A team of scientist from the University of Cambridge found in 2014 that half of Western Australia’s indigenous population has a genetic mutation that helps them control their body temperature. This genetic mutation might have spread across the Indian Subcontinent, carried by ancestral Austro-Asiatic populations, and might be behind many of these yogic feats.

C/ Liberation
But the ultimate goal of Yoga is to reach ‘samadhi’, associated with liberation from sorrow, suffering and ‘samsara’ (birth-rebirth cycle). It is described alternatively as a trance or ecstatic state, as ‘deep dream in which there is no dreaming’ (i.e. a lethargic state) or as ‘super-consciousness, a non-dualistic state in which the consciousness of the experiencing subject becomes one with the experienced object’.

A state of pure consciousness in which there is neither subject to experience nor object to provide content is a good example of what Bertrand Russell used to characterize as ‘metaphysical nonsense’. The experience of ‘samadhi’ resembles rather a state of unconsciousness, spiritual hibernation.

III. Mind the Bollocks

It may be argued that many people in the West just take Yoga classes because they are good for their body and decrease their stress level.

But is it possible to cherry-pick the physical exercises and discard the rest, remain immune to a philosophy which teaches to be satisfied with not understanding the world as a great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence?
The only measure of a world-view is the economic conditions of the population which created it.

Central to Hindu philosophy and Yoga is the idea that the divine exists in all beings, that all human beings can achieve union with this “innate divinity”, and that seeing this divine as the essence of others will further love and social harmony.

A short visit to India is enough to destroy any romantic illusions about gentleness and brotherly love. Beggars and street people spread throughout the streets of Calcutta and many other cities. In Mumbai, one cannot but be shocked by the aerial view on the world’s biggest slums.

Belief in karma assumes that everyone is rewarded or punished for things they did in their previous life. The traditional division in castes, social rank, economic wealth, social success or state of health are justified because predetermined by the laws of karma. Hence there is hardly any support for reform.

Any notion about the harmlessness of Yoga can be dispelled by this bizarre report of “India Today”: ‘Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, an Indian pop-star and tele preacher with a reported wealth of more than $50 million, is being investigated after he allegedly manipulated around 400 men to get their testicles removed. The victims were told that only those who get castrated will be able to meet God.’

IV. Deconstructing Reality

Any major philosophy, no matter how complex, can be classified as dualistic or monistic.

Monism claims that there is only one world and one way of apprehending it, through our senses. Reality is an absolute. There is a world independent of our minds to which our thinking must correspond if our ideas are to be true and therefore of practical use. It also holds that reason—the faculty that operates by way of observation and logic—is man’s means of knowledge.

Dualism proposes the existence of two worlds hierarchically organized: an inferior, physical, and material world, irredeemably unworthy; and the superior, metaphysical, transcendental world, the source of our ‘Ideas’. Experiencing is just an inferior way of knowing; superior, proper knowledge is obtained through mysticism and manipulation of speculative concepts. Knowledge can be acquired by non-sensory, non-rational means, such as faith, revelation, ESP, intuition.

Dualist systems sometimes present one part of reality as just the reflection – or the superstructure – of another aspect of reality; or argue that body and mind belong to different realms. Indian philosophy can be classified as dualistic: this world is just mere appearance, a mirage (Maya) opposed to the World of Pure Being (Brahma). Its practical conclusion is the rejection of the distinction between ‘I’ and ‘not-I’, the negation of individuality, just an illusion. Tat Tvam Asi.

All these dualistic systems are in fact expression of the same denial of life. And none of them has at least the merit of being consistent. After all, one can obtain liberation from this world by committing suicide, the philosophical action par excellence. This lack of logical coherence and internal consistency reflects a state of mind or disposition rather than an elaborate abstract philosophy. A genealogical approach, by inquiring as to the origin of certain ideas, of which type of man they are expression, what it is they reflect, and to where they lead, will be more fruitful. Any world view is inescapably linked to a particular outlook on man, the world, and history; and, in its turn, it depends on the mental constitution—itself anchored at a biological level—of the particular people by whom it was created.

V. Anthropogeography of Derealization

Deconstruction of reality has its own human geography. The religious and philosophical systems offering an escape from reality were born and developed in the area located between the Maghreb and the Bay of Bengal. Culturally speaking, the Irano-Semitic Middle East and India.

This Afro-Oriental space experienced historically a complex story of miscegenation and constitutes today a veritable melting-pot of the three so-called macro races: white, black and yellow (Hittites, Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Vandals; Asian tribes traversing the Himalayan valleys and the Turkestan; slaves from Ethiopia, Nubia or Sudan sold in the markets of Arabia, Palestine, Egypt or the Maghreb).

Besides, the area has also borne witness to a peculiar phenomenon: the relative indifferentiation in the process of evolutionary development which its native populations have experienced. Evolution pushed Europe, the Far East and Sub-Saharan Africa respectively into the europid, mongolid and negrid direction. In the Afro-Oriental area, the intermediary types are nevertheless prevalent: Dravidians and Ethiopians are not properly black in their complexion and do not have the negroid profile; Arabs, Iranians or Indo-Afghans are not white but swarthy or brown, their hair is woolly, the physiognomy has a certain negroid touch. Besides, around the Eastern Mediterranean coast the process of sexual dimorphism is attenuated: men have often adipose feminoid tissues and women, abundant pilosity.

The region suffered two waves of invasion:

1. Eastern Indo-Europeans (second millennium BCE): coming from Southern Russia, Indo-Iranians occupied Northern India and the Iranian plateau.
2. Western Indo-Europeans (third millennium BCE – first millennium CE): from Central and Southern Europe Hittites, Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Celts, Germanic tribes descended into the area.

The arrival of the tall, lean and fair horsemen to the banks of the Ganges and the Indus, the Tigris and Euphrates, the Jordan or the Nile must have produced a deep effect of ‘alienation’, more painful than the shock of the military defeat. The contest, beyond its military significance, exposed the comparative value of conqueror and conquered. The winner was not only stronger than the loser; he was ‘the other’. Between them there was no common measure of value. The victorious other obtained his force not from the weight of numbers, but from a mysterious element: he belonged to a homogeneous biological bloc not altered yet. Anthropology and ethnology indicate that the Proto-Indo-European people manifested a precise, characteristic racial physiognomy. Such a physiognomy anticipated the present Europid race in its varieties: white skin, tall stature, and dolichocephalic crania.

Dualism may be seen as the response the defeated offered to this anguishing underestimation. From now on, minor value was declared just ‘apparent’, a statement made easier by distinguishing between a world of appearances and a transcendental superior world. These speculative acrobatics helped to magically cancel the painful reality. A second scale of values, opposed to the one favoured by the victor, was constructed. Victory in this world, and the hereditary traits which made it possible, were declared as ‘non-values’.

A pre-Orwellian Decalogue was about to be born: 1. the imaginary is real; 2. Life is death; 3. Defeat is victory; 4. Weakness is strength; 5. Cowardice is honour; 6. Poverty (of spirit) is intelligence; 7. True is false; 8. Ignorance is knowledge; 9. Ugliness is beauty; 10. Laziness/inaction is action.

The most remarkable thing in this story is how this crude strawman – designed by the conquered to undermine the good conscience of his superior – was actually dressed up and adorned by the conqueror himself. Afro-asiatic languages, the language of the vanquished, were incapable of manufacturing and transforming this series of paralogisms into a solid philosophical system. The trick was accomplished thanks to Greek and Latin, and the use of alphabetic writing, which permit a sharper focus on word-creation and logical-temporal connections, in marked contrast to older hieroglyphic means of expression and a less analytical cognitive style.

Pythagoreans and Platonists, fond of Syrian and Egyptian mysteries, began this old tradition, which can only be dubbed ‘betrayal by stupidity’ and transformed themselves from European thinkers into make-up artists working for the deconstruction of reality. That is how Thomistic Scholasticism or Hegelianism, and its sub-product, Marxist Scholasticism, were created: as a cross between a magic-religious mentality and the scientific spirit.

That is also how the concept of ‘human being’, a fortuitous combination of soul, descending from a superior world, and body, belonging to this inferior world, came to life. This dual and abstract human being is the cosmic projection of the duplicitous nature of the half-breed, torn apart between two divergent heredities. Devaluation of earthly goods, renunciation of bodily pleasure, and withdrawal from worldly life in order to reach the purity of the world above is a nostalgic reflection of the lost genetic uniformity. Abhorrence of sexuality is the disgust that original sin, miscegenation, provokes. Assimilating light with goodness and evil with darkness projects the opposition between both sides, black and white, of the mixed genetic inheritance.

It is in these biological and historical realities that one must search for the origin of the delirious gnostic beliefs which have perturbed for more than two thousand years the psychological balance of European man.

VI. Gloom and Doom

In the case of India, the Indo-European speakers entered from the northwest, mixing with or displacing proto-Dravidian speakers, and establishing a caste system with themselves primarily in the higher castes. A 2001 study, led by Michael Bamshad of the University of Utah, found that the genetic similarity of Indians to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank: the upper castes have a higher similarity to Europeans than to Asians, and the upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are the lower castes.

Despite the system of castes, the degree of miscegenation after a few centuries was almost complete. Genetic incongruity ended up gaining the upper hand and, as a consequence, producing a deeply pessimistic outlook. Indian philosophy is full of life denial and nostalgia for the lost racial homogeneity. Where did the light-eyed heroes of the ancient sagas, the warriors who rode over the Alai-Pamir ranges go?

Indian Classical thought (Upanishads) is permeated by a feeling of slow degradation, an inexorable advance of incoherence, stabilized character traits being progressively submerged by exotic genetic combinations. Instead of subordinating reality to a superior world, as it was done in the Middle East, India opted for a flat denial of reality. The world was too horrid a place to be even considered real and had to be downgraded to mere appearance. In this case too, it was Sanskrit, the language of the conquerors, which provided the necessary linguistic scaffolding for the story of the irremediable decline of the Eastern branch of the white race.

In their group strategies, Irano-Semitic (Abrahamism) and Indian thought have many similarities: restatement of myth as history, projection of traditional wisdom as authoritarian law, dependence upon supernaturalism (magic, miracles), false promise of impossible (supernatural) reward for compliance, castes of priests with status, power and economic incentives to perpetuate the falsehoods, secret knowledge, payment of ritualistic costs to falsehoods.

But while the purpose of Abrahamism has always been to subvert society from the inside, undermining the aristocratic class with guilt and bad conscience while stirring up the underclasses, the strategy of Yoga and Buddhism has been different.

The minority Hindu upper-caste created a religion of submission for the teeming masses of India, the perfect factory of docile and indolent subjects. To the ever new warlike invaders the traditional system of rule in India, wrapped in the language of resignation and pre-emptive defeat, was the perfect tool of domination and in exchange, the native ‘spiritual elite’ of the country managed to preserve their highly inflated social status.

That is why India, while a deeply feminine civilization unable to maintain territory or develop technological civilization, and easily and repeatedly dominated by foreign elites, has maintained the same system of rule effectively forever.

We may now compare the group survival strategies of India (I) and the West (W) and the results they produce:

• Genetic homogeneity producing trust /W) vs Genetic heterogeneity producing mistrust (I)
• Maximization of agency through self-improvement (W) vs Despondency and escapism (I)
• Sovereignty/dominance (W) vs Servitude/submission (I)
• Heroism (W) vs Buddha’s begging bowl (I)
• Market rule (W) vs Arbitrary rule (I)
• Truth of speech and science (W) vs Magic, obscurantism and fictionalism (I)
• Reciprocity (W) vs Deceit (I)

And as a consequence: wealth, health, knowledge, innovation and progress (W) vs poverty, sickness, ignorance and stasis or regress (I).

VII. to Those Who Are Awake There Is only One World (Heraclitus)

Europe has never been really attracted to Indian thought, but the Irano-Semitic poison has ended up sapping the vitality of the West. Abrahamism in its successive manifestations, with its egalitarian and universalist abstractions, has been traveling and ever molding the outlook, the discourse, and values that today inform Western consciousness. Enthralled by this egalitarian utopia, European man can no longer assume control of the world’s destiny, or be the creator of a new future. Ashamed of a past which over time had given it undisputed superiority, the egalitarian West now wants the ‘end of history.’ It desires a return to the static stage of mammalian happiness: to an Edenic pre-human past.

Together with its good conscience, the West also lost the will to resist the rising tide of the non-Western world. Afro-Thomistic and Sino-Marxist propaganda were followed by effete postmodern discourse and once nihilism and social malaise become prevalent, especially among the youth, Yoga, an indicator of social dysfunction, and Buddhism, a form of escapism, can be used as effective spiritual opiates.

The symbiotic relation between ‘priests’ and ‘laity’ usually turns into one of deceivers and deceived, predators and prey. It may be interesting to recall an interview with Russian defector and ex-KGB agent, Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov, in which he reports the KGB interest in promoting yoga as a way of demoralizing America:

“The KGB became interested in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the Hindu guru, charlatan and sexual deviant, whose methods were popularized in the West by The Beatles and Mia Farrow. The Kremlin noticed that influential Americans were visiting Maharishi’s ashram, learning transcendental meditation from him and transplanting it to America…to meditate, in other words, to isolate oneself from the current social and political issues of your own country, to get into your own bubble, to forget about the troubles of the world…most of the problems, most of the burning issues of today, can be solved simply by meditating. Don’t rock the boat, don’t get involved. Just sit down, look at your navel, and meditate. And the things, due to some strange logic, due to cosmic vibration, will settle down by themselves…this is exactly what the KGB and Marxist-Leninist propaganda want from Americans, to distract their opinion, attention, and mental energy from the real issues of the United States, into non-issues, into a non-world, non-existent harmony.”

Europeans/Westerners need to become again self-conscious, healthy, physically fit, and alert to the reality of this world. Exactly like three thousand five hundred years ago, religion and philosophy are an act of war. History reveals a recurring struggle across millennia between two dramatically different approaches to life on earth. In one approach, we see belief in the existence of the outside world, self-affirmation and development of agency. In the other approach, we see the belief that this world is an illusion or of secondary importance, self-denial and dissolution of one’s personality in the quietness of the atemporal and impersonal Self. It is the conflict of civilizations between the masculine/true/eugenic (aristocratic/European), and feminine/false/dysgenic (theological/Afro-Oriental). And now we are currently in the third iteration of that conflict.

Most of Western history has been a struggle between these two contrasting attitudes to life and reality. For any individuals genuinely concerned to promote man’s ascending earthly life, the takeaway lesson from this monumental struggle is that they must support the first approach.

Their weapons cannot be supernaturalism, mysticism or fictionalism, but Aristotelianism (empirical realism) combined with evolutionary Darwinian thought so as to complete the scientific study of man as psycho-somatic integrated unity.

That is what the Propertarian Institute pursues: to convert western aristocratic philosophy into rational and scientific terms: the remnant of the European aristocratic manorial system and the classical liberal philosophy of the Enlightenment combined with our ancient Indo-European instincts for group persistence and land-holding: truth-telling, the jury, and heroism.

 

Roman Law, Roman Imperium

In general, Indo-European peoples have perceived the need to preserve their originality while accepting the consequences imposed upon them by the expansion of cultural and geopolitical horizons generated by the Neolithic Revolution.

However – and thinking just of the ancient world – it was only the Romans who succeeded, thanks to the concept of Imperium, in achieving synthesis of permanence, faithfulness to themselves and to their origin, and full acceptance of ‘cosmic involvement’.

Clearly, Imperium and Empire must not be confused with each other. In fact, the notion of Imperium has found its truth and perfect realisation more in efforts that led to the establishment of the Roman Republic than in the maintenance of the post-Julian Empire.

The notion of Imperium reflects a will to cosmic order, and it is this order that organises hierarchically the various ‘gentes’ living under the protection of Rome. In theory and in practice, Imperium is at the antipodes of any sort of ‘universalism’. It does not seek to reduce humankind to one and the same; rather it seeks to preserve diversity in a world heading towards unification.

The Romans wanted to preserve their own city – their own ‘ius’: by temperament, all was conceived through rite and through law. However, such will to authenticity logically implied acknowledgment of ‘the other’. In this resided their political greatness.

As organised and conscious rejection of any sense of universalism – of any reductio ad unum – Imperium has, nevertheless, a political nature: it is realistic, not utopian. It is hierarchical: each member keeps its own ius, its own law; each people is free to administer its own city according to its traditional form of justice. However, in the relations between individuals from different cities, or among the cities themselves, ius romanus prevails over ius latinus – which, in turn, prevails over all others. And where neither ius romanus nor ius latinus is applicable, then what applies is ius gentium – a typical Roman abstraction to identify what might be common, or should be applied, to the iura of all the other peoples.

Hence, within the Imperium, Rome enjoys absolute primacy, and this may be explained naturally and in perfect justice. It is Rome which has conceived and created – and which organises and secures – a cosmos/order where each receives his due according to history (fatum). Since Imperium represents an order consecrated by fatum, diverse peoples approach the Romans asking for admission to the Roman Empire.

‘Regere imperio populos, Romane, memento / parcere victis ac debellare superbos’.(You, O Roman, remember to rule nations with your sway – these will be your arts – and to impose the tradition of peace, to spare the humbled and crush the proud.’) Such is the way Virgil defines the mission adopted by the Romans.

Abrahamism

Judaism was the soil out of which grew Christianity – the flower of slave morality. Though a single unified system, it carried different emphases for the two groups.

For the Jews, the foci were self-pity, ethnic solidarity, thirst for revenge, obsession with freedom, hatred of the strong and powerful, and desire to recover lost wealth.

The Christians – through the figure of Jesus – preferred to emphasize the value of the downtrodden (‘blessed are the meek’); faith in God to bring justice (‘the meek shall inherit the Earth’); salvation in the afterlife – and a fixation with love as means for ameliorating suffering.

Athens or Jerusalem?

Tertullian, father of Latin Christianity and founder of Western theology, summarises the early Christian attitude to science and intelligence :

-“Credo quia absurdum” (I believe it because it is absurd); and

-“What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic or Platonic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after receiving the gospel”.

What indeed has Athens to do with the Church?

Aryan Myth, Abrahamism and The Beginning of The European Cultural Neurosis

The Indo-Europeans introduced not only practical techniques for the appropriation of the physical and biological world but also, above all, a new technique for organizing socio-political and juridical relationships. It developed concepts such as ‘genos,’ ‘polis,’ and ‘imperium’—in their classical, medieval, or modern translations—and this constituted the difference that came to define Indo-European identity when confronted with other populations, cultures, and civilizations.

Such a way of organizing society derived from a particular Weltanschauung. This world view, expressed in all fields of human activity, gave birth to a cosmogonic myth, around which Indo-European man understood, explained, and organized the universe and history. Its unique character is better perceived when contrasted with the mentality and culture of the Book of Genesis. The latter narrative, in its religious and secularised forms, continues to obsess contemporary Western civilization.

What is most striking when studying Indo-European cosmogony is the solemn affirmation, found everywhere, of man’s primacy. Indo-European cosmogony places a ‘cosmic man’ at the ‘beginning’ of the current cycle of the world. It is from him that all things derive: gods, nature, living beings—and man himself as a historical being. In the Indian world, the Rig Veda names him Purusha; his name is Ymir in the Edda; and, according to Tacitus, he was called Mannus among continental Germans. For the Vedic Indians, Purusha is the One through whom the universe begins (again). He is ‘naught but this universe, what has passed and what is yet to come.’ In the same fashion, Ymir is the undivided One: and by him, the world is first organized. His own birth results from the meeting of fire and ice.

Kalidasa’s poem Kumarasambhava—one of the summits of Indian poetic reflection on the traditions of the Vedas—marvelously explains the allusions of the Indo-European cosmogonic myth. The opposition between Purusha (cosmic man) and Prakriti (which corresponds, approximately, to natura naturans) is revealing. Through being able to see without depending for this on Prakriti, Purusha is at the origin of the universe.

Since the universe is but indistinct chaos, devoid of any sense or significance, it is only by means of the outlook and word of cosmic man that the multitude of beings and things may emerge—including man fully realized as such. Purusha’s sacrifice is the Apollonian moment at which is affirmed the principium individuationis—‘cause of all that exists and shall exist’—until that time when the world will crumble: the Dionysian end that is also the condition of a new beginning.

The universe does not derive its existence from something not part of it. It proceeds from the being of cosmic man: his body, his gaze, his word—and his consciousness. There is no opposition between two worlds—between created being and uncreated being. On the contrary, there is incessant conversion and consubstantiality between beings and things, between heaven and earth, between men and gods.

In such a Weltanschauung, the gods are themselves a quarter of the cosmic man. They are superior men in the Nietzschean sense; in a certain way, they perpetuate the transfigured and transfiguring memory of the first ‘civilizing heroes’: those who brought humankind from its precedent stage—and truly founded, by ordering it into three functions, human society, Indo-European society. These gods do not represent ‘Good’—neither do they represent ‘Evil.’ Insofar as they represent sublimated forms of the good and evil that coexist, as antagonists, within life itself, they are both good and evil. Hence, each presents an ambivalent aspect—a human aspect. This explains why mythical imagination tends to split personality: Mitra-Varuna, Jupiter-Dius Fidius, Odin/Wotan-Tyr, etc. In relation to present humankind, which they have instituted as such, these gods correspond indeed to their mythical ‘ancestors’ and ideal models. Legislators, inventors of social tradition, they remain present, are still active. However, they also remain subject to fatum: destined in a very human way to an ‘end.’

In brief, we are referring not to creating gods, but rather to creatures—human gods who are, nevertheless, organizers-orderers of the world: ancestral gods for current humankind; gods who are great in both good and evil and who place themselves beyond such notions. On Olympus, says Heraclitus, ‘the gods are immortal men, whereas men are mortal gods; our life is their death and our death their life.’

What are labelled ‘Indo-European people’ correspond to a society which came to the fore at the beginning of the Neolithic Age and whose cosmogonic myth was organised by a new perspective gained at this historical juncture—a perspective allowing reflection on the prior belief system and its revolutionary reinterpretation.

If belief in a ‘supreme being’—not to be mistaken for the one god of monotheism—was common to ‘primitive humankind’—that is, to the human groups who lived at the end of the Mesolithic Age, the Indo-European cosmogony is a reformulation of that idea—or rather a discourse that explodes and overcomes the language and the ‘reason’ of the preceding period. It is legitimate to consider that, for the Mesolithic ancestors of the Indo-Europeans, the supreme being has become none other than man himself; has become, more precisely, a ‘cosmic projection’ of man as holder of magic power. Similarly, one may conclude that this particular Indo-European idea of the supreme being was not shared by the other human groups who descended from the Mesolithic Age.

The classical Middle East has ‘reflected’—imagined and interpreted—the same set of Mesolithic beliefs in a manner diametrically opposed to the one taken by the Indo-Europeans. The Judeo-Christian Bible—summa of the religious Levantine Weltanschauung—stands at the antipodes of the Indo-European vision.
Yahweh has not extracted the universe by subdivision and ‘dismemberment’ of himself. He has created it ex nihilo, out of nothing. He is not the coincidentia oppositorum: the ‘Undivided Self,’ the place where all relative oppositions meet, melt, and surpass themselves. He is not simultaneously ‘being and non-being.’ He is being only: ‘I am that I am’ (Exodus 3:14).

Entirely alien to the world, Yahweh is the antithesis of all tangible reality. He is not an aspect, sum, level, form, or quality of the world. ‘The world is entirely distinct from God, its creator,’ the First Vatican Council of 1870 reminds us. Consequently, since the created universe cannot be identical to the creating god, the world lacks essence. It has existence only. More precisely, it is a being of ‘inferior degree’—imperfect.

Indo-European polytheism is the complementary ‘reverse’ of what might be defined as mono-humanism or pan-humanism: man is the law of the world (anthropos o nomos tou kosmou) and the measure of all things. In contrast, Jewish monotheism appears to be the conclusion of a process of reabsorption: reduction to unity of a multiplicity of non-human deities (personified natural forces) operated by Elohim-Yahweh. In short, it is the outcome of a mental speculation that also leads the plurality of things back to a single principle; not man, in this case, but matter and energy: ‘nature.’

From being the one and only god, non-ambivalent, Yahweh evidently represents absolute Good. It is understandable that he often shows himself to be cruel, implacable, jealous. Absolute Good could only be intransigent against Evil. What is less logical is the biblical conception of evil. Not deriving from absolute good, evil should not exist in a world created from nothing by a god who is ‘infinitely good.’ The Bible tries to solve the problem by explaining away evil as the consequence of the revolt of certain creatures—notably Lucifer—against the authority of Yahweh. Hence, evil seems to be the refusal of a creature to play the role assigned by Yahweh. The power of evil may at times seem considerable. However, as compared to the power of good (Yahweh), it is nothing of the sort: the final outcome of the struggle between Good and Evil is never in doubt. All problems, all conflicts are already solved before they take place: history is pure decay, the effect of the blindness of impotent creatures.

In this way, from the start, history is devoid of sense. The First Man—the first humanity—has blundered in giving in to a suggestion from Satan. In consequence, he has declined the role Yahweh had assigned to him. He has picked the forbidden apple, and entered history.

Creator of the universe, Yahweh has also played—in relation to the ‘current’ human society—a role entirely antithetical to that played by the Indo-European sovereign gods. Yahweh is not a ‘civilising hero’ who invents a social tradition. Rather, he constitutes an omnipotence that opposes Adam’s ‘fault’—the sort of human life the latter wished to enjoy: a post-Neolithic urban civilization—implicitly referred to, in the Book of Genesis, in the story of the Tower of Babel. However, long before this, Yahweh had refused the land’s produce offered by the farmer Cain, and ‘had regard [only] for Abel and his offering’ (Genesis 4:3–5). Abel is not a farmer; rather, he is but a nomad who has abandoned hunting and survives from carrying out razzias. He extends the Mesolithic tradition into a new society—born of the Neolithic Revolution—and rejects the new way of life.

Subsequently, the mission of Abraham—the nomad who had deserted the city of Ur—and that of his descendants, will be to negate and reject, from the very interior of the world, any form of post-Neolithic civilisation, since its very existence perpetuates the memory of the ‘revolt’ against Yahweh. After Abraham, Moses maintains this commitment. Just as the people of Israel were able to escape captivity in Egypt, the whole of humanity is called upon to escape the ‘captivity’ of history. The law of Yahweh, handed down at Mount Sinai, is presented as the means of rescinding, once and for all, Adam and Eve’s transgression.

Man, in relation to the ‘god’ of the Bible, is not really a ‘son’; rather, he is a mere creature. Yahweh has made him, as any other living being, just as a potter models a vase. He has made him in ‘his own image’ (Genesis 1:27) in order to have his steward on Earth: the guardian of Paradise. The power man holds over the world is a power by proxy: a power entrusted to him that he may use only on the condition he not use it fully. Adam, seduced by the Devil, challenged the role that Yahweh had wanted him to play. But man will forever remain God’s servant (‘And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified,’ Isaiah 49:3). The superiority of man over beast is as nothing—for all is vanity. ‘All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again’ (Ecclesiastes 3:20).

Man, according to the teachings of the Bible, has to remember unfailingly that he is dust; that historical existence has the sense only of that implicitly ascribed when history is actively rejected.

‘Roman’ Christianity, born with the Constantinian arrangement, was from the start an attempt to establish, within the ‘ancient’ world transformed by Rome in orbis politica, a compromise between the Indo-European Weltanschauung and the Judaic religion, adapted to Roman imperial civilisation by the alleged efforts of Jesus. The one and only god became, through dogmatic ‘mystery,’ ‘one god in three persons.’ The old trinity that the Vedic Indians called Trimurti has been integrated and, broadly, these ‘persons’ have assumed the three functions of Indo-European society, now in an inverted, spiritualised form. As creator and sovereign, Yahweh nevertheless continues to reject the dual aspect of reality: evil is the exclusive province of Satan. The new name ‘Deus Pater’—‘eternal and divine father,’ revered by the Indo-Europeans—is substituted for the old name given by the Bible. Yahweh is father only of his ‘second person’: a son sent to Earth to play a role opposed to that of ‘founding hero.’ He is a son who decides to become alienated from this world in order the better to show a way to the world beyond, and who, if he renders unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, does this only because to him what belongs to Caesar is of no value at all. He is a son, finally, whose function is not to ‘make war,’ but to preach a jealous peace that will benefit only the ‘men of goodwill’—the adversaries of this world—those to whom is reserved the only nutrient of eternity: the grace administered by the third ‘person,’ the Holy Spirit.

Man, as a creature—and as a created being—is the serf of God’s serfs: ‘excrement’ (stercus, as Augustine of Hippo put it). However, at the same time, he is also the brother of the incarnated son of Yahweh, which ‘almost’ makes him a son of God—provided he knows how to will and deserve it, something that depends on the grace the Creator administers according to unfathomable criteria. The day shall come when humankind will be definitively and eternally divided between the saints and the damned. There is a biblical Valhalla: the Celestial Paradise, but it is now reserved for the anti-heroes (In To Have or to Be? (New York: Harper and Row, 1976), Erich Fromm observes: ‘The [Christian] martyr is the exact opposite of the pagan hero personified in the Greek and Germanic heroes. . . . For the pagan hero, a man’s worth lay in his prowess in attaining and holding onto power, and he gladly died on the battlefield in the moment of victory’).

The others belong to Hell.

This compromise has for centuries molded the history of what is called ‘Western civilisation.’ For centuries, according to the deepest affinities, ‘pagan’ and ‘Levantine’ man has been able to see—in the ‘one and threefold’ god—his own respective divinity. This explains the numerous confusions that have always characterised historical Christianity. The coexistence of two antagonistic spiritualities—often confronting one another, even in the hearts of the same individuals—eventually crystallise into a veritable neurosis of the European mentality.

Today we can confidently state that the Constantinian ‘arrangement’ arranged nothing, and that the day the motto ‘In hoc signo vinces’ was proclaimed had detrimental consequences for the Greco-Roman and Celto-Germanic world. Until recently, the Church of Rome particularly, and the Christian churches in general remained, as organised secular powers, attached to the appearances of the old compromise. However, in more recent times they began to recognise the authentic essence of Christianity. Hence, Yahweh, finally casting off the mask of luminous and celestial Deus-Pater, was rediscovered and proclaimed anew. In 1938 Pope Pius XI declared: ‘Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we [i.e., Christians] are all Semites.’

However, long before the churches reached that point, ‘profane’ (demythicised and secularised) Christianity, i.e., egalitarianism in all its forms, had found its path according to biblical truth. This was marked by the rejection of history; the proclaimed will to ‘step out of history’ in order to return to ‘nature’; the tendency to reabsorb human specificity into the ‘physical-chemical’; all determinist materialisms; Marcuse’s condemnation of art on the grounds that by integrating man in society it would betray ‘truth’; finally, the egalitarian ideology that wants to reduce humankind to the anti-hero model: the chosen one, hostile to any specific civilisation in that he wishes to see in it nothing but unhappiness, misery, exploitation (Marx), repression (Freud), or pollution. All this has invariably restored—still continues to restore today, at that precise moment when a new technological revolution is inviting us to overcome old ‘forms’—that motionless, ‘eternal’ (if there ever was such) Judaic vision: an unequivocal ‘No’ to any present pregnant with a future.

Saying ‘Yes’ to history—ever-becoming, ever re-proposing new foundations—implies assuming new forms and content. Saying ‘Yes’ is creation, the work of art. ‘No’ exists only by denying any value to such work. The Indo-European cosmogonic myth reassures us that saying ‘Yes’ is always possible. In a different world, arising from the ruins of the old, the mission of ‘civilising heroes’ is eternal, and it assumes, serenely, the splendid and tragic destiny of one who creates, gives birth to himself, and accepts, as condition of any historical adventure, of any life, the idea of his own end.

Eastern Wisdom (i)

The habit of contrasting the crude materialism of the West with the spiritualism of the East needs to be revised. The great Asiatic civilizations developed in a pre-logical era; the mind groped for truth through intuition, symbol, magic and mysticism. It was irrational. It refused to see the external world as an autonomous reality capable of being shaped and adapted through an understanding of its laws.

The West, thanks to the Greek genius, succeeded in rising to the level of rational thought, founded on respect for a principle of no concern to the Oriental mind, the principle of contradiction. By associating the Hellenic Logos with the Roman Law, Europe realized a synthesis which, despite many tribulations, is still the most miraculous accomplishment of the human adventure.

Eastern Wisdom (ii): Confucianism

The Chinese were an industrious and practical people. They excelled in map-making and meteorology; they created the science of seismography and were pioneers in civil and hydraulic engineering. To their ingenuity the world owes the first mechanical clocks with escapements and balance wheels; powder, which they used for fireworks long before making hand grenades; the compass; paper; silk; and printing with movable letters. Nevertheless, they did not apply this inventiveness to their industry, which remained essentially unchanged over the two thousand years between the accession of the Han and the fall of the Manchu dynasty.

Why not? Because the Chinese were interested in a different set of values from those which preoccupied the West. Instead of trying to dominate nature, the Chinese sought to adjust themselves to a cosmic environment, natural and human. The two essential problems of concern to the Chinese were the search for good government and the art of finding contentment in the midst of poverty and adversity.

The first problem concerned Confucius. He regarded man as essentially social, and he took as his personal mission the saving of a world which seemed to him to be in full decadence. His solution involved the restoration of five essential virtues: good manners, distributive justice, kindness, filial piety and wisdom.
Confucianism, at once a theory of government and a theory of ethics, produced strong patterns of social ritualism, and the written language of China helped maintain this conformity. The immobility of words, formed of monosyllables, tended to stereotype thought and to freeze social life.

Confucius and his school recognized this when they insisted that the remedy for the disorders of the times was to be found in the “rectification of words”. To assure good government, everything had to be identified by its true name, and everyone had to conduct himself in accordance with the correct designation of his function. The incorrect use of words was a semantic sin leading to social disorder.

It was important, therefore, that public functionaries be recruited by examinations based on their knowledge of classical books, named and written in an ancient language very different from that in contemporary use, and requiring the mastery of tens of thousands of characters. For two thousand years the institution of the Mandarins attracted the best minds into the services of an administration whose primary concern was to maintain a static social order, in harmony with and dependent upon an unchanging cosmic order.

Eastern Wisdom (iii): Taoism

Taoism, anterior to Confucianism, stands in sharp contrast to it. However, its results were even worse, for Taoism negated logic and encouraged evasion.

Lao-Tse attributed all misfortunes to man’s departures from the state of nature when he tried to control his destiny.

The social virtues praised by Confucius – justice, good manners, wisdom and kindness – were regarded as conventions and obstacles to the natural order of things and deserving only of contempt. Laws merely multiplied the number of thieves and bandits.

For Confucius, the good sovereign was one who did everything possible for his people; for Lao-Tse, the best sovereign was one who saw that he could do nothing and let matters take a natural course. Man must return to his original state of innocence.

Through asceticism, life could be prolonged; immortality itself was possible for him who could absorb himself in the ecstasy of Tao, an indescribable reality which was everywhere, which had no definite limits and was the origin and supreme law of things.

Eastern Wisdom (iv): China (conclusion)

Such mentalities (Confucianism, Taoism) made progress of the Western sort a theoretical as well as a practical impossibility. Prior to the arrival of Westerners, China was a closed society which regarded itself as perfect, as having nothing to learn from foreigners.

Withdrawn behind an intellectual and moral “Chinese Wall,” the Middle Empire could not develop until the arrival of the barbarians, the European and American “devils.”

Chinese mathematical thought was profoundly arithmetic and algebraic, but unlike the Greek mind it never developed an axiomatic and deductive geometry.

Failing to conceive the idea of natural law, the Chinese did not develop the fundamental sciences until after the arrival of the missionaries from the West. Nature was a symbolism to be deciphered, and for this purpose a number of pseudosciences were constructed – numerology, astrology and physiognomy – all of which were incompatible with the discovery of physical laws.

The Chinese never rose to the abstract idea of a homogeneous and isotropic space such as Euclid conceived and could express in geometric terms. Their physics remained caught in the metaphysics of Yin and Yang, the five elements, and their symbolic affinities. Hence their science never got beyond the pre-Galileo level.

Joseph Needham, perhaps the greatest authority on Chinese science, observes:

“When we say that modern science developed only in Europe and only in the time of Galileo at the end of the Renaissance, we are trying to say that then and then only were laid the foundations of the structure of the natural sciences as we know them today; that is to say, the application to nature of mathematical hypotheses, the full understanding and systematic use of the experimental method, the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, the geometrization of space and the acceptance of a mechanical model of reality.”

Eastern Wisdom (v): India

After an honorable start, India failed to attain through its own efforts the level of technical and scientific competence of the West. As with China, the failure was traceable to a different way of looking at the world.

East and West started with the same pessimistic assumptions: the human condition is precarious, painful and fleeting. Theoris of Megara, Simonides of Chios and the Greek tragedies all passed judgments on existence fully as bleak as Buddha´s. But the responses were different. In the West, they suggested actions to improve the situation; in India, evasion.

Western man sought to remedy the misery of his condition by mastery of the world; the Hindu sought to escape the world by mastery of self, of the internal life of the spirit. The Western mind believed in the reality of the external world and undertook to impose upon it the power of man’s will; the Hindu regarded the external world and the idea of Ego as illusory, and sought to submerged personality in the quietude of the impersonal and timeless “Self.”

The highest wisdom was to escape from the wheel of rebirths by the technique of depersonalization, to be had through the mastery of knowledge of Samkhya or the psychosomatic methods of deliverance of Yoga. The purpose in both cases was to enter in an ecstatic fusion with the Absolute (Brahma), who in his positive form is Being itself, and in his negative form is Nothingness, the Nirvana.

To this metaphysics, with its denial of the wish to live, must be added a compartmentalization of Hindu society which prevented the invigorating circulation of elites that alone can keep a society healthy. There was no possibility of rising from one caste to another; there was no “social ladder” to climb. Nothing was done prior to 1950 to change this situation.

Eastern Wisdom (vi): Islam, Arabic Civilization

From the 8th to the 12th century the Islamic Empire, made up of many peoples, extending from the Pyrenees to the limits of China, preserved Hellenic science, enriched it with borrowings from Persia, India and even China, and finally transmitted it to the Latin West.

Expelled from Europe by the Christians, driven from Asia by the Mongols, subjected to the Turks in Egypt, the Arabs lost contact with the Persians, the Syrians, the Christians and the Jews whose presence had played a vitalizing role in Arab culture. Thrown back upon themselves, they sank into a long torpor from which they were not aroused until the 19th century and the coming of the peoples of the West.

How is this sleep of Islam to be explained?

It was due to the fact that the Parsees, the Christians, the Jews and the Pagans who accepted the religion of Islam had done so more to be free from various onerous taxes than from any real conversion. The scholars who constituted the “Arab Miracle” were for the most part Syrians, Persians and Spaniards, peoples who were not Arab by blood, and had nothing of the Arab spirit. Once these alien elements were eliminated, the Islamic masses again fell under the yoke of their fanatical imams.

From 1200 on, a theological reaction swept through Islam. There were no longer philosophers – the word itself became synonymous with ‘infidel’ – and only occasionally was there a scholar like the historian Ibn-Khaldun. The Turks, devoid of any critical and probing spirit, imposed their heavy yoke on Islam; and Islam, returning to its sources, paralyzed inquiry into a formula which brooked no answer: “Allah aalam” (God knows best what is).

The traditionalism of Islam is incompatible with the spirit of inquiry and the idea of progress. For the Muslim, all truth worth knowing is contained in the Koran, at once a dogma and a code of faith, whose prescriptions regulate the smallest details of life. Whatever happens is the will of Allah. All is preordained; the only thing to do is to submit without complaint.

This fatalism is destructive of effort, of any manifestation of personal will. It expresses the atavistic resignation of the nomad before the emptiness of the desert. Belief in another life, full of sensuous delights, of houris and fresh meadows, consoles the faithful for present tribulations. This mentality rules out restlessness, dissatisfaction with self, that constant drive to improve which is the ethical mainspring of the internal life of Western man.

Eastern Wisdom (& Vii): Zen

Zen was introduced in Japan at the end of the 12th century, five hundred years after Confucianism and Buddhism. It acknowledges neither God nor life beyond death, does not emphasize the distinction between good and evil and does not have a fixed doctrine or holy scripture.

The teachings of Zen, which “do not stand upon words,” are transmitted through provoking paradoxes and extravagant questions (koans):

“Two hands clap and there is a sound, what is the sound of one hand?”
“Two sisters are crossing the street, which one is the older sister?”
“What is Zen? Three pounds of flax.”

Koans are described by Zen masters as pointers to an unmediated “pure Consciousness, devoid of cognitive activity.” The one unforgivable sin in a Zen monastery is to be too logical. The demon to be exorcised is rational thinking: classifying and categorizing, conceptual definitions, coherent reasoning. Abstract thinking prevents instant enlightenment (satori). The idea is to suppress the verbal restrictions imposed by tradition and consequently destroy the inhibitions caused by paralyzing timidity.

Reflecting kills action, therefore “If you walk, just walk. If you sit, just sit. Don’t wobble!” and to the terrorized victim of traditional Japanese education, it is even recommended: “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!”

As Taoism in China, Zen must be seen as a counterbalance to the rigidly conservative Confucianism. The traditional dread of unforeseen situations is neutralized by springing surprises and shocks on the disciple and encouraging him to reciprocate in equally eccentric fashion. The koan technique is designed to bring out that side of a person which the social code condemns: “the unexpected man”.

Zen influence on Japanese arts was at one time (16th and 17th centuries) quite profound: on painting, landscape gardening, flower arranging, the tea ceremony, fireflies chasing, swordsmanship, archery, judo. It created a unique lifestyle.

However, although originally Japanese Zen emphasized a kind of spontaneity which was creative in nature, this spontaneity quickly became an automatic and mechanistic spontaneity which in turn drained Japanese culture of its vitality. It degenerated into a mere routine, dealing only with stereotypical subjects in a petrified style. Koans ended up becoming at best a hilarious leg-pull, an existentialist hoax, and at worst, a web of solemn absurdities: “Ugly is beautiful, false is true and also conversely”. This is not Orwell, it was written in all seriousness by Suzuki, the foremost propounder of modern Zen.

Zen, originally a cure for de-conditioning, ended up becoming a new type of social conditioning.

Islam and the Arabs

As long as Islam was in the hands of the Arab race, however, there was no intellectual development involving a concern for matters of this world. It was different once the Persians gained the ascendency, and the Abbasid caliphs supplanted the Umayyads at Damascus. The Abbasids established their new capital at Baghdad and made it the centre of the civilized world, while a prince of the Umayyads escaped to Spain, where he established a realm which was practically independent. The brilliant caliphs who followed one another at Baghdad – Al-Mansur, Harun al-Rashid and Al-Ma’mun the Great, contemporaries of the Carolingians – respected the external rituals of the religion of which they were the chiefs, but, like the popes of the Renaissance, they interested themselves in many other matters. During the second half of the eleventh century, the political power of the Arabs declined with the taking of Bagdad by the Seljuk Turks, the reconquering of Aragon, Toledo, and Palermo by the Christians and the entry into Jerusalem by the Crusaders. Expelled from Europe by the Christians, driven from Asia by the Mongols, subjected to the Turks in Egypt, the Arabs lost contact with the Persians, the Syrians, the Christians and the Jews whose presence had played a vitalizing role in Arab culture. Thrown back upon themselves, they sank into a long torpor from which they were not aroused until the 19th century and the coming of the peoples of the West. How is this sleep of Islam to be explained? It was due to the fact that the Parsees, the Christians, the Jews and the Pagans who accepted the religion of Islam had done so more to be free from various onerous taxes than from any real conversion. The scholars who constituted the “Arab Miracle” were, for the most part, Syrians, Persians and Spaniards, peoples who were not Arab by blood, and had nothing of the Arab spirit. Once these alien elements were eliminated, the Islamic masses again fell under the yoke of their fanatical imams. From 1200 on, a theological reaction swept through Islam. There were no longer philosophers – the word itself became synonymous with ‘infidel’ – and only occasionally was there a scholar like the historian Ibn-Khaldun. The Turks, devoid of any critical and probing spirit, imposed their heavy yoke on Islam; and Islam, returning to its sources, paralyzed inquiry into a formula which brooked no answer: “Allah aalam” (God knows best what is). The traditionalism of Islam is incompatible with the spirit of inquiry and the idea of progress. For the Muslim, all truth worth knowing is contained in the Koran, at once a dogma and a code of faith, whose prescriptions regulate the smallest details of life. Whatever happens is the will of Allah. All is preordained; the only thing to do is to submit without complaint. This fatalism is destructive of effort, of any manifestation of personal will. It expresses the atavistic resignation of the nomad before the emptiness of the desert. Belief in another life, full of sensuous delights, of houris and fresh meadows, consoles the faithful for present tribulations. This mentality rules out restlessness, dissatisfaction with self, that constant drive to improve which is the ethical mainspring of the internal life of Western man. From the moment he satisfies the fundamental prescription of the Koran, which is to believe in the one God and his Prophet, he is at peace with himself. There results a quietism which bears the outward appearance of a noble serenity but excludes all effort to improve the human condition. Since Allah has made man’s home what it is, why try to improve it by inventions which border on impiety and contribute nothing to man’s salvation? Why maintain the Roman aqueducts at Carthage? The religion of Islam rules out intellectual curiosity. Omar, burning the books at the Library of Alexandria to warm the Moorish baths, is only a legend, but the words attributed to him are full of significance: “If these books say the same things the Koran says, they are useless; if they say anything else they are false and should be destroyed.”

The Abrahamic or Egalitarian Worldview

Irrespective of the forms it has adopted, the Abrahamic or egalitarian world view has always been eschatological – and also reflects an implicit anthropology. It attributes a negative value to history, and discerns sense in historical motion only insofar as the latter tends towards its own negation and final end.
According to this view, history has a beginning and it must also have an end. It is but an episode—an incident as far as what constitutes the essence of humanity is concerned. The true nature of man would be external to history. And the end of history would restore—sublimating it—whatever existed at the beginning. Human eternity would be based not on becoming but on being.

I.-The Christian Perspective
This episode which is history is perceived in the Christian perspective as damnation. History derives from man being condemned by God—owing to original sin—to unhappiness, labour, sweat, and blood. Humanity lived in happy innocence in the Garden of Eden, and was condemned to history because its forefather, Adam, transgressed the divine commandment, wanting to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge: to become like God. Adam’s fault weighs, as original sin, upon every individual who comes to the world. It is, by definition, inexpiable, since God himself was offended.

However, God, in his infinite goodness, himself takes charge of the expiation. He becomes man—incarnate in the person of Jesus. The sacrifice of the Son of God introduces in historical becoming the essential event of Redemption. No doubt this concerns only those individuals touched by Grace, but it makes possible the slow march towards the end of history, for which, from then on, the ‘communion of saints’ must prepare humanity. Finally, there will come a day when the forces of Good and Evil will come face to face in a battle that will lead to a Last Judgement and, thence, to the instauration of the Kingdom of Heaven—which has its dialectical counterpart in the abyss of Hell.

Eden before the beginning of history; original sin; expulsion from the Garden of Eden; traversing the vale of tears that is the world—the place of historical becoming; Redemption; communion of saints; apocalyptic battle and Last Judgement; end of history and instauration of a Kingdom of Heaven: these are the mythemes that structure the mythical vision of history proposed by Christianity. In this vision, man’s historical becoming has a purely negative value, and the sense of an expiation.

Ii.- the Marxist View

The same mythemes can be found—now in a secularised and pseudoscientific form—in the Marxist view of history. There, history is presented as the result of the class struggle: a struggle between groups defined in relation to their respective economic conditions. The prehistoric Garden of Eden has been transformed into a primitive communism practised by a humanity still immersed in the state of nature and of a purely predatory character. Whereas man in Eden was constrained by God’s commandments, man in primitive communism lives under the pressure of misery. Such pressure has brought about the invention of the means of agricultural production, but this invention has also turned out to be a curse. It has entailed, indeed, not only the exploitation of nature by man, but also the division of labour, the exploitation of man by man, and, consequently, human alienation. The class struggle is the implicit consequence of this exploitation of man by man. Its result is history.

As we can see, for Marxists it is economic conditions that determine human behaviour. By logical concatenation, the latter leads to the creation of ever new systems of production which, in their turn, cause new economic conditions and—especially—ever greater misery for those who are exploited. Nevertheless, there comes a moment of Redemption. With the arrival of capitalism misery peaks—it becomes unbearable. Proletarians become conscious of their condition, and this redemptive realisation gives rise to the organising of communist parties—exactly as the redemption of Christ had caused the founding of a communion of saints. The Judeo-Christian notion of ‘Grace’ finds its equivalent, especially in relation to the Sermon of the Mount.

Communist parties carry out an apocalyptic struggle against the exploiters. This may be long and difficult, but it will ultimately and necessarily be successful: it is ‘the sense of history.’ This will bring about the abolition of social classes, put an end to man’s alienation, and allow the instauration of a communist society—unchanging and classless. Furthermore, since history is the result of the class struggle, evidently there will be no more history. Prehistoric communism will be reinstated—like the Garden of Eden in the Kingdom of Heaven—but in a sublimated way. While primitive communist society was afflicted by material misery, post-historic communist society will enjoy a perfectly balanced satisfaction of its needs.

Hence, in the Marxist view, history also assumes a negative value. Born originally because of human alienation, it makes sense only insofar as it increases incessantly the misery of those exploited, finally contributing to the creation of the conditions through which misery will disappear and, as it were, ‘marching’ towards its own end, its self-abolition.

Iii.- the End of History
Both egalitarian views—religious Christian and secular Marxist—logically imply that history is determined not by the action of man, but by something that transcends him. It is true that Christianity ascribes free will to man and so affirms that it was Adam, having freely ‘chosen’ to sin, who is responsible for his fault, for his imperfection. However, it was God who made and wanted Adam to be imperfect.

On the other hand, Marxists were sometimes wont to say that history was made by man—or rather men, as members of a social class. However, it is the case that social classes are determined and defined by economic conditions, and that it had been original misery that had constrained men to enter into that bloody concatenation which is the class struggle. Man is then incited to act only as a result of his economic condition. He is a mere decoy in a game played in nature by material forces.

Within the egalitarian vision of history, man performs a dramatic role—in a tragic, shameful, and painful farce—one that he has not written and will never write. Dignity, as an authentic human truth, is found outside history—before it and after it.

Abrahamism: Contending with And Rejecting Aristotle

All three abrahamic religions have had to confront the ideas of the great Greek philosopher, Aristotle. Averroes tried to integrate Aristotle with Islam. Maimonides tried to integrate Aristotle with Judaism. Aquinas tried to integrate Aristotle with Christianity. All necessarily failed. Rationality cannot be integrated with faith; nor reason with anti-reason; nor, in philosophy, fact with fantasy.

In conquering parts of the Byzantine Empire, Arabs encountered Greek thought. Muslim scholars studied and were fascinated by the writings of Aristotle and translated them into Arabic. Avicenna and Averroes were superlative Aristotle scholars. The Arabs learned the method of observation-based rationality and, in a true golden age, made superb contributions to medicine, astronomy, mathematics, literature, and other fields.

But it did not last. Due to the influence of Al-Ghazali and other reason-rejecting theologians, as well as a fundamentalism firmly entrenched in Islamic culture from its outset, faith ultimately crushed freedom of thought. Under orthodox Islam, the books of Avicenna, Averroes, and other great thinkers were burned in the 12th century. For eight hundred years since – the Islamic world has wallowed in a dark age.

When Christians reconquered large areas of Spain from the Muslims, they had access to the Islamic centers of learning in southern Spain. In the 12th century, Archbishop Raymund I of Toledo supported Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim scholars in another great translation movement, mirroring that of Baghdad three centuries earlier, but this time translating Greek masterpieces from Arabic into Latin, the language of European scholars. Predictably, as it had done centuries before, the Church resisted study of Greek philosophy. In 1210 a Church council at Paris forbade the reading of Aristotle’s ‘metaphysics and natural philosophy.

But this time the Church failed. Leading European minds, although still Catholic, were determined to gain a greater understanding of the natural world—and nobody, at that point in history, had attained a knowledge of nature equal to Aristotle’s.

In one of history’s great and tragic ironies, in the late Middle Ages Aristotle became the patron Greek philosopher of the Catholic Church. Many of that era’s thinkers, the Scholastics, were Christian Aristotelians.

But a critical and often overlooked point is that, in the centuries following Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, they too often rejected Aristotle’s method and clung to his specific conclusions as dogmatically as they did Biblical myths.

The Darkness of the Abrahamic Dark Ages

According to the Dutch economist Anguss Maddison, Europe suffered through zero economic growth in the centuries from 500 AD to 1500. Maddison shows that for a millennium there was no rise in per capita income, which stood at an abysmally low $215 in 1500. Further, he estimates that in the year 1000, the average infant could expect to live to roughly the age of 24 years—and that a third would die in the first year of life.

French historian Fernand Braudel, writing about the pre-18th-century era, points out, for instance, that although France was, by standards of the day, a relatively prosperous country, it is nevertheless believed to have suffered ten general famines during the 10th century; twenty-six in the 11th; two in the 12th—and these are estimates that do not even count the hundreds and hundreds of local famines.

European sewage and sanitation regressed back to primitivism during this era. Human waste products were often thrown out the window and into the street or simply dumped in local rivers. With the streets strewn with garbage and running with urine and feces—and with the same horrifying conditions permeating the rivers and streams from which drinking water was drawn—vermin and germs multiplied, and disease of every kind, untreatable by the primitive medical knowledge of the day, proliferated. Between 1347 and 1350, for example, the bubonic plague—the infamous “Black Death”—spread by the fleas that infest rats, ravaged Western Europe, obliterating roughly 20 million people, fully one-third of the human population. Norman Cantor, the leading contemporary historian of the Middle Ages, states: “The Black Death of 1348–49 was the greatest biomedical disaster in European and possibly in world history.”

Finally, the early Middle Ages witnessed a stupefying decline in levels of education and literacy from the Roman period. In the endemic warfare of the period, human beings lost the skill of writing and, largely, of reading. For example, during the 8th century, Charlemagne maintained that even the clergy knew insufficient Latin to understand the Bible or to properly conduct Church services.

A related disaster was that Classical learning was largely lost in the West. The loss of literacy in Greek was catastrophic for civilization, for it meant the simultaneous loss of philosophy, mathematics, medicine, engineering, and science. Andrew Coulson, a researcher in the field of educational history, points out that whereas the Greeks were fascinated by the natural world, taking pioneering steps in such sciences as anatomy, biology, physics, and meteorology, the Christians replaced efforts to understand the world with an attempt to know God; observation-based study of nature was, accordingly, subordinated to faith-based study of scripture. A decline in learning consequently afflicted every cognitive subject. What limited medical knowledge had been accumulated by Greek and Roman physicians was supplanted by utter mysticism. For example, St. Augustine believed that demons were responsible for diseases, a tragic regression from Hippocrates. Scientific work, in general, declined as interest in the physical world did.

W. T. Jones, the 20th century’s leading historian of philosophy, succinctly captured the essence of the decline, and of Christianity’s causal role in promoting it, when he stated: “Because of the indifference and downright hostility of the Christians almost the whole body of ancient literature and learning was lost. This destruction was so great and the rate of recovery was so slow that even by the ninth century Europe was still immeasurably behind the classical world in every department of life. This, then, was truly a ‘dark’ age.”
—
Daniel Gurpide: The quotations and data are extracted from an article by Andrew Bernstein: “The Tragedy of Theology: How Religion Caused and Extended the Dark Ages. A Critique of Rodney Stark’s The Victory of Reason”.

Enlightenment Now: Voltaire on Abrahamism

Christianity

“Our religion is assuredly the most ridiculous, the most absurd and the most bloody religion which has ever infected this world. Your Majesty will do the human race an eternal service by extirpating this infamous superstition, I do not say among the rabble, who are not worthy of being enlightened and who are apt for every yoke; I say among honest people, among men who think, among those who wish to think. … My one regret in dying is that I cannot aid you in this noble enterprise, the finest and most respectable which the human mind can point out.”
(Letter to Frederick II of Prussia, 5 January 1767)

Islam

“”But that a camel-merchant should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him.”
(Letter to Frederick II of Prussia, December 1740)

Judaism

“In short, we find in them [the Jews] only an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.”
(A Philosophical Dictionary)

The Pragmatic Enlightenment

Voltaire‘s political outlook, for instance, was emphatically practical and flexible, embedded in and addressed to the specific circumstances of various European nations. He supported a mixed constitutional government in England, a more popular republic in Geneva and Holland, a strong monarchy in France, and an even stronger and more centralized one in Frederick‘s Prussia and Catherine‘s Russia. While he generally had kinder things to say about England and Geneva than France, Prussia, or Russia, he did not think that any of these regimes was simply the ‚best‘. On the contrary, he insisted that such judgments cannot properly be made in the abstract, that they can only be based on contextually sensitive empirical analysis.

The Pragmatic Enlightenment (ii)

Adam Smith’s opposition to the idea of moving people around “as if they were chess pieces” is observable in his hostility to mercantilism: legal monopolies, bounties, duties, trade prohibitions, laws of primogeniture, and so on. On the other hand, throughout The Wealth of Nations, he warns that his economic proposals – his system of natural liberty – should be implemented gradually, with due attention to the disorders they might generate.

For instance, in the midst of a discussion of import duties and trade prohibitions designed to protect domestic industries, he writes: “Humanity may require that the freedom of trade should be restored only by slow gradations, and with a good deal of reserve and circumspection. Were those high duties and prohibitions taken away at once, cheaper foreign goods of the same kind might be poured so fast into the home market, as to deprive all at once many thousands of our people of their ordinary employment and means of subsistence” (The Wealth of Nations).

The Pragmatic Enlightenment (iii)

Hume conceives of liberty primarily in terms of personal security and independence, protected by the rule of law. He does not conceive of liberty in terms of rights that are inherent in human nature or humanity’s natural state, and that constrain the reach of legitimate political power; on the contrary, he holds that liberty can be established and maintained only through stable, orderly, and effective government.

It is worth noting that Hume includes a citizen militia in his ‘perfect commonwealth,’ claiming that “without a militia, it is in vain to think that any free government will ever have security or stability.”

The Pragmatic Enlightenment (iv)

Throughout his analysis of the different types of liberty, Montesquieu takes special care to distinguish them all from democratic self-rule. While philosophers and ordinary citizens alike have often associated liberty with republics – especially democratic republics – and excluded it from monarchies, he says, such a view confuses “the power of the people…with the liberty of the people.” In his view, who governs is ultimately less important than how they govern.

Montesquieu writes that “political liberty concerns moderate monarchies just as it does republics, and is no further from a throne than from a senate. Every man is free who has good grounds to believe that the wrath of one or many will not take away his life or possession of his property.”

German Philosophy

The Greats of German philosophy (Kant-Fichte-Hegel-Marx-Heidegger, I’m leaving Nietzsche outside on purpose, I know) make up a Counter-Enlightenment tradition that ends up being suspicious of science and technology, anti-individualistic and anti-liberal. They all contributed in varying degrees to the authoritarian regimes that developed in the 1900s – the various forms of authoritarian nationalisms, the national and international socialisms, the fascisms – and the cultural catastrophes named ‘Frankfurt School’ and ‘Post-Modernism’.

Kant (the only picture in Kant’s house was a portrait of Rousseau that was hanging over his writing desk) buttressed the pre-modern worldview of faith and duty against the inroads of the Enlightenment: “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.” (Kant)

Hegel explicitly attacks the entire tradition of logic as it had developed from Aristotle to modernity. He wants to believe in a kind of spiritually-driven, dialectically-evolving metaphysics that cannot be expressed logically. His deeper views are that one’s self is but an aspect of the collective, that the Divine works through collective self-realization, and that the State is the manifestation of the Divine.

Hegel on the beginning of the universe: “So far, there is nothing: something is to become. The beginning is not pure nothing, but a nothing from which something is to proceed; so that being is already contained in the beginning. The beginning thus contains both, being and nothing; it is the unity of being and nothing, or is not-being which is being, and being which is also not being.” This is a forewarning of the worst Heidegger, the ‘nazi’ philosopher par excellence who paradoxically ended up recreating the Jewish cosmogonic myth (Creation ‘ex nihilo’).

The triad Kant-Fichte-Hegel is behind the modern German educational system, still active nowadays: a factory of perfect automata devoid of personality, adept at crushing any signs of individualism. Social conformism explains why today in Germany there is no resistance to the suicidal program implemented by ‘Big Mutti’.

German philosophers are Lutheran pastors in a new garb. All of them, even Marx. Is he German or Jewish? I’m not sure. Isn’t Protestantism another big gulp of Abrahamism? Are Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Heidegger German or Jewish? Is more dangerous the combination of a German philosopher raised in an Abrahamic cult or a Jewish thinker educated in the German school?

Wagner & Nietzsche (i)

Richard Wagner may be considered the most magnetic and powerful artistic voice of the nineteenth century, and a profound influence on modernity. From Wagner’s death until the First World War, composers, painters, philosophers, novelists, dramatists, and poets strove mightily to come to terms with his strangely vibrant and living legacy. No composer before or since has left such an enduring mark on the course of cultural history. Few artists have embraced public life so assiduously, and inspired so much controversy—in politics as well as in art.

Wagner’s work, especially his Ring of the Nibelung—an epic masterpiece of musical genius—represents a milestone and, arguably, the completion of a parabola symbolised by the great European tradition of tonal and polyphonic music, extending from Johann Sebastian Bach and his contemporaries to Mozart and Beethoven, and culminating, after Wagner, in Richard Strauss and Carl Orff.

‘Classical music,’ far from being a universal phenomenon, represents a specific geographical and cultural epoch without equal in other eras or civilisations. Indeed, even in pre-Bachian Europe, the music the Church imposed on the Catholic ecumene was based on the imitation of the Greco-Roman musical tradition, which was fundamentally of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern origin and, arguably, deriving from an exclusive melodic sensitivity.

Shortly after Carolingian times—with the forced conversion of Saxon tribes that followed the Massacre of Verden and the restoration of the Empire—another musical sensitivity (in this case harmonic) starts to penetrate the musical universe of the Church, which had remained secluded until that point. What might have been the origin of such new sensitivity?

Musicologists refer to a ‘pagan residue’ existing in the indigenous cultures of Northern Europe. Undoubtedly, a tonal system emerged, after a few centuries, from the opposition of the Church tradition and that of the indigenous music culture of Northern Europe.

As for Wagner, the Ring—the fifteen-hour grand cycle of operatic, theatrical, and literary representation, comprising one ‘Prelude’ (Das Rheingold) and ‘three Evenings’ (Die Walküre, Siegfried, and Götterdämmerung)—has been described as a ‘total work of art’ (Gesamtkunstwerk). It is impossible to comprehend in its entirety merely by reading the poem or listening to the music in private. Full comprehension requires attending its representation on stage—ideally in the privileged emplacement of Bayreuth.

Together with Parsifal, the Ring has been, until very recently, in the annual programme of the Bayreuth Festival, and it was conceived by Wagner as a sacral rite in the regeneration of history. He believed that art might redeem a culture, a society, and a people. Wagner likened the theatre to a temple of Aryan art and mystic rite, and through the Teutonic myth he found elements which would consecrate higher folk-consciousness, and an upward path to the Übermensch.

Only ancient Greece offers anything similar. In fact, Wagner has been often compared to Homer, only for it to be concluded by Herbert von Karajan that ‘Wagner is greater and more complete.’

The key to understanding this suprahumanist myth lies in an ‘idea of music’ that sustains and structures Wagner’s work of art: the living symbol of history’s three-dimensional time.

The key to understanding the suprahumanist myth lies in an ‘idea of music’ that sustains and structures Wagner’s work of art: the living symbol of history’s three-dimensional time.

In Wagner, music, drama (i.e., tragedy) and myth are closely related. Music, according to him, is an idea of the world: more precisely, ‘an idea of the world that encloses everything.’ Tragedy is born out of music, as if emerging from a maternal womb. It represents—realises on stage—this ‘idea’ of music, and does so by regenerating myth, the only form of expression able to reach and recover original purity—which Wagner names ‘the purely Human’ (Rein-Menschliches).

Wagner does not explain this idea of the world. Rather, he realises it by means of the Wort-Ton-Drama: that is, by the association within dramatic action of word and sound. Hence, this idea organises space-time in a radically new way: by establishing humankind’s historical becoming in the form of a tragedy governed by the law of recurrence. At any time, past, present, and future coincide. Becoming is there: only the centre changes, as well as the perspectives resulting from it. Wagner replaces a unilinear conception of time—which he rejects—with a three-dimensional time: the specific time of human becoming.

The image of the ring of the Nibelung—the ring which gives its name to the tetralogy—is the living symbol of the ‘spherical’ conception of history: the music of eternal recurrence.

Always identical, though always renewed, Wagnerian discourse is structured around a certain number of ‘guiding images’ (Leitbilder): the affirmation of becoming (in opposition to being); the premonition of a ‘rupture’ of historical time (Zeit-Umbruch); the return to a mythical past associated with a leap into the future . To these images correspond different Leitmotive (‘guiding motifs’), which constitute their musical transpositions.

The Ring constitutes dramatic representation of the ancient destiny myths of gods and heroes, whose memory the Scandinavian Edda and several German medieval poems had perpetuated. But it is more than that. Wagner’s imagination has transfigured what was hitherto a mere collection of literary fossils: the past that he has chosen and freely reconstituted, the actuality he has given to the old stories, the future that he projects—all these structure a new present of human consciousness. From the birth of a world till its demise —which is also conceived as regeneration and recommencement—an entire history of humankind is prodigiously evoked. Moreover, that history is simultaneously past, current—and coming—and is sustained by an anthropological conception—the Rein-Menschliches—which implies a radical reversal of values. Brought back to life from its millennial tomb, the ancient Germanic myth acquires a new dimension, and at the same time recovers an intoxicating barbarian youth.

It is not accidental that Wagner chose the mythical material of the Edda to represent his idea of the world. Rather, the choice imposed itself on him from necessity, insofar as it corresponded to the choice of one past among others: the choice of a deeper past—that of reconquest of origins and the promise of a longer future. Return to origins, which in egalitarian and Christian romantic discourse was an apparently reactionary lapsus through which pagan unconsciousness found expression, finds in Wagnerian discourse its proper logic—and hence its true countenance.

Structured by and around ‘the idea of music’—the three-dimensionality of time—and finally conscious of itself, Wagnerian discourse is both inspiration for a return to our deepest origins, and zeal to thrust forward into the furthest future: a revolutionary project. Hence, conservation and revolution both confound one another and fuse together in opposition to a civilisation and a society that reclaim another tradition, Jewish-Christian, and another project, egalitarian.

Wotan, the central character of the Ring, is not only the Indo-European pre-Christian god of the first function, the unrecognisable noumenon of an extinct and unrepeatable religion, but is already the new post-humanist god: the New Man, who knows tragically that he has to take care of his destiny, of his own self-creation. By so doing, he tends towards the suprahuman.

For the tragedy of heroes and gods does not find realisation other than in the tragedy of Wotan: in a consciousness which knows and nevertheless wills. Hence, since everything is summarised and transcended in Wotan’s consciousness, as all the characters in the Ring are aspects of the purely human—Rein-menschliches—embodied in one person, Wotan, the Ring is psychodrama. Drama, that is, in which Wagner’s genius projects all the Leitbilder—which precede psychoanalysis by decades. Wotan sacrifices his most intimate will, suppressing what he most loves, Brünnhilde, surrounding her with fire. That fire is no other than Loge himself—the spirit who betrays Wotan—and is the very image of declining paganism accepting the fate of the Christian mask. However, his most intimate will is not destroyed: it lies dormant. Its presence invokes the person who will come to awaken it; and this is the end for which the god is waiting—the beginning of a new history: a regeneration.

Wagner & Nietzsche (ii)

There is an intimate relation between the work of Wagner and of Nietzsche. It is important to stress this relation, for Nietzsche himself made a major manoeuvre of distraction, intending to demonstrate—perhaps first of all to himself—that his work was independent of, and even opposed to, that of Richard Wagner. This exercise of concealment has strongly influenced the judgement of philosophers and intellectuals, who are naturally inclined to pay more attention to the ‘intellectual’ work of Nietzsche than to Wagner’s ‘artistic’ work.

When young, Nietzsche had prostrated himself before the altar of ‘the god Wagner,’ offering in homage The Birth of Tragedy, followed by Richard Wagner in Bayreuth. However, the ‘wonderful days at Tribschen’ were not to last. Nietzsche soon distanced himself from Wagner. The fervent disciple became an apostate: apologist became denigrator and uncompromising adversary. Nietzsche’s later works, The Case of Wagner and Nietzsche contra Wagner, give every appearance of being the venomous attacks of a former disciple against a former master. Wagner is a ‘seducer,’ a ‘corrupter,’ a ‘rattlesnake’: presenting himself as opposite to what he actually is. ‘Schopenhauerian,’ ‘life hater’—Wagner becomes the ne plus ultra of decadence. Worse, with the creation of Parsifal, he is seen to have fallen back into the Christian faith.

Having started with an assault on Wagner’s music—decadent art par excellence—Nietzsche concludes by condemning almost all German music for leading inevitably to Wagner. He sets ‘pure melody’—described as ‘Mediterranean’—against ‘harmony’—described as ‘Nordic.’ Frequently, his exegesis becomes mere caricature—as when, for example, he summarises the ‘intrigues’ of Wagnerian drama. At times his remarks become overtly malignant.

Nietzsche’s confrontation with Wagner has a tragic aspect. Nietzsche suffered greatly in distancing himself from the only man he had ever loved. However, this suffering arose from a kind of metaphysical jealousy. Nietzsche desired the place in history that would be accorded to Wagner. Hence, he needed to show that Wagner was not what he seemed—the creator of a new myth, a regenerator of history—nor could he be, since music was itself a ‘final art.’

Many have remarked on Nietzsche’s jealousy. Thomas Mann addressed Nietzsche’s love-hate relationship with Wagner in Pro and Contra Wagner. Stefan George—who reproached Nietzsche with having ‘betrayed’ Wagner—is more positive: ‘Without Wagner, no Birth of Tragedy, without the awakening initiated by Wagner, no Nietzsche.’ Although his jealousy was essentially intellectual, it crystallised around the person of Cosima Wagner. From the time of his first meeting with her at Tribschen (May 1869) Nietzsche was fascinated by her. He idealised her in the guise of Ariadne. Wagner was simultaneously Minotaur and Theseus, a human, all-too-human hero; he, Nietzsche, was the divine Dionysus. In relation to this there are many revealing passages in the work of Nietzsche—in particular the dialogue between Dionysus and Ariadne in Twilight of the Idols.

Nietzsche saw himself as the unique harbinger of perpetual becoming, eternal recurrence, and superman: only he had reached the foot of the abyss of decadence; only in him did the beginning find its origin. Nietzsche alone was the true Dionysus. The German public had allowed itself to be led astray by Wagner the seducer; Ariadne had mistaken him for God, and married him.

In short, Nietzsche, the philosopher of perpetual becoming, could not endure Wagner’s expression of the philosophy in music. Nietzsche established the philosophical myth of the superman (Übermensch). He explained its logic and created a language for it. However, the myth existed already in the form of Wagnerian opera. Nietzsche merely gave a name to what already existed in music—but he could never admit this.

The structure and elements of the suprahumanist myth are already present in Wagner’s ‘Wotan myth.’ In Nietzsche and in Wagner the same view of history, the same intuitive conception of man, predominates. Nietzsche’s ‘willing of the superman’ corresponds to Wotan’s ‘will to regenerate the world.’ To the ‘will to accept the end’ in Götterdämmerung corresponds the Zarathustrian amor fati, the new conscience of the ‘superior man.’ The temporal structure of the Wort-Ton-Drama, which represents the tragic history of humanity, is given a name by Nietzsche: ‘eternal recurrence’—‘linear’ representation of the historical sphere of becoming. The ‘high noontide’ of Zarathustra prefigures a similar breaking with time (Zeit-Umbruch)—evoked, in the final scene of Götterdämmerung, by the wonderful Leitmotiv which has already promised the regeneration of Siegmund through his son Siegfried. The ‘return to origins’—another essential element of myth in the Ring—is represented doubly in Nietzsche’s writing: by the exaltation of the ‘blond beast’ of the Indo-Europeans, and, at an artistic and cultural level, by pre-Socratic Greece. Both are lost forever, ‘historically unrenewable,’ and must be recreated just as, for Wagner, the ‘end of the gods’ is a prerequisite for the return of the gods.

In their respective works, Wagner and Nietzsche pursued the same end: the regeneration of history. The myth prefigures this aim and is also the means of attaining it. The myth is a ‘didactic account’ which is to create the new man in his own words. The kinship between the music dramas of Wagner and the poetical philosophy of Nietzsche is comparable to the kinship, within egalitarian myth, of different Christian theologies and democratic, socialist, and communist ideologies. If the kinship of Wagner to Nietzsche appears to be very close—as it is in fact—this is because both men mark the beginning of suprahumanist mythology: the moment of birth.

Wagner & Nietzsche (iii)

That they belong in the same ‘mythical camp’ does not, however, imply that in the myth they manifest the same ideological identity. In Richard Wagner in Bayreuth (1876), Wagner was still, for Nietzsche, a universal genius: simultaneously philosopher, historian, artist, master of diction and mythology, and mythic poet. In fact, Wagner the philosopher never succeeded in drawing philosophy from the myth created by Wagner the poet and musician. In his theoretical writing Wagner’s style is still that of Romanticism; and the mythical elements appear as if deformed by a discourse alien to them. Nietzsche realised this and became conscious of his superiority as a philosopher, a superiority Wagner was happy to acknowledge. Hence, Nietzsche’s opposition to Wagner on the grounds that his theoretical work was imposture was spurious.

However, Wagner and Nietzsche did genuinely diverge in the interpretations they gave to certain aspects of the civilisation and culture they execrated. In the triumph of the ‘Judaic principle’ Wagner identified and denounced the essential cause of the decline of humanity: the ‘poison’ he claimed was destroying all real culture. For Wagner this was a relatively recent phenomenon. He attributed it, somewhat naively, to the rising social influence of the Jews, and the resultant Jewish ascendancy in political, artistic, and cultural spheres. Consequently, the different ‘forms’ of German culture—and European culture, also, beginning with the religious form, Christianity—are negative, insofar as they have been ‘invaded’ and ‘perverted’ by the ‘Judaic principle.’ For Wagner, the necessary response to this was to revitalise the ‘Germanness’ of cultural and social forms, and to begin doing so meant removing Jewish influence. Inevitably, Wagner’s analysis auspicated social and political anti-Semitism on his part.

Nietzsche also considered the ‘Judaic principle’ had provoked the debasement of man: that it is at the source of ‘the radical falsification of all nature, all naturalness, all reality’; that it initiated the revolt of the slaves; and that the West has been in decline since ‘God became a Jew.’ To this principle—‘a declaration of war against everything on earth that represents the ascending tendency of life, to that which has turned out well, to power, to beauty, to self-affirmation’—Nietzsche gives a socio-political definition, which he summarises as the principle of equality. For Nietzsche, however, this is not a recent phenomenon: it began with Christianity.

Christianity cannot be understood apart from its place of origin: it is a consequence of Jewry, a logical progression from it. Nietzsche’s anti-Judaism does not lead to anti-Semitism. He doubted the existence of a ‘Jewish people’ as such and believed that the Jews wished above all else to assimilate. On this basis all anti-Semitism is dangerous as it obliges the Jews to band together in self-defence. Furthermore, according to Nietzsche, the damage done is in any case irreparable: no preventive measures can check the decay of European civilisation. Nietzsche’s conclusion is that it would be best to accelerate the process of disintegration. Only on the ruins of Europe would it be possible to rebuild; only once Europeans have become a mass of innumerable slaves resigned to their fate might the master race arise from the abyss. In his autobiographical Ecce Homo, Nietzsche confirms that his ‘attack’ on Wagner is also an attack upon a ‘German nation which is becoming ever more lazy in spiritual matters, ever more impoverished in its instincts.’ The ‘blond beast’ must be ‘reconceived’ in the form of the future ‘good European.’ Nietzsche did not altogether abandon hope in the German people; he was unable to see to what other people might one day be awarded the honour of being the ‘first anti-Christian people of Europe.’ However, his condemnation of Bismarck’s Germany—according to him socialist and democratic—is uncompromising. Wagner’s ironical compromise with the Kaiserreich was another source of disagreement.

Wagner and Nietzsche fought in the same cause, but their strategies were opposed. Nietzsche’s initial enthusiasm, his subsequent reconsideration—and finally his intensified criticism—took place only within, and can only be explained by, the Wagnerian myth. Nietzsche was conscious, and spoke of, a Sternenfreundschaft: the friendship of two stars condemned in their predestined eternal course never to meet.

Moreover, Nietzsche qualified his venomous attack in The Case of Wagner: ‘I loved Wagner and no other . . . Needless to say, I allow no one the right to appropriate my present judgment on Wagner.’ Nietzsche saw his quarrel with Wagner as a family quarrel: his ‘anti-Wagnerian’ polemic should have been the concern only of those whose attachment was already to the myth of the superman and the theme of eternal recurrence.

Perhaps the true reason—the necessity of the ‘betrayal’ of the master—is to be found in the Apollonian commandment to every noble soul, to every ‘superior man,’ to discover himself and to realize himself. Where the egalitarian precept demands the imposition of a single and absolute truth—and, concomitantly, the adaptation of all to the same human model—the opposing precept necessarily pledges each person to the search for true identity in eagle-like solitude.

Wagner & Nietzsche (iv)

According to Nietzsche, with the creation of Parsifal, Wagner is seen to have fallen back into the Christian faith. A failed attempt to try to denigrate Wagner among suprahumanist partisans, not only because Parsifal, in its avowed intention to ‘redeem the redeemer’ (Erlösung dem Erlöser) is simply ‘scandalous’ from a Christian perspective, but also because its representation is intended to short-circuit and transfigure the Christian myth in the mind of the spectator, in order to better express values which are diametrically opposed to those advocated by all Christian denominations.

If we believe „Ecce Homo,“ in 1878 Nietzsche sent a copy of his book Human, All Too Human to Richard Wagner. At the same time Wagner sent Nietzsche a copy of the verse for his opera Parsifal. Nietzsche was to write that when he received this text, “I felt as if I heard an ominous sound – as if two swords had crossed.”

This is just Nietzsche’s pretext for polemics.

Wagner read the draft in prose of Parsifal to Nietzsche in Tribschen in 1869, two years before the latter wrote “The Birth of Tragedy”, his most Wagnerian text. In 1877, Nietzsche wrote a letter to Cosima Wagner dated Oct.10th in which he states: “The magnificent promise of “Parsifal” may offer consolation to us, whenever we need to be consoled”. Nietzsche had known of the existence of Parsifal, and its content, for a long time. Naturally, one may accept that his opinion on the matter had changed over the years, but the question remains: why did he need to falsify the chronology of these events? I suspect a “human-all-too-human” motive.

At the heart of Nietzsche’s criticism of Parsifal was the alleged ‚Schopenhauerian life hate‘ permeating the opera. Schopenhauer had certainly an important influence on Wagner, but his philosophy is ultimately just one of the elements, among others, in the Wagnerian creation. During the last years of his life, and while he was working on “Parsifal”, Wagner was also positively impressed by Gobineau’s “Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races”. As was usually the case with Wagner, he felt that the French diplomat was expressing what had already been intuited by him. The vision of a degraded humanity caused by the miscegenation of the “noble Aryan race” with “inferior races” left a deep imprint. Pessimistic visions of life and history always touched a chord in Wagner, but, both Schopenhauer’s metaphysical pessimism and Gobineau’s catastrophism were left aside in Wagner’s Weltanschauung. In “What Boots This Knowledge?”(1880), he wrote: “We recognise the cause of the fall of Historic Man, and the necessity of his regeneration; we believe in the possibility of such Regeneration, and devote ourselves to its carrying-through in every sense.”

“Parsifal” is a “religion of life”, a religion of “race” if you like (but not in a reductionist biological sense): at the end of the Bühnenweihfestspiel, the spear of Longinus (the phallus), now purified, and the Holy Grail (the uterus) are reunited, so that the “holy blood” may flow anew.

“Parsifal” is also a paraphrasis of the “Ring”, represented this time on a scene that takes us back to the legendary Middle Ages, impregnated, under Christian garments, with Celto-Germanic pagan symbols.

“Erlösung dem Erlöser” (‘redeem the redeemer’) constitutes the core of the “sacred festival”. The “redeemer” is Amfortas, who represents a Christianity which has been poisoned with Judaic dogmas and is incapable of giving satisfaction to the Grail Knights’s religious needs. Titurel, his father, represents, according to Wagner’s indications, Wotan, the ancient Indo-European religion.

According to the Wagnerian interpretation of European religion, “Parsifal” is intimately connected to the “Ring of the Nibelung” (see “Die Wibelungen” and “Art and Religion”). The introduction of Christianity in Europe would not have involved the rejection of the ancestral Indo-European religion’s intimate essence. It would not have replaced Wotan-Zeus-Jupiter, just put him in a state of “dormition”. Jesus, the redeeming hero, is a reincarnation of the pagan Naturgott (Siegfried), but is affected by a mortal wound, which makes him incapable of accomplishing his mission. The wound is the Judaic “infection”: the temptation (Kundry-Judaism), which Amfortas could not by his own nature resist, will be overcome by Parsifal, thanks to the memory of his mother Herzeleide (“the ancestral roots”, “the pure origin”).

In this sense, Wagner is also following Schopenhauer’s agenda: “We may therefore hope that one day even Europe will be purified of all Jewish mythology. Perhaps the century has come in which the peoples of the Indo-European group of languages will again receive the sacred religions of their native countries; for they have again become ripe for these after having long gone astray”(Parerga and Paralipomena).

Yet, Wagner also considers that the historical need that derives from the present religious situation in Europe, in which the historical forms of religiosity are depraved, involves not only the “de-judaization” and abolition of Christianity, but also the death of the ancient pagan remnants, in order to create a higher synthesis, a higher “religion”, in which the human need of “transcendence” will be satisfied by the re-sacralization of Art. The realization on stage of the redemption-abolition of old religions is also the representation of a sacred ritual for a future community, a first step for the regeneration of history.

The “possibility of transcendence” for Egalitarianism takes place in the world beyond, in meta-physics; for Suprahumanism, on the other hand, it takes place in this world, in meta-history, through the announcement of the “Rein-Menschliches” or “purely-human” (the Nietzschean “Übermensch”).

The Aesir-Vanir War

Man’s taming of the living world occurred in parallel to the taming of the mass—by the elite. This historical phase—initiated with the Neolithic Revolution and concluding today with the passage into the so-called ‘Biopolitical Revolution’—is extremely important. It is not difficult to recognise in it what was called by Karl Marx ‘the end of primitive communist society,’ by Sigmund Freud ‘the killing of the primal father,’ and by Claude Lévi-Strauss ‘the separation between Nature and Culture.’

Significant testimony to this period has been preserved in Indo-European mythology, thanks to the story of the formation of the society of the gods—as related, for example, through the Aesir-Vanir War.

The Aesir and the Vanir represent two different ways of life. During the founding war—which set at odds, in symbolic form, the lifestyles of the great hunters and the farmers that emerged out of the Neolithic era—Odin-Wotan, as the pre-eminent god of magic, ‘domesticated’ the Vanir with his magic and assigned to them an harmonious position in the organic tri-functional society, where the ‘domestication of nature’ was completed. This myth signifies the transition from a generic instinctive human subject to a specific conscious human subject who exercises magic power over other men, thereby engendering the conditions for social stratification that are the distinguishing feature of every post-Neolithic society.

Society is now organised into two castes, two social groups. One, which is the dominant class, assumes sovereign and warrior functions; the other assumes the economic function. This structure is reflected in the society of gods, whose genesis the myth, in its own way, reveals. The new society is constituted by the superimposition and domination of ‘magic’ above religious man, of predator above producer. The myth of the Aesir and the Vanir, like that of the Romans and the Sabines, highlights the respective characters of both social groups or families of gods. The former—’preying’ gods who continue the activities of the First Man as self-domesticating man—assert themselves by virtue of the binding magic of their chief, Odin/Wotan; the latter, ‘producing’ gods, carry on the activities of the First Man as ‘self-domesticated’ man. They must and do submit to the former, despite the power deriving from their ‘wealth’ (symbolised by Gullweig’s gold).

This social-divine dichotomy derives from a particular world perception that may be found again, remarkably, in the structure of the Indo-European languages, with the sharp separation between subject and object. ‘Man-subject,’ who continues to exercise ‘magic’ on himself (self-control), begins to exercise it now on the other type: ‘man-object.’ The domesticating ‘magic’ is exercised on man-object from without—and the canons are fixed by other-than-him. Liberated by this ‘religious’ bond from the need to domesticate man in himself, he can now dedicate himself fully to ‘domesticating’ nature: that is, to the production of goods.

The coexistence of these two social types in a harmonious society takes place by synoecism—contractual arrangement—following a ‘war of foundation.’ The sovereign god among Indo-Europeans is always both a terrible god—exercising a ‘magic’ constriction—and a beneficent guarantor of ‘contracts.’ From the Indo-European origins there was always a clear conception of this social contract, which found its most accomplished expression among the Romans.

The Destruction of Aesthetics

Multiculturalism also leads directly to the death of beauty in art. Different cultures have vastly different ideas of beauty. Michelangelo did not produce African masks. Chopin did not write rap or beat on hollow logs. John William Waterhouse and Jackson Pollock inhabited very different inner worlds. In a multicultural society, standards and traditions are abandoned. European standards are necessarily too ‘Eurocentric’; no group may impose its standards on any other—nor even maintain its own traditions for long. In painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature, and the decorative arts, there is no longer a ‘centre.’ The continuity of thousands of years is broken. There is chaos.

The real danger of art for egalitarians is that it offers ideals and models, and those ideals—in classical European art—are not egalitarian ideals, nor are the models politically correct. If you are trying to prepare students to be rootless, cosmopolitan citizens of the New World Order, you certainly do not want them to come into contact with the undemocratic spirit of Homer or Shakespeare.

From it all, a bland, offensive-to-no-one, make-it-as-cheaply-as-possible artistic ethos invades our lives from every side, coupled with an avant-garde which revels in the equally empty perverse. Again, as we begin to live in a society of ugly people, wherever we look we see ugly paintings, ugly advertisements, ugly clothing, ugly body deformations and decorations, and ugly buildings. A people disconnected from its own traditions of beauty—a people inundated with the bland and ugly, mingled with the weird and trendy and ugly—is sickened and greatly weakened.

Aesthetics and Eugenics

In 1920, Knight Dunlap, President of the American Psychological Association, published “Personal Beauty and Racial Betterment. “

Dunlap’s thesis is that what is called personal beauty really inspires the emotional appreciation of the many qualities that make an individual a fit and healthy parent for a fit and healthy next generation of one’s race.

Beauty is a measure of racial fitness for the future. Men and women long for it in their mates, even if they do not understand the nature or significance of that longing. The desire for a beautiful mate is an ineradicable, primordial urge. It is an instinctive part of us. It guides us on our recently interrupted upward journey to higher intelligence, greater strength and power—and increased consciousness and wisdom.

Dunlap asserts that the preservation of beauty is inseparable from the preservation of all civilised values and progress. To lose one is to lose the other. Further, Dunlap warns that our civilisation is fostering increased human ugliness and a withering of human beauty so drastic that only radical and strenuous change may suffice to reverse the process.

What is personal beauty? Dunlap says that it varies distinctly from race to race, ‘but the type which is highest in value tends to approximate the European type, wherever the European type becomes known.’

What is personal beauty for Europeans? There are a great many markers of beauty applying to both sexes. In some cases, these are also marks of an ‘advanced’ race, from a phylogenetic point of view: characteristics which signify the greatest possible difference from more primitive forms.

Considering the profile of the face, one may note the facial angle: the angle, relative to the horizon when a man is standing normally, of a line drawn from the greatest protuberance of the jaw to the most prominent part of the forehead. The average facial angle of the European race is the closest to vertical of any human race. Non-human creatures have lower and lower facial angles as we make our way from the more advanced to the more primitive. Less advanced and smaller-brained creatures (and races) have a lower, more sloping forehead (and hence less capacity in the frontal regions of the brain). More primitive creatures and races also tend to have larger teeth, and larger jaws which jut forward, hence making the facial angle ever closer to the horizontal.

A man or woman with a high or ‘noble’ forehead is better looking to us than one with a steeply sloping forehead. The latter we instinctively view as primitive and ugly, whether we use those words or not. The protruding jaw or the underdeveloped chin and outsized nose give—to European eyes—the human profile a convex and snout-like appearance. Hence, they are bars to beauty, as Europeans perceive it. We may not be conscious of the reason, but our instincts are telling us that the highly evolved is beautiful and the primitive looking is not.

The cast of expression of the human face may be the most important single factor in personal beauty. Even in classical sculpture, where the ideal of European beauty is literally carved in stone, and the entire nude form is revealed, it is still the sublimely high and spiritual expression of the face which arrests our attention more than any other single quality.

The face is the site of the most complex muscle structure anywhere in the body—with a complex nerve structure to match—hence giving our faces an extremely wide and subtle variation of expression. With the dependence of these many muscles on the structure, health, and current state of the nerves, it is unsurprising that much may be learned of the temperament, state of health, and intelligence of a man or woman by studying his or her face. The face and, to a lesser extent, the other parts of the body, offer a constant and multifaceted reflection of the brain and nervous system within.
Clearly, we find our instinctive ideals of beauty—not only as expressed in our sexual selection, but also in our art when uncorrupted and free—in these respects far outstrip reality. Very few embody all such ideals anywhere close to perfection. However, they are our ideals, and insofar as these ideals are favoured in our selection of who will be the mothers and fathers of generations to come, they will indeed offer a glimpse of unborn generations: a glimpse of what will be; a glimpse of the future.

Aesthetics: European vs. Abrahamic

Art is the celebration of life, and the exploration of life in all its aspects. If life is unimportant—a mere diminutive prelude to the real life which is to begin with death—then art can only be of negligible importance.

Greek humanism was superseded by Christianity: by a religion which divided man against himself, teaching him to view his body with shame, his emotions with suspicion, sensuality with fear, sexual love with feelings of guilt. This life, it taught, was a burden, this world a vale of tears—our endurance of which would be rewarded at death: the gateway to eternal bliss. This religion was, inevitably, anti-art and anti-life. The alienation of man from his own nature, especially from his emotional nature; the all-pervading hypocrisy to which this gave rise throughout the Christian era; the devaluation of life and of the world—and hence, inevitably, their wonderfulness; the conception of man as not a god but a worm, and a guilty one at that: all this is profoundly at odds with the creative impulse and its subject matter.

The importance of the desert in biblical symbolism is clear: a desert that erases all representations and rejects them on behalf of the invisible and the uniform. Yahweh’s believer must consent to transforming the imagination into a desert, and this implies a ban on all representation.

Not only are depictions of Yahweh forbidden, but also images of all worldly things—starting, of course, with man, who was created in God’s ‘image.’ It is not hard to find a clear anti-aesthetic bias in biblical iconoclasm.

Christian art began as heresy. Transported to an art-loving people, Christianity became a religion more artistic than would have been the case had it remained in the hands of the Judeo-Christians. However, this came only from a long, slow process. In the Christianity of the first centuries, iconoclasm was the rule: the Mosaic prohibition of image representation was widely observed. The idea of the great ugliness of Jesus was also widespread (e.g., Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria). Only when the Church, following the compromise of Constantine, became more pagan did the birth and development of a Christian iconography become apparent. However, traces of iconoclasm may still be found in Byzantine ritual as well as Protestantism.

Iconoclasm is also present in Islam, where the rare Arabic Muslim thinkers who concerned themselves with aesthetics tended to envision art only in abstract form.

The emptying of human representation goes hand in hand with the abandonment of human particularity and diversity, for these are themselves images.

Extensions of—and contemporary points of comparison with—the Mosaic ban on representation have often been sought, for example, in respect of abstract art, whose birth and development coincide, metaphorically, with that of Post-modernism and—experienced in concrete terms—with the internationalist ideal of the abolition of borders. ‘An entire aspect of Western modernity finds resonance with the old iconoclast exigency, and from this point forward, thinkers of Judaic filiation actively intervene at the tip of this modernity to mark out where it is going, not truly in opposition to it but rather in advance of it.’ (Jean-Joseph Goux, Les Iconoclastes)

The contrast with the Indo-European world is striking. In the Bible, the beautiful is not necessarily good, and the ugly is not necessarily evil. It may even happen that good may be so precisely because of its ugliness, and, similarly, that evil is handsome precisely because it is evil. Lucifer is an angel glowing with light. The Devil will adorn himself with all the paraphernalia of seduction, whereas the arms of Yahweh, says Isaiah (53:2), have grown ‘as a root out of a dry ground, without beauty or comeliness to attract our eyes.’ In paganism, however, good cannot be separated from beauty; and this is normal, because the good is in form, the consummate forms of worldly things. Consequently, art cannot be separated from religion. Art is sacred. Not only may the gods be represented, but art is the means of their representation; and insofar as men perpetually assure them of representation, they possess full status of existence. All European spirituality is based on representation as mediation between the visible and the invisible. Beauty is the visible sign of what is good; ugliness is the visible sign not only of what is deformed or spoiled, but of what is bad.

For the ancient Greeks, solemnity is inseparable from visual, tangible representation. It is through the fusion of the aesthetic and the sacred that religious sentiment attains its peak.

The Hereditarian School

Lapouge: A Pioneer of Eugenics

Georges Vacher de Lapouge (1854-1936) was one of the first theoreticians of Eugenics. Once the most obvious fallacies and exaggerations are removed, Lapouge’s idea of social selection remains interesting and valuable.

Extracted from ‘Les Sélections Sociales’ (1889):

“Changes in the population are possible either through the direct influence of environmental agencies which may modify, step by step, the bodily and mental traits of a population; or through selection,—that is, through a progressive decrease of certain racial* (hereditary) elements and a progressive multiplication of other hereditary types in the population.

The first way does not lead directly to a change of the hereditary type, but it may lead to it in a long period of time. The other way may change the hereditary composition of the population very efficiently and in a relatively short period of time.

In order to show this, the author analyzes the principal environmental agencies. He takes education and tries to show that its efficiency in this respect is very limited. It cannot change the race and the inherited traits of the population. It cannot make out of an innately stupid man, a talented one; out of an inborn idiot, an averagely intelligent man; or out of mediocrity, a genius. The best that education can do is to raise the mental level of mediocrity a little. But even in this respect, its possibilities are limited. The importance of heredity is shown in the fact that education does not diminish the differences between individuals, but rather increases them. If a mediocre talent gains something by education, hereditary talent gains still more, so that after the education, the difference between the former and the latter increases, but does not decrease. Education, furthermore, is incapable of changing the temperament, the character, and the moral traits of people. Finally, the results of education are not inherited; therefore, its fruits cannot be transmitted and fixed into posterity.

The most important, rapid, and efficient way of changing the hereditary composition of a population is not by the direct influence of environment, but by a selection which will lead to a survival and multiplication of one hereditary type, and to the displacement of another type. Through selection, the proportions of different social classes in a population may be changed greatly, and within relatively a few generations.
If we imagine two different families, one producing four surviving children in each generation and the other only three offspring,— then in the course of about three hundred years, the total population will be 93 percent the offspring of the first family, and 7 percent that of the second. This shows how rapidly the factor of selection works, and how efficient it is in changing the genetic composition of a population. The degeneration or improvement of society has been due not so much to the direct influence of environment as to the factor of selection.

This leads to Lapouge’s analysis of selection. He accepts Darwin’s theory of natural selection and the evolution of organisms through the play of this factor, or through the elimination of the unfit and survival of the fittest. Among human beings, however, he believes natural selection gives more and more place to social selection, natural environment being gradually superseded by social milieu. Therefore, natural selection is transformed into a social one, that is, the selection which goes on under the influence not so much of natural as of social environment.

In the subsequent parts of his book, Lapouge analyzes the principal forms and effects of social selection within the past and especially in the present societies. As natural selection may be progressive and regressive, so may social selection lead to a degeneration or to a betterment of the hereditary composition of the population. Its dominant effects, however, are negative within present societies.

1. The first fundamental form of social selection is military, or the selection caused by war. Contrary to general opinion, Lapouge contends that wars do not decrease, but increase with the progress of civilization. Man is more warlike than any animal and contemporary man is more warlike than prehistoric man. With the exception of primitive times, war carries away the best racial elements of the population,—the healthiest, the strongest, the bravest, and the most audacious dolichocephals,—in much greater proportion than the inferior and the brachycephalic population. In this military way the Aryans of ancient Greece and Rome, and the Nordic nobility of Gallia and of the Middle Ages perished to a great extent.
2. The second form of social selection is political, performed under the influence of political factors and political struggles. Its results are also negative. Through revolution and civil strife, this selection facilitates an extermination of the best part of the population among both the aristocracy and the people. To this factor is greatly due the extermination of the aristocracy in ancient Greece and Rome, in the French Revolution, and in other similar cases. Further, in the past, but more especially in the present, political conditions have facilitated the social promotion of nullities, servile people, machinators, and politicians, while they have suppressed, especially in democracies, the social promotion of independent and creative minds. Through the political strife of parties, the chances of survival and procreation of such people are handicapped. Machinators, demagogues, politicians, who rarely belong to the best and creative type of men, greatly profit through this form of selection, while the best people, keeping themselves out of politics, rather suffer from such conditions.
3. The third form of social selection is religions, which is due to the religious conditions. Religion leads directly to selection through the institution of celibacy required by several religions; and indirectly, through various religious institutions. In many religions, the priests and the clergy must be celibate. This means that they cannot leave, at least legally, any posterity. As has been proved many times, church officials recruited from various social strata are usually superior physically, morally, and mentally to other people. Celibacy of this superior group prevents it from leaving superior posterity. In this way, celibacy impoverishes the fund of the superior racial elements of a population and facilitates its racial degeneration. Religion leads to the same disgenic result through religious persecution, wars, and inquisition; and through the prohibition of sexual freedom, by favoring asceticism, its prohibition of marriages with those who have a different religion, and so on.
4. The fourth form of social selection is moral, due to moral obligations and rules of conduct. It is closely connected with religious selection. It manifests itself in such phenomena as the repression and chastisement of sexual liberty, as the demands of decency, and as opposition to bodily nakedness, resulting in our covering ourselves with unhygienic clothes which hinder free breathing, bar the beneficial influence of the sun and fresh air, and facilitate tuberculosis and other sicknesses. In addition, through philanthropy and its propaganda, moral rules facilitate the survival of the weak and the procreation of the inferior. In such ways, morals contribute a great deal to negative social selection.
5. The next form of social selection is juridical, being performed by law and law machinery. It operates through criminal law and the punishment of offenders by execution, imprisonment, banishment, ostracizing, and torture. Many of these offenders are political and this form of selection especially, often has negative effects, because its victims many times include people of superior character. Juridical selection operates further through civil law and its machinery, forbidding consanguineous marriages between relatives, and punishing bigamy and polygamy.
6. The sixth form of social selection is economic, due to the struggle for material necessities. For the best racial elements its results are disastrous also, because the superior people do not care much about money-making, and, as a result, the successful money-makers are rarely superior men. Enrichment is often the result of luck, or dishonesty, or cupidity, or machinations and manipulations. Within present societies, the ”machinators” concentrate wealth. Through wealth, they rise to the top of the social pyramid, and procreate themselves, while the mentally and morally superior individuals must limit their posterity to meet their own conditions. Many of them do not marry at all. In this way, these precious racial elements are lost and the racial fund of a society is impoverished. Marriages dictated by economic reasons lead to the same result when a racially superior, but poor individual takes a rich, but racially inferior man or woman as his mate. In this and in similar ways the present “plutocratic” regime facilitates the procreation of the inferior and hinders that of the superior people. A regime based on wealth is the worst enemy of racial progress.
7. The seventh form of social selection is occupational, called forth by occupational differentiation of the population. Its effects are again negative. Vital statistics show that the more qualified occupational groups have a lower fecundity than the semi-skilled and the unskilled groups. As the people engaged in the qualified occupations are more dolichocephalic than the people in unskilled occupations, this means that occupational selection facilitates the procreation of brachycephals and handicaps that of dolichocephals. It leads to the same racial degeneration to which lead other forms of social selection.
8. The next form of social selection is performed by urban and rural differentiation. Growth of the cities and industrialization calls forth a permanent migration of the country population to the cities. The rural migrants are dominantly more dolichocephalic than those who remain in the country. The migrants, as a rule, are more energetic, enterprising, talented, and superior, than those who remain in the country. Cities permanently drain the best elements of the country population and having drawn them from the country, they make them relatively sterile, either through city vice and sickness or through their own voluntary restriction of fertility for the sake of social promotion. In this way, urban selection diminishes the chances for the procreation of a relatively superior and more dolichocephalic people.

Such, according to Lapouge, are the principal forms of social selections and their factors. The result of all these selections is negative. They lead to an extermination of the best elements within present societies, followed by their racial degeneration and ultimate decay.”

*For Lapouge, ‘race’ was a synonym for social class.

The Suppression of the Hereditarian School

Vacher de Lapouge was the French founder of a school – Anthroposociology – which wanted to apply the new Darwinian science of evolution to the study of politics. Before WWI, he had followers in Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway and the USA.

I don’t think Lapouge was ever translated into English, despite his having several American disciples (Madison Grant, Carlos Closson at the University of Chicago). I know he also visited the USA twice (Second International Eugenics Congress in NYC in 1921 and some Conference on Family Planning with Margaret Sanger).

Sorokin, Professor of Sociology in the University of Minnesota, wrote a work entitled “Contemporary Sociological Theories” in 1928. It contains a chapter on the racial question. The chapter is memorable, for it marks the close of the period in which both sides in the controversy (hereditarians/environmentalists) were free to put forward their views, and authors who wished to do so could give objective accounts of the evidence pointing in each direction. Sorokin supported neither side, he just expressed clearly and shortly the views of both sides in the controversy. The book is worth reading today, as a reminder of what was possible before 1933.

In France, the main opponent of anthroposociology was ?Emile Durkheim ; in the USA, ?Franz Boas. From the beginning of the thirties onwards scarcely anyone outside Germany and its allies dared to follow the hereditarian school, lest it should appear that they were excusing or supporting the Nazi cause. Anthropology became a strictly ‚cultural’ discipline.

Eugenics – the Applied Science of Self-Directed of Human Evolution

Eugenics – meaning the applied science for the self-direction of human evolution – is nowadays the object of Freudian, hypocritical repression.

Although one may say that eugenic concerns are an implicit constant in most post-Neolithic cultures, the essential question of eugenics flares up with the advent of the Darwinian revolution, and of Mendelian genetics—which has long been considered one and the same with eugenics. This arose in anticipation of a very real dysgenic risk in modern times that ‘traditional’ selective factors would break down.

Galton, who coined the term, defined eugenics as ‘the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations.’ The philanthropic motives that encouraged him to develop the new science are beyond question: Man is gifted with pity and other kindly feelings; he has also the power of preventing many kinds of suffering. I conceive it to fall well within his province to replace Natural Selection by other processes that are more merciful and not less effective. The way of hunger, death, stupidity, delusion, chance, and bare survival—natural selection—is thus replaced by the way of life, will, aspiration, and achievement—conscious evolution—not merely on a temporary and local basis, as in ancient Sparta, but permanently and universally.

Breeding may itself be considered an early aristocratic technique. Yet, it was impossible to return to earlier Western social forms based on a hereditary aristocracy that had achieved their position by means of the military accomplishments of their ancestors. Hence, in the early twentieth century, a current of thought headed in the direction of developing a natural aristocracy based on intelligence, moral probity, and meritocratic social mobility. This was the heyday of eugenics as a belief system common among European elites—both liberal and conservative.

Ultimately, the eugenics movement was shattered; it was a victim of the outcome of the Second World War, although eugenics was not expunged from polite society until the 1960s as an outcome of an energetic campaign by Holocaust-haunted egalitarian intellectuals bent on striking a blow against their rivals (nevertheless, in Sweden the eugenics programme continued until 1975).

However, before it was ‘cursed,’ eugenics had long been perceived—essentially until the 1930s—as a ‘progressivist’ theme, since it was linked to concerns about the evolution of society in general (and correlated with the latter ‘taking charge of itself ’), to the extent that even Soviet intellectuals and scientists promoted its study.

In Germany, the philosopher Peter Sloterdijk—politically on the left—recently argued that, given the understanding existing in genetic science, the eugenic dream of ‘selection’ is now within reach. Sloterdijk’s use of the word ‘selection’ horrified, of course, his colleagues, for whom the word evokes the ramp at Auschwitz. What most worried critics, however, was Sloterdijk’s argument that this capability should be exploited to breed a new generation of human beings. Coming after Sloterdijk’s open letter in Die Zeit attacking Jürgen Habermas as the representative of an outdated humanism, suggestions were made that he was ‘flirting with fascism,’ which reveals the uncertainty and fear still evoked by the issue of ‘conscious evolution.’ The Sloterdijk controversy demonstrates the almost exclusively ideological nature of contemporary discussions of eugenics. This has been accentuated by the increasing erosion, because of technoscientific progress, of the subjective costs of eugenic practices. Such costs have plummeted ever since the exposure of newborns, and the strict parental or communal control of mating gave way to the chemical or surgical sterilisation of severely retarded individuals, as well as to birth control. These have been succeeded by prematrimonial anamnesis—replaced, in turn, by prenatal diagnosis and genetic screening. In turn, these will be supplanted by IVF with embryo and gamete selection; and, finally, by direct therapeutic manipulation of germlines. In fact, in respect of contemporary and upcoming procedures, the natural empathy for the individuals concerned operates in an entirely favourable sense—to the point of rendering unconditional rejection of eugenics an increasingly embarrassing and untenable position.

The key issue regarding eugenics are which countries will develop it to its fullest extent. Francis Galton had already predicted in 1909 that ‘the nation which first subjects itself to a rational eugenical discipline is bound to inherit the earth.’

Postmodernism from The Right to The Left and Back.

I/ Classical Liberalism (Enlightenment) seeks to establish Aristocratic Egalitarianism vs. Monarchic Absolutism. Partial success both in England and the USA but disaster on the continent (French Revolution).

II/ Nietzsche makes the first modern critique of the French Revolution (previous counter-enlightenment authors were traditionalists using a pre-modern language and advocating a return to Church and Throne).

Nietzsche was a brilliant philologist and acute psychologist (rare for a German): aware of cognitive biases and priors, identifies clearly the two souls wrestling for the mastery of European soul: Aristocratic Aryanism vs. Plebeian Abrahamism.

He was, however, a bad scientist (sometimes, reason and science seem to be in his writings synonymous with Kantian Rationalism; and knows nothing about economics (markets and prosperity).

In a nutshell, he ignores the potential of the liberal revolution (science, law, and markets) but has deep insights on its inherent contradictions (an aristocratic republic where slavery is legal, like Ancient Greece, proclaiming ‘we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal).

When he poetically drafts his own alternative to Abrahamism (Thus spake Zarathustra), he does not know how to escape from Abrahamic language and rhetoric.

III/ Conservative Revolution: while Germany is humiliated, defeated and prostrated, a group of German thinkers, inspired mostly by Nietzsche, try to argue a modernist return to traditional feudal monarchy, while fighting against Bolshevism on the East, Liberalism on the West and internal subversion, but inheriting all the defects of II and adding their own biases and resentments:

1. Heidegger: German pilpul (“Germans are the chosen ones”);
2. Spengler: High Cultures follow an inexorable evolution, and do not communicate with each other (“Germany shall be the new Rome, not England or the USA”. Once Germany loses IWW, cultural relativism, beginning of ‘Multikulti’;Carl Schmitt: Law is the synonym of Power (“German Might is Right”);

1. Ernst Juenger: “Bolshevism can only be nationalist, not internationalist” (Der Arbeiter).

The defeat on the IIWW battlefields is the proof, according to the own tenets of III, of Germany’s wrongdoing.

IV/Post-modernism recycles II & III, adding French ‘coup d’esprit’ (witty silliness) and Cultural Marxism (the slave revolt and the inversion of values: the last shall be the first, the strong are weak, the ugly are beautiful, etc).

V/ Alt-Right starts also in France at the same time as IV: Nouvelle Droite & Alain de Benoist. It tries to re-interpret II and III from the right instead of from the left, but the historical context (May 68) is not the same as the Weimar Republic.

VI/ American internet Alt-Right compounds all the previous errors and adds their own; besides they rarely work from the original source but through elaborations and re-elaborations of IV and V.

Note: outliers such as Dugin and Jorjani share the framework of I IV and V and add a good dose of occultism and sheer kookiness: Telepathy, Clairvoyance, Telekinesis, UFO’s, Atlantis, Rudolf Steiner, etc. (‘Prometheus and Atlas’).

THE SENSE OF HISTORY

—“You are caught in the current of unceasing change. Your life is a ripple in it. Every moment of your conscious life links the infinite past with the infinite future. Take part in both and you will not find the present empty.” —(Oswald Spengler)

What is it to be human? What is the purpose of human existence?

Within the limits of current knowledge, reality can be apprehended at four different levels: microphysical (elementary energy), macrophysical (matter), biological (organic systems), and human (self-reflecting consciousness). These four aspects of reality interpenetrate; however, they are far from being the same.

Man participates at all four levels: he lives, singularly, at their intersection. He is energy, matter, and life—but he is also something else. This ‘something else’ gives man his specificity.

In the flux in which all things exist, the macrophysical universe—the cosmos—has no history. In the way we perceive and represent it to ourselves, the universe changes only its configuration through time. Regarding the microphysical elementary level of reality, it may be said only that it has its own structure, which is discontinuous. Not even life has history: it merely evolves. History is the particular way in which man—and man alone—becomes. Only man becomes historically. Hence, the question of knowing whether history has a purpose entails knowing whether man, who is in history and makes history, has purpose also.

Today, history—and therefore human specificity—is under accusation. It is, as we shall see, an old phenomenon; however, nowadays the accusation is more vehement, more explicit than ever. There is total condemnation without resort to appeal. History is said to be the consequence of the alienation of humanity. The end of history is evoked, proposed, projected—with preaching of return to nature; advocacy of degrowth (décroissance); dreaming of an end to all tensions and conflicts—of serene and quiet balance, modest but safe happiness: the happiness of other animals. Universal peace, pacifism, pre-historical matriarchy, primitive communism, Edenic paradise—these are other avatars of the same view.

The idea of an end of history might seem most modern. In fact, this is not at all so. To examine things more attentively is to realise that such an idea is nothing more than the logical outcome of a current of thought at least two thousand years old—a tendency that has over that time dominated and moulded what we have come to refer to as ‘Western civilisation.’ This current of thought is egalitarianism.

II

Irrespective of the forms it has adopted, the egalitarian world view has always been eschatological. It attributes a negative value to history, and discerns sense in historical motion only insofar as the latter tends towards its own negation and final end.

According to this view, history has a beginning and it must also have an end. It is but an episode—an incident as far as what constitutes the essence of humanity is concerned. The true nature of man would be external to history. And the end of history would restore—sublimating it—whatever existed at the beginning. Human eternity would be based not on becoming but on being.

This episode which is history is perceived in the Christian perspective as damnation. History derives from man being condemned by God—owing to original sin—to unhappiness, labour, sweat, and blood. Humanity lived in happy innocence in the Garden of Eden, and was condemned to history because its forefather, Adam, transgressed the divine commandment, wanting to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge: to become like God. Adam’s fault weighs, as original sin, upon every individual who comes to the world. It is, by definition, inexpiable, since God himself was offended.

However, God, in his infinite goodness, himself takes charge of the expiation. He becomes man—incarnate in the person of Jesus. The sacrifice of the Son of God introduces in historical becoming the essential event of Redemption. No doubt this concerns only those individuals touched by Grace, but it makes possible the slow march towards the end of history, for which, from then on, the ‘communion of saints’ must prepare humanity. Finally, there will come a day when the forces of Good and Evil will come face to face in a battle that will lead to a Last Judgement and, thence, to the instauration of the Kingdom of Heaven—which has its dialectical counterpart in the abyss of Hell.

Eden before the beginning of history; original sin; expulsion from the Garden of Eden; traversing the vale of tears that is the world—the place of historical becoming; Redemption; communion of saints; apocalyptic battle and Last Judgement; end of history and instauration of a Kingdom of Heaven: these are the mythemes that structure the mythical vision of history proposed by Christianity. In this vision, man’s historical becoming has a purely negative value, and the sense of an expiation.

The same mythemes can be found—now in a secularised and supposedly scientific form—in the Marxist view of history. There, history is presented as the result of the class struggle: a struggle between groups defined in relation to their respective economic conditions. The prehistoric Garden of Eden has been transformed into a primitive communism practised by a humanity still immersed in the state of nature and of a purely predatory character. Whereas man in Eden was constrained by God’s commandments, man in primitive communism lives under the pressure of misery. Such pressure has brought about the invention of the means of agricultural production, but this invention has also turned out to be a curse. It has entailed, indeed, not only the exploitation of nature by man, but also the division of labour, the exploitation of man by man, and, consequently, human alienation. The class struggle is the implicit consequence of this exploitation of man by man. Its result is history.

As we can see, for Marxists it is economic conditions that determine human behaviour. By logical concatenation, the latter leads to the creation of ever new systems of production which, in their turn, cause new economic conditions and—especially—ever greater misery for those who are exploited. Nevertheless, there comes a moment of Redemption. With the arrival of capitalism misery peaks—it becomes unbearable. Proletarians become conscious of their condition, and this redemptive realisation gives rise to the organising of communist parties—exactly as the redemption of Christ had caused the founding of a communion of saints. The Judeo-Christian notion of ‘Grace’ finds its equivalent, especially in relation to the Sermon of the Mount.

Communist parties carry out an apocalyptic struggle against the exploiters. This may be long and difficult, but it will ultimately and necessarily be successful: it is ‘the sense of history.’ This will bring about the abolition of social classes, put an end to man’s alienation, and allow the instauration of a communist society—unchanging and classless. Furthermore, since history is the result of the class struggle, evidently there will be no more history. Prehistoric communism will be reinstated—like the Garden of Eden in the Kingdom of Heaven—but in a sublimated way. While primitive communist society was afflicted by material misery, post-historic communist society will enjoy a perfectly balanced satisfaction of its needs.

Hence, in the Marxist view, history also assumes a negative value. Born originally because of human alienation, it makes sense only insofar as it increases incessantly the misery of those exploited, finally contributing to the creation of the conditions through which misery will disappear and, as it were, ‘marching’ towards its own end, its self-abolition.

Both egalitarian views—religious Christian and secular Marxist—logically imply that history is determined not by the action of man, but by something that transcends him. It is true that Christianity ascribes free will to man and so affirms that it was Adam, having freely ‘chosen’ to sin, who is responsible for his fault, for his imperfection. However, it was God who made and wanted Adam to be imperfect.

On the other hand, Marxists were sometimes wont to say that history was made by man—or rather men, as members of a social class. However, it is the case that social classes are determined and defined by economic conditions, and that it had been original misery that had constrained men to enter into that bloody concatenation which is the class struggle. Man is then incited to act only as a result of his economic condition. He is a mere decoy in a game played in nature by material forces.

Within the egalitarian vision of history, man performs a dramatic role—in a tragic, shameful, and painful farce—one that he has not written and will never write. Dignity, as an authentic human truth, is found outside history—before it and after it.

Everything contains in itself its own relative antithesis. The eschatological view of history also has its own relative egalitarian antithesis: the theory of infinite progress. According to this, historical motion is represented as constantly tending towards a ‘zero’ which is never attained. This ‘progress’ may go in the direction of ‘always better’—excluding, however, the idea of a perfect and absolute good. It becomes then the liberal ideology of the Belle Époque, the view of a certain recycled Marxism, or that of the naive American way of life.

Change may also proceed as ‘always worse’ without ever arriving at its lowest point—according to the yardstick used. Such is exemplified in the pessimistic vision of Freud, Marcuse, and other Freudian-Marxist thinkers who failed to see how reproduction of the unhappiness that represents civilisation could ever be stopped. Under such conditions, the sole possibility for man not to add evil to evil is to maintain reference to the notion of an end of history, even if it is known this will never occur—or precisely because of this. This messianic expectation is considered operative and fruitful. The same conception may be observed in Bernard-Henri Lévy. The attitude which logically derives from such a vision of things is hypercriticism as a principle: opposing a perpetual ‘no’ to the dangers lurking behind any ‘yes.’ While ‘orthodox’ Marxist theory reproduced, in secular form, the Christian theory of history, neo-Marxist or Freudian-Marxist theory reproduces more closely the theory of classical Judaism.

The notion of ‘infinite progress’—once it played the instrumental role that every relative antithesis has played since the invention of the Devil—tends nowadays to be reabsorbed into its eschatological thesis. The latest example is Francis Fukuyama: ‘What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.’ Fukuyama himself identifies to a degree with Marx, but most strongly with the German philosopher Hegel, by way of Alexandre Kojève. Kojève argued that the progress of history must lead toward the establishment of a ‘universal and homogeneous’ state, most probably incorporating elements of liberal or social democracy.

III

It is well established that Nietzsche was the first to reduce Christianity, democratic ideology, and communism to their common denominator: egalitarianism. Since the representatives of these schools of thought have usually called themselves ‘humanists,’ the Nietzschean philosophy—in contrast to egalitarianism—may be labelled ‘suprahumanist.’ It was Nietzsche who also first proposed an alternative vision of history—one which currently opposes, sometimes in a subterranean way, but ever more tenaciously—the eschatological/egalitarian view.

Nietzsche wanted not only to analyse, but also to combat egalitarianism. He wanted to inspire and vivify a project opposed to egalitarianism: to animate another will, to give strength to a diametrically opposed value judgement.

Hence, his work presents two complementary aspects. The first is properly critical—perhaps scientific. Its purpose is to stress the relativity of every value judgement, every moral—and of every truth claimed to be absolute. In this way, he exposes the relativity of the ‘absolute principles’ proclaimed by egalitarianism.

Together with criticism, there exists also an aspect that might be defined as poetic—in a sense derived from the Greek poiein (‘to make, to create’). In his poetic work, Nietzsche wants to give life to a new type of man, one who will be bound to new values and derive principles of action from an ethic other than that of Good and Evil.

To give an image of a society founded on the values proposed by him, Nietzsche turns to the examples of ancient Greece and Rome, or the aristocratic and conquering societies of Indo-European antiquity. This is well known. However, insufficient attention has been paid to Nietzsche’s simultaneous warning against the illusion that it is possible to ‘bring back the Greeks,’ i.e., resuscitate the pre-Christian world. This detail is extremely important in that it offers the necessary key to better understanding the Nietzschean vision of history.

The concept time of history may seem at first sight abstruse; however, it is a notion we all have, perhaps unconsciously.

The ancient world entertained a cyclical view of history, believing that every moment of history was destined to repeat itself. Historical time was represented by a circle: it was by nature linear. With Christianity a new feeling about the world, man, and history is born. The new time of history will remain linear; however, it is no longer circular but rather segmentary—more precisely, parabolic. As described above, for Christianity history has a beginning, a climax, and an end. And it does not repeat itself. History has, furthermore, a negative value: provoked by original sin, history is the passage through a vale of tears.

The suprahumanist conception of history is no longer linear, but rather three-dimensional: inextricably linked to that one-dimensional space which is the consciousness of every human being. Every human consciousness is the room occupied by a present. This present is three-dimensional, and the three dimensions—bestowed at the same time as the three dimensions of physical space—are actuality, past, and future.

What, then, is human consciousness as that space of a time given to each of us? It is, on the dimension of becomeness, memory, presence of the past; on the dimension of actuality, presence of spirit ready to action; on the dimension of becomingness, presence of the project and goal pursued, a project that, memorised and presented to the spirit, determines the action under progress.

Man’s historical becoming may then be conceived as a collection of moments, each one composing a sphere within a four-dimensional ‘supersphere,’ the centre of which may be occupied by any moment respective to any other. According to this perspective, the actuality of every moment is no longer called ‘present.’ On the contrary, ‘present, past, and future’ coexist: they are the three dimensions of every historical moment.

If the sphere of historical becoming is visualized in one-dimensional terms, history can be imagined as something that appears as a straight line to the egalitarian-minded. To the suprahumanist, this line is only that of biological evolution, above which history is manifested. Since the sphere of historical becoming is experienced differently, as a ‘present’ for each conscious mind, the representations of history are similarly different.

This clash between the one-dimensionality of our biological sensitivity and the three-dimensionality of our historicity—the fact that man is not only life, but something else—was in the past somehow intuited. Man has always felt himself to be something other than ‘nature,’ has seen himself differently from the animal, affirming his own ‘consciousness’—sometimes attributing it to an absolute devoid of any materiality—in face of the ‘non-consciousness’ of things and animals. Forever, he has felt himself living, tragically, in two space-times, and has tried to represent to himself such a duality through the opposition between body and soul, temporality and eternity, matter and spirit, this world and the kingdom of heaven, human and divine—in each of which the first member of the pair has typically held a negative connotation in relation to the second. This sort of intuition may have had justification in its own time. In our own, it is an error. Nietzsche’s dictum that ‘God is dead’ means that we must bring soul, eternity, spirit, heaven, and the divine back to their ‘place of origin’: that is, to a human consciousness that, in so doing, becomes self-conscious being.

Concepts such as ‘regress,’ ‘conservation,’ and ‘progress’ lose their meaning in the suprahumanist discourse and are sometimes confused with one another. In the one-dimensionality in which we project the historical sphere, this one forms a circle—an eternal recurrence—where every ‘progress’ is also a ‘regress.’ Here lies the enigma proposed by Nietzsche with the mythemes of the Eternal Return and the High Noontide. The identical that returns is of a biological order, and the same only from a material—not an historical—point of view; historic is, on the other hand, the diversity—the appearance of new forms which may provoke the rupture of time (Zeitumbruch)—and regenerate history.

The past does not correspond to that which was, ‘once and for all,’ a frozen element that the present would leave behind for good. In the same manner, the future is no longer the obligatory effect of all the causes that have preceded it in time and have determined it, as in the linear egalitarian vision of history. At every moment of history—in every actuality—past and future are, so to speak, brought into question, reconfigured according to a new perspective: they mould another truth. One might say, by means of another image, that the past is but the project which man uses to shape his historical action—a project he tries to realise according to the image he has of himself and which he tries to incarnate. The past then seems like a prefiguration of the future. In its proper sense, it is the imagination of the future.

The Renaissance of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was precisely that—a rebirth. This rebirth was no journey backward, or a simple resurgence of the past: it was, on the contrary, the point of departure for a new spiritual adventure, an adventure of a European soul now triumphant, having awakened to itself: the deliberate choice of a more authentic, harmonious, and powerful future.

This three-dimensional conception of time is the only one that may affirm logically man’s historical freedom. In the vision proposed by Nietzsche, man carries the whole responsibility of historical becoming. History is his work. It is equivalent to saying that he carries the whole responsibility of himself, that he is truly and fully free: faber suae fortunae. This freedom is an authentic freedom, not conditioned by the grace of God or the constraints of an economic, material situation.

It is also a true freedom—consisting in the possibility of choosing between opposed options: options that exist at every moment of history, and that always bring into question the totality of Being and of man’s becoming. If these options were not realisable, the choice would be but fake, freedom false—and man’s autonomy mere appearance.

Since man is not only an historical, but also a social animal, this choice presents itself in the form of epochal alternatives: the decisions taken by the groups of men involved will have political effect in world history.

What, then, is the alternative offered to the men of our age? Nietzsche said that the choice was between the last man—the man of the end of history—and the leap towards the superman: the regeneration of history. Ultimately, the outcome will depend on us—on European men and women—on the choice we make between these options. For us, the historical decision is always and at the same time a wake-up call addressed to the past, to a forgotten or lost origin; a decision to surpass a decaying present; and the undertaking of a future project that has hitherto never taken place—because it is suprahumanist.

Promethean Fire: Aryans, Semites & Science

The world today is dominated by technology as never before. It is impossible to travel anywhere without seeing some manifestations of the technological wizardry that has shaped life on the planet todayâ??particularly those innovations developed at the time of the Industrial Revolution.

One crucial – and typically ignored – feature of this astonishing technological revolution is that the great technological innovations which have set the pace for the entire world are exclusively the product of a tiny minority of Europeans.

One of the particular traits of Indo-European languages, already noticed in the nineteenth century by such philologists as Wilhelm von Humboldt and Ernest Renan, was their implicit capacity for abstract thoughtâ??a precondition of any sort of scientific theory and praxis.

Renan was also the first to establish a connection between religion and ethno-geographical origin. He contrasted a “psyche of the desert” found among Semites “the desert is monotheistic? with a “psyche of the forest,” characteristic of Indo-Europeans whose polytheism appears to be modeled on a changing nature and a diversity of seasons. He observed that the intolerance of Semitic people is an inevitable consequence of their monotheism. Indo-European peoples, before their conversion to Semitic ideas, never regarded their religion as absolute truth. This is why there is found among these peoples a freedom of thought, a spirit of critical inquiry, and individual research.

Techne (technological development) ?the appropriation and control of a surrounding environment via technology” may be considered a trait defining the specifically human. It is inevitable companion to the progress of human knowledge; however, it also describes something that has been devised and developed in a peculiar way only in the Indo-European context: from the Battle-Axe culture war chariot to the laser and the moon rockets designed by Wernher von Braun.

In particular, modern technology is closely linked to the Westâ??to a culture underpinned by a “compromiseâ?? between Europe and Judeo-Christianity. Following the Christianisation of Europe, paganism survived underground in several forms. It survived in folk beliefs and traditions; in â??hereticalâ?? trends inside or on the margins of official religion that have extended even into the present; and in a collective unconscious that finds release chiefly in music, and in science and technology.

In this sense, science and technology may be interpreted as arising from the impact of long-standing monotheistic repression of the European collective subconscious, and from the contradictory process of secularisation and emancipation to which this repression gave rise, and which began with the Renaissance. What doesnâ??t kill you, makes you strongerâ?¦Let us remember the names of the American rockets and space programs of von Braunâ??s times: Thor, Atlas, Titan, Jupiter, Delta, Mercury, Apollo. None was called â??Jesus,â? â??Forgiveness and Love,â? or â??Holy Bible.â?

In Man and Technics, Spengler wrote: â??To build a world oneself, to be oneself Godâ??that is the Faustian inventorâ??s dream, and from it has sprung all our designing and re-designing of machines.â??

The Jewish-Christian traditionâ??and the â??grand narrativesâ?? it producedâ??is explicit in the rejection of the Faustian temptation. Nietzsche remarks in The Antichrist that â??such a religion as Christianity, which does not touch reality at a single point and which goes to pieces the moment reality asserts its rights at any point, must be inevitably the deadly enemy of the wisdom of this world, which is to say, of science.â??

Man must repress his â??prideâ??: he may not eat the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge, lest he create instruments competing with the perennial nature created by God. It is sacrilegious behaviour, as the myths of the Golem and the tale of Frankenstein remind us. As in the pastâ??when opposing dissectionâ??the Church now condemns contraception, genetic engineering, and biotechnological research in general.

It is not difficult to see why egalitarianism is anti-Promethean. Every new advance in technology is an advance in respect of the ability of some to control others. If one considers, as in the Bible, Rousseau, or Marx, that it is an ethical duty to condemn the exercise of control or powerâ??the domination of man by manâ??then it is easy to perceive that such epochal mutation as our societies are experiencing will produce new vertical division between man and man, and between society and society, just such as the Neolithic Revolution provoked: namely, (1) differentiation between the body of consociates and the aristocracies that came to exercise political power, creating cultural forms and directing community life; and (2) the fact of certain societies coming to dominate others.

Any dream of independence and self-determinationâ??individual or collectiveâ??any sort of political, economic, or cultural sovereigntyâ??may be realised only through the technical means necessary for such ambition.

Science is a domain which the European mind has monopolised, and technology a tool that can make man into a god. These must be especially valued by Europeans if they are to mount a primordial, Faustian response to life which can recapture and transcend the Indo-European outlook for post-Neolithic man.

Promethean Fire (ii): Environmental Questions

Our zeitgeist is affected by a primitivist attitude: by a generalised and apocalyptic denunciation of European man’s Faustian spirit.

Specifically, environmental transformation is universally frightening: matters pertaining to ecology or natural resources now arouse atavistic fears. Perhaps the will to knowledge and conquest is the original sin that will lead humankind to its self-destruction.

The optimism characterising liberal technocracy and messianic Marxism has vanished. The evolution of the means of production and of industrial society—a dialectical presupposition for overcoming capitalism—has come to crisis. Western liberals (called ‘progressives’ in continental Europe) rediscover Rousseau, the ‘state of nature’ which man should have never left, the ideals of a bucolic-Arcadian life, and biblical curses against science, urban life, and work.

Apocalyptic science fiction and futurology—from ‘global warming’ to the ‘convergence of catastrophes’ or ‘peak oil’—become successful genres. The idea of progress turns over into its contrary: optimism at all costs into millenarianism.

The study of the environment—or, rather, environments—in relation to the forms of life it contains, and the transformations that take place there, began at the end of the nineteenth century. Ernst Haeckel introduced the term ‘ecology’ in 1868.

Ecology, as any other science, establishes its own technique, allowing, and creating, a situation of appropriation and dominion of man over the studied object—in this case the environment, the ecosystem: nature. By semantic glide, the term ecology refers today to an ideology: environmentalism, whose proponents are pleased for it to be called ‘ecologist.’ The central tenet of this ideology—which is a transposition of Marx’s predictions from the economic to a ‘naturalist’ domain—might be summarised as follows: Industrial society produces a set of ecological contradictions that will necessarily lead it to its own ruin in the near future.

Environmentalism commits an ancient error. It is an error based on the false, abstract, universalist idea of nature as (1) static, motionless, and forever given; and (2) distinct from—in opposition to—man and culture. Environmentalists tend to ignore man, as a living being, constituting part of nature. The environmentalist view leads, necessarily, into a paradisiacal view of nature: purely intellectualistic, and typical of those living in a hyper-protected environment. Furthermore, it tends to deny the dynamic reality of the universe.

The very same discipline of ecology rejects this vision and shows how ecosystems evolve and decay: how ecological balance is, in reality, the result of different dynamics that may vary, and typically do so, without human intervention. Balance results from the interaction between (1) the struggle of all living species to survive and increase their numbers, and (2) the characteristics of a given biotope at a particular time. In fact, there is no prearranged and indefinitely self-sufficient natural balance in danger of being ‘disturbed.’

The environmentalist idea of nature departs from the experiences of a world which, for millennia, has experienced man’s formative intervention. In itself, nature is neither unpolluted, nor benign, nor apt for human life—merely ‘adaptable.’ Whoever imagines nature as a cross between orchard, zoo, garden, and golf course fails to realise how much he is conditioned by an environment which is already the product of human activity.

Finally, man is an animal species as any other, with the same ‘right’ to participate in the ecosystem as a seal or a penguin. That ‘right’ to participate according to his own ‘nature’—that is to say, his culture—gives shape to himself and to his world, according to a certain world view, a certain technique: the appropriation and dominion of that which environs him.

Such philosophical considerations, however, should not—and cannot—hide the extremely serious environmental problems facing contemporary society. The challenge, however, is not to achieve the dominion of man over nature, but to bear in mind that any dominion must carry a condition, which is protection. Being ‘on top’ carries responsibility for those below. Any freedom, through offering the possibility of choice, entails risk. Any dominion must carry corresponding responsibility. Man has at his disposal a power over the environment unknown until now. It may also entail an unpredictable measure of destruction.

It should be evident that man needs to preserve the capital which his own environment—together with related natural resources—represents for him, and to avoid its dilapidation in the space of one generation for purposes of immediate consumption. Contemporary society is oriented in precisely the opposite direction. The system is constitutionally incapable of perceiving value unless it is immediately translated in the short term into an increase of purchasing power. This handicap prevents Western civilisation from foreseeing not only the costs the ‘standard of living’ may exact in terms of mental health or environmental degradation, but even the very same economic costs generated by the lack of an organic environmental policy.

It will not be possible to end this situation and to carry out a consciously organic and effective intervention through an (unlikely) programme of social pedagogics. Only when European society is capable of expressing a political will, and becomes again a subject—rather than an object—of history; only when the political domain is restored to its proper place above today’s economic and financial dictatorship; only with such conditions met will it be possible to devise proper policies on environmental issues, natural resources, and energy self-sufficiency.

In fact, the entire cultural milieu gives signs of profound unsuitability in respect of facing the present challenge. The hegemony of deterministic ideologies—optimistic or pessimistic as they might be—and the corresponding erosion of sense of responsibility produced; and the mediocre hedonism characterising our societies—these represent so many obstacles for the adoption of a different attitude. The present paradigm tends to destroy environmentally both the past (roots) and the future of the community (territory, capital, and ethnic resources).

Scientific progress in the environmental domain gives us the opportunity to intervene: not only to protect the ecosystem but to transform it, according to our intentions, on a scale unimaginable until now. Our rejection of both primitivist ecologism and of the blind greed and plunder of large corporations is based on the notion that environmental protection and technological development and expansion are not mutually contradictory but rather are mutual preconditions.

Pollution began when man first made fire: when technique allowed the exploitation of energy sources. From then on, technological progress and energy consumption have never ceased to accelerate. Until very recently, health conditions and quality of life have improved in proportion with the level of energy consumption and technological development. Now, however, further increase in energy consumption may reverse the process, due to high levels of pollution and environmental degradation which reduce the welfare of individuals and nations.

Another hypothesis may perhaps be formulated: technological progress and energy production, accelerated and directed by the right political will, may erase the very inconvenience and degradation they cause today and threaten to cause in the near future. With proper organic environmental policy and precise and determined will, it is possible to advance much further along the right path.

The First Man was immersed in his natural environment; the Second Man (product of the Indo-European revolution of Neolithic times) had to take into consideration the consequences of his own presence in that environment; the Third Man lives in a wholly cultural environment: he is fully responsible for its balance, aspect, and compatibility with human life—everything depends on him and his choices. Once the ‘natural’ environment has forever disappeared—and this is so on our planet at least—a park or garden become as ‘artificial’ as a factory or a temple, and such may come into existence—or be maintained—only on condition there exists a political will, and the technical capacity to apply that will effectively.

Environmental degradation and ecological catastrophe are not consequence of the development of technology, nor will they be avoided by limiting its use. They are collateral products of transition into the Third Man, and the persistent delusion that decisions on such matters may be entrusted to impersonal and ‘rational’ mechanisms, of legal or economic kinds.

It may be possible to imagine environmental policy that has more ambitious goals than merely assurance of the basic conditions for survival of the human species. For example: the maintenance of biodiversity, or the creation of rich differentiated ecosystems, for symbolic, affective, and/or aesthetic reasons. The extreme limit of such discourse would be terraforming: millennial projects destined to transform environmental conditions and to create new ecologies.

We must not forget that our situation as a species in the universe is more precarious than we commonly accept. It behoves us to evolve in knowledge and power, and to secure command of possible environments as quickly as possible. This may involve ‘genetic engineering,’ or it may be achieved as by-product of solar system colonisation and terraforming.

Environmental problems are real. The issue is not to know who is for or against pollution, environmental degradation, or global warming. Nobody is for these things. We need to know whether solutions to the problems caused by the transformation of the environment may be found going forward and ‘surpassing,’ or backward into ‘regression.’ The ‘naturalist’ illusion maintains that man should stop transforming the world. The suprahumanist position urges that man transform himself in order to retake possession of the world transformed by him.

Nature as abstract entity has no existence independent of its manifestations: ourselves. Nature is us. Life is an aristocratic pyramidal structure. We cannot survive without earth, water, air… At the same time, every community, every organisation needs leadership. Man as a species is the highest organic form on Earth. Who should direct the Earth if not he? We cannot acknowledge a higher agency; we have all responsibility regarding this planet. Not by letting things take a ‘natural course’—or by trying to return to a utopian ‘state of nature’—will the environmental problems be solved.

All questions concerning knowledge and direct manipulation of the landscape of Planet Earth, of the living species that inhabit it, and, in particular, of man himself, may be effectively confronted only by a capacity for political projection that involves a bigger rather than a smaller degree of technology, and of dominion of man over man and over his environment.

The Malaise of Western Civilization

‘Roman’ Christianity, born with the Constantinian arrangement, was from the start an attempt to establish, within the ‘ancient’ world transformed by Rome in orbis politica, a compromise between the Indo-European Weltanschauung and the Judaic religion, adapted to Roman imperial civilisation by the alleged efforts of Jesus. The one and only god became, through dogmatic ‘mystery,’ ‘one god in three persons.’ The old trinity that the Vedic Indians called Trimurti has been integrated and, broadly, these ‘persons’ have assumed the three functions of Indo-European society, now in an inverted, spiritualised form. As creator and sovereign, Yahweh nevertheless continues to reject the dual aspect of reality: evil is the exclusive province of Satan. The new name ‘Deus Pater’—’eternal and divine father,’ revered by the Indo-Europeans—is substituted for the old name given by the Bible. Yahweh is father only of his ‘second person’: a son sent to Earth to play a role opposed to that of ‘founding hero.’ He is a son who decides to become alienated from this world in order the better to show a way to the world beyond, and who, if he renders unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, does this only because to him what belongs to Caesar is of no value at all. He is a son, finally, whose function is not to ‘make war,’ but to preach a jealous peace that will benefit only the ‘men of goodwill’—the adversaries of this world—those to whom is reserved the only nutrient of eternity: the grace administered by the third ‘person,’ the Holy Spirit.

Man, as a creature—and as a created being—is the serf of God’s serfs: ‘excrement’ (stercus, as Augustine of Hippo put it). However, at the same time, he is also the brother of the incarnated son of Yahweh, which ‘almost’ makes him a son of God—provided he knows how to will and deserve it, something that depends on the grace the Creator administers according to unfathomable criteria. The day shall come when humankind will be definitively and eternally divided between the saints and the damned. There is a biblical Valhalla: the Celestial Paradise, but it is now reserved for the anti-heroes. The others belong to Hell.

This compromise has for centuries moulded the history of what is called ‘Western civilisation.’ For centuries, according to the deepest affinities, ‘pagan’ and ‘Levantine’ man has been able to see—in the ‘one and threefold’ god—his own respective divinity. This explains the numerous confusions that have always characterised historical Christianity. The coexistence of two antagonistic spiritualities—often confronting one another, even in the hearts of the same individuals—eventually crystallise into a veritable neurosis of the European mentality.

Today we can confidently state that the Constantinian ‘arrangement’ arranged nothing, and that the day the motto ‘In hoc signo vinces’ was proclaimed had detrimental consequences for the Greco-Roman and Celto-Germanic world. Until recently, the Church of Rome particularly, and the Christian churches in general remained, as organised secular powers, attached to the appearances of the old compromise. However, in more recent times they began to recognise the authentic essence of Christianity. Hence, Yahweh, finally casting off the mask of luminous and celestial Deus-Pater, was rediscovered and proclaimed anew. In 1938 Pope Pius XI declared: ‘Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we [i.e., Christians] are all Semites.’

However, long before the churches reached that point, ‘profane’ (demythicised and secularised) Christianity, i.e., egalitarianism in all its forms, had found its path according to biblical truth. This was marked by the rejection of history; the proclaimed will to ‘step out of history’ in order to return to ‘nature’; the tendency to reabsorb human specificity into the ‘physical-chemical’; all determinist materialisms; Marcuse’s condemnation of art on the grounds that by integrating man in society it would betray ‘truth’; finally, the egalitarian ideology that wants to reduce humankind to the anti-hero model: the chosen one, hostile to any specific civilisation in that he wishes to see in it nothing but unhappiness, misery, exploitation (Marx), repression (Freud), or pollution. All this has invariably restored—still continues to restore today, at that precise moment when a new technological revolution is inviting us to overcome old ‘forms’—that motionless, ‘eternal’ (if there ever was such) Judaic vision: an unequivocal ‘No’ to any present pregnant with a future.

Saying ‘Yes’ to history—ever-becoming, ever re-proposing new foundations—implies assuming new forms and content. Saying ‘Yes’ is creation, the work of art. ‘No’ exists only by denying any value to such work. The Indo-European cosmogonic myth reassures us that saying ‘Yes’ is always possible. In a different world, arising from the ruins of the old, the mission of ‘civilising heroes’ is eternal, and it assumes, serenely, the splendid and tragic destiny of one who creates, gives birth to himself, and accepts, as condition of any historical adventure, of any life, the idea of his own end.

Can Our People Survive While Accommodating Christianity?

Is it possible to accommodate Christianity once the veil of ignorance has been torn asunder? Is it possible to teach the five core tenets which constitute the ‘optimum group strategy’, discard the rest of the claptrap, and still call that Christianity? Theoretically, yes; in practice, it is as easy as to reinsert a Champagne cork back into the bottle.

Nowhere are the effects caused by the pursuit of the tenets of Jewish-Christian egalitarianism more existentially dramaticâ??because it threatens the very survival of the communities concernedâ??than in the demographic suicide now being committed by the West. The West faces massive Third World immigration, and high fertility rates combined with below-replacement white birth rates. As Lothrop Stoddard feared, a rising tide of color is swamping the West; and it is guilt about the Third World which is the primary cause of mass immigration into Western lands. Comparison with Japan repays attention, for this Far Eastern country experiences the same economic conditioning as Europe or the United States, but has managed to control migratory fluxes remarkably well.

Christianity is a derivative, a heresy, from Judaism, but it teaches Europe precisely the opposite lesson as far as ethnocentrism is concerned. In Christianity, European peoples cannotâ??as a peopleâ??have a relation with God: this is for the Jewish people alone. European people can have a relation with God only as individuals. Judaism is a religion for survival in a multicultural society. It is a religion for governing the behavior of a Jewish minority in the presence of a non-Jewish majority. Christianity, on the other hand, is a religion for governing the behavior of Christians in a homogeneous Christian society. In a multicultural society, it becomes suicidal.

The original meaning of the Latin word religioâ??from religare, to tie fastâ??was never used until Constantinian times to describe the â??superstitio nova ac maleficaâ?? represented by Christianity and has nothing to do with the metaphysical or fideistic concepts introduced by monotheism. It is simply what binds together the members of a political and ethnocultural community. As such, religion has two aspects: the mythâ??the representation that we choose to have of our own past, and more generally of the universe, in relation to the future, the destiny that we want to create; and the riteâ??the evocation and celebration of our being together with the intention of provoking a general mobilization of spirits.

Historical consciousness is also part of human agency. It is time to choose!

The Third Version of Man
(Nietzsche in Anglo Scientific Language)

–“My humanity is a constant self-overcoming.”–Friedrich Nietzsche

The Third Version
Nietzsche’s message was one of evolutionary change, of man’s progress toward full consciousness. He taught that the whole value and meaning of a man’s life lies in his participation in this progress – in his contribution to it.

Man should not be merely himself and conform to his own ‘nature’. He should still seek to give himself a ‘super-nature,’ to acquire a superhumanity: that superhumanity that Judeo-Christian monotheism’s vocation is to prevent him from acquiring.

The idea of attaining superior consciousness is one of breeding upwards to the superman. It is furthermore the idea of the self-determined being: self-ordained to take integral charge both of the world and of himself, and to give them a new meaning, a new destiny. The discipline of philosophical anthropology has coined the term Third Man to denote this concept.

[CD: the aristocracy: a search for Agency: transcendence. To leave the animal man behind. Yet, this is the feminine and Abrahamic strategy: “Do not leave us behind, we will drag you down.”]

First Version
Seen in this light, the First Man would be identified with the evolutionary process leading to the development of the characteristics that distinguish hominids from other primates: hominization. His appearance would coincide with the invention of language, the development of hunter-gatherer bands and the use of magical shamanism, which would allow him to mimic the evolutionary strategies at work in the surrounding environment – and in this way to compensate for the instinctual deficiencies caused by his ethological plasticity.

Second Version
Several hundred thousand years on, sometime after the last glaciation, there would emerge for the first time what can be described as the Second Man. He is the inventor of the Neolithic Revolution, of agriculture, and consequently of sedentariness and the first human demographic explosion; the founder of cities and urban life, of politics, religion, the division of labour, and the development of so-called ‘phyric technology’ (implying energy production technologies based on combustion: wood, coal, oil, etc). It is the world of the Spenglerian Hochkulturen – ‘High Cultures’ or civilizations.

Depending on the way the Second Man reacted to the challenges of that time, one might then distinguish between:

1. Societies that refused or ignored any sort of historical transformation, thus heading more or less deliberately towards irrelevance and extinction. Examples might include the Australian aborigines and the non-Negroid native populations of sub-Sahara Africa (Pygmies, Khoisan).
2. Cold societies that tried to petrify early achievements in the form of endless repetition. As with the famous Aranda of Levi-Strauss, ‘faithful to their tradition’, such cold societies have become fossils of their ancestors’ history. They no longer evolve except as the result of external and contingent ‘events,’ under the pressure of external factors. They are at the mercy of any environmental variation that is not previewed in their program. In brief, they cannot survive except under the condition of not meeting again the train of history from which they alighted. This is the case of most sub-Saharan and Amazonian cultures: they became the ‘object of history’ – of other cultures’ history – once they came into contact with them.
3. Tepid societies that were active but unwilling ‘prey of history,’ such as the Far Eastern, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and pre-Columbian civilizations (*). The classic example is Japan, with a history marked by external influences which were simultaneously welcomed, rejected, and originally transfigures into what finally became Japanese culture – from the introduction of Buddhism in classical times to the Meiji Restoration after the end of the Shogunate.

And finally;

The Third Version

Hot societies: these became ‘subjects’ or ‘agents’ of history. Generated by the Indo-European Revolution, they took full charge of the historical dimension of man and have come to express its heroic and tragic character with a project of collective destiny that was consciously assumed.

In this broad picture, a final point should be made regarding the particular role played by the birth in the Middle East of an historical tendency – represented mythically by the separation of Abraham and the founding of Israel, and prolonged in a complex way by the other monotheistic religions. Jewish-Christian monotheism introduces a split within post-Neolithic society: while remaining immersed in history, it rejects the effects of the Neolithic Revolution, not this time from a practical standpoint – like cold societies – but from a moral standpoint. It finds driving force in the promise of an eschatological ‘end of history,’ and in constant ‘demystification’ of history’s creations – in particular through reversal of the concept of the divine. From instrument and projection of human creativity, and pride in the process through which the Second Man becomes master of himself and of the world, the divine turns into a ‘transcendent’ condemnation and relativisation of human adventure.

The religion of the Bible’s essential effect – if not its express intention – amounted to obstructing man’s capability to fully realise the powers of freedom and creative autonomy arising from humanisation itself, powers that were historically reinforced by the Neolithic Revolution and the development of great cultures.

Precisely at the time the Indo-European revolution attained its maximum power and expansion, this messianic tendency – based on the moral rejection of history and civilisation – infiltrated the Roman world and reached a point of synthesis through the so-called ‘Constantinian compromise’, giving birth to ‘the West’. Step by step, it repressed the original European colective unconscious and corrupted the European culture of the time, transforming it into something hybrid. From the two souls living in Europe’s chest since that moment, the Jewish-Christian is evidently that which today, in its secular and more radical form, celebrates global hegemony.

(*) It is difficult to disentangle the twisted skein of contacts, exchanges, and influences that tepid cultures originally received from without. Some have hypothesised a role of primer for Indo-European influences and groups by way of imitation, competition, or re-elaboration. For example, Indo-Aryan influences on Chinese culture, and through the latter on Japan; or the complex pattern of contacts between Egypt and Mesopotamia on the one hand and, on the other, the different waves of invaders that from Central Europe on several occasions spilled into over the Near East. More uncertain are those hypotheses that suggest a connection of this type with the pre-Columbian empires. There are also hypotheses, more scientific in this case, about the existence of a ‘hyperborean’ Indo-European civilisation which had influences on an almost planetary scale.

Transcending Man into God

We must have a religion if we are to do anything worth doing. If anything is to be done to get our civilization out of the horrible mess in which it now is, it must be done by men who have got a religion. People who have no religion are cowards and cads. If you allow people who are caddish and irreligious to become the governing force, the nation will be destroyed, and that is what is the matter with us.

What I mean by a religious person is one who conceives himself or herself to be the instrument of some purpose in the universe which is a high purpose, and is the native power of evolution—that is, of a continual ascent in organization and power and life, and extension of life. Any person who realizes that there is such a power, and that his business and joy in life is to do its work, and his pride and point of honour to identify himself with it, is religious, and the people who have not got that feeling are clearly irreligious, no matter what denomination they may belong to. We may give this feeling quite different names. One man may use religious terms and say that he is here to do the work of God. Another man, calling himself an atheist, may simply say that he has a sense of honour. But the two things are precisely the same. Any man of honour is a religious man. He holds there are certain things he must not do and certain things he must do, quite irrespective of the effect upon his personal fortunes. Such a man you may call a religious man, or you may call him a gentleman.

We are gradually getting rid of our idols, and in the future we shall have to put before the people religions that are practical systems, which—on the whole—we can perceive to work out in practice, instead of resulting in flagrant contradictions as they do at present. People, however, go from one extreme to the other, and when they do so they are apt to throw out the good things with the bad ones. Hence, they make little progress. The old-fashioned atheist rebelled against the idea of an omnipotent being as God of cancer, epilepsy and war—as well as of the good that happened. They were unable to believe that a God of love could allow such things. And so they seized avidly upon the idea of natural selection as put forward by Charles Darwin. Darwin was not the originator of the idea of evolution—which long pre-dated him—but it was he that made us familiar with the particular form of evolution known as natural selection. That idea was seized upon with a feeling of relief: relief that the old idea of God was banished from the world. This feeling of relief was so great that for a time the horrible void which had been created in the universe was overlooked. Natural selection left us in a world full of horrors which were accounted for, apparently, by the fact that it as a whole had come about by accident. However, if there is no purpose or design in the universe the sooner we all cut our throats the better, for it is not much of a place to live in.

Most of the natural selection men of the nineteenth century were brilliant—but they were cowards. We want to return to men with some belief in the purpose of the universe—with determination to identify themselves with it, and with the courage that comes from that. As for my own position, I am and always have been a mystic. I believe that the universe is drive

n by a force that we might call the life-force. I see it as performing the miracle of creation, and that it has entered the minds of men as what they call their will. Hence, we see people who clearly are carrying out a will not exclusively their own.

To attempt to represent this particular will or power as God—in the former meaning of the word—is now entirely hopeless; nobody can believe that. What you have to understand is that somehow or other there is, behind the universe a will, a life-force. You cannot think of it as a person, you must think of it as a great purpose, a great will. Furthermore, you must think of it as engaged in a continual struggle to produce something higher and higher.

You begin with the amoeba: why did it split itself in two? It is not an intelligent thing for anybody to do. You cannot pretend there is any particular accident in that. You cannot see any case that natural selection makes. But somehow the amoeba does it. It finds that perhaps two are better than one. At any rate it does split itself in two, from which there is a continual pushing forward to a higher and higher organization. The differentiation of sex, the introduction of backbone, the invention of eyes, the invention of systems of digestion—there is a continual steady growth, an evolution of life. There are forces that may not be explained—and this particular force is ever organizing, organizing, organizing. Among other things it organizes the physical eye, in order that that mechanism can see dangers and avoid them; see food and go after it; see the cliff-edge and avoid falling over it. And not only does it evolve that particular eye: it also evolves what Shakespeare called the mind’s eye. We are not only striving in some particular way to take more and more power, to develop organs and limbs with which we may mould the universe to our liking: we are also continually striving to know, to become more conscious, to understand the meaning of all.

We must believe in the will to good; it is unthinkable to regard man as willing his own destruction. However, in the striving after good that will is liable to make mistakes, and to let loose something that is destructive. We may regard the typhoid bacillus as one of the failures of the life-force that we call God; however, that same life-force is trying, through our brains, to discover a means of destroying that malign influence. If that conception is grasped, an answer to those people who ask for an explanation of the origin of evil becomes available. Evil things are made with the object of their doing good; but they turn out wrong, and therefore must be destroyed. This is the most important conception for the religion of the future—because it gives us what we are at present, as well as courage and self-respect. It is ours to work for something better, to talk less about the religion of love—love is an improper subject—and more about the religion of life, and of work: to create a world that shall know a happiness that need not be the happiness of drunkenness—a world of which we need not be ashamed. The world must consist of people who are happy and, at the same time, sober. At present the happiness of the world is as the happiness of drunken people. We resort to factitious aids to life. We try to fight off consciousness of ourselves because we do not see the consciousness of a mission and, finally, the consciousness of a magnificent destiny.

What is to be the end of it all? There need be no end. Since it has proceeded so far there is no reason why the process should ever stop. However, it must achieve on its infinite journey the production of some being, some person strong and wise, with a mind capable of comprehending the entire universe, and with powers capable of executing its entire will.

Perhaps there is no God as yet achieved; however, there is a force at work making God, struggling through us to become an actual organized existence, enjoying what to many of us is the greatest conceivable ecstasy—of a brain, an intelligence that is actually conscious of the whole, and with executive force capable of guiding it to a perfectly benevolent and harmonious destination.

That is what we are working to. When you are asked, ‘Where is God? Who is God?’ stand up and say: ‘I am God. Here is God—not as yet completed, but ever advancing towards completion, in so much as I am working for the purpose of the universe, working for the good of the whole of society and the whole world, instead of merely pursuing my personal ends.’

We are all experiments in the direction of making God. What God is doing is making himself—from being a mere powerless will or force. This force has implanted into our minds the ideal of God. Thus far we are unsuccessful attempts at God. However, if we can drive into the heads of men the full consciousness of moral responsibility that comes with the knowledge that there never will be a God unless we make one—that we are the instruments through which that ideal is trying to make itself reality—we can work towards such an ideal until we get to be supermen, then super-supermen, then a world of organisms who have achieved and realized God.

(1. A literary text, a pagan ‘religious speech’, adapted by me from diverse speeches pronounced by George Bernard Shaw between 1906 and 1937 George Bernard Shaw)

 

---

Nationalism 

I think that ‘nationalism’ has to be clarified and put into historical perspective so as to become a really empowering technology.

Nationalism only has meaning for me if understood as a doctrine capable of expressing in political terms the philosophy and vital needs of European man in 2017 (I am thinking not in geographical, but in anthropological terms—the white man—and including both the peoples of the continental homeland as well as ‘Europe overseas.’ Their plight is common and, even if they are unaware of it, they are experiencing a similar fate—they all suffer from the same disease).

European nations are condemned either to exit from history and be melted down into a shapeless and faceless global mass, or to turn into the substance of a future nation and people.

It is convenient to distinguish between two different ways of posing the ‘national question.’ One, developed in France, sees a nation essentially as a construction operated by a state, and bound ab initio to a restricted horizon, a closure: historically, the closure and separation from Empire. This attitude cannot but immediately give rise to the problem of fixing national borders: in this case first for the natio francorum without; then, for the political and cultural identities within those borders, on which ‘reduction’ is operated. This policy of self-exclusion without (from the Imperium), and homologation and repression of internal identities and differences within, was pursued by French absolutism—and to its ultimate consequences with the French Revolution. Subsequently it was emulated by all the democratic revolutions in Europe, to the point when all nationalisms based on ‘the masses’ and exclusion of ‘the other’ arrived, necessarily, at contemporary one world universalism.

Contrary to appearances, the one world ideology—which today impregnates the dominant culture and the political praxis of international institutions—is only superficially in contradiction to the presuppositions of the form of nationalism described above. Withdrawal into oneself implies, intrinsically, recognition, sooner or later, of equality among nations. The dream of political universalism is but the reproposal, on a global scale, of the very process that led to the formation of the nation-state.

Where the memory of the Roman imperial model persisted, and where the project of a Holy Roman Empire as restoration of the classical order remained politically active through the Middle Ages the process of ‘national’ unification did not take place (except partially and on a small scale) until the Romantic Age: during the nineteenth century. It assumed a deeply diverse aspect.

In this case, it is not the state that builds a nation and stimulates a national consciousness, but rather a national consciousness which, in its maturity, seeks to express itself politically through one state. Belonging, for example, to the German or the Italian nation was not, initially, a fact on which to build national consciousness, but rather an idea (in its political sense): a spiritual attachment to a project that needed to be defined and was linked to an old imperial vision of a hierarchically organised cosmos.

Today, the situation of European nationalism is analogous. Europe – Magna Europa – does not enjoy a real existence. Europe is only the destiny of those who recognise themselves as part of it. Furthermore, it is precisely to this ‘ghost,’ to this choice of culture, values, civilisation (i.e., the regeneration of history)—to this myth—that the faith of the good European is addressed. Ultimately, it is also contrasted with the jumble of states and petty-states inhabiting our continent, together with their squalid supranational bureaucracies.

There is another reason why European nationalism should associate itself with the second model described above: the very same idea of Europe amounts to a transfigured re-emergence of the imperial vision. The unification of Europe on the model of the Jacobin nation-state—and in direct opposition to regionalist tendencies (even perhaps forcing linguistic, cultural, and administrative homogenisation)—is unthinkable. There is a further reason: the non-existence of the matter of Europe’s borders. Europe is not a territory, but rather a destiny offered to all who can trace an ethnic and spiritual relationship to it.

This consideration helps clarify how un-European, in this sense, are institutions like the Council of Europe, an institution of which Turkey is a member today—and perhaps Israel tomorrow.

With the Industrial Revolution, humankind entered into a phase of planetisation. None may avoid such planetary perspective or dream of impossible isolation. Planetary order is unavoidable. It is fated to come about, sooner or later.
Tomorrow’s Great Politics cannot be conceived or pursued without a ‘world order’.

(CD: Um. Either I dont understand what you’re getting at, or I don’t agree. i’m not sure which. What I see is vacillation between opening and closing, expanding and contracting, civilizations in response to circumstances, and some having the free capital to adapt and some not.)

Institutionally, we should study carefully three models: Switzerland, the USA Constitution (Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Adams) and Ancient Rome. My contribution today regarding Rome:

(CD: agreed 100% that those are the three ‘scales’. Swiss > American > Roman.

The planetisation that is taking place demands a ‘cosmic order.’ Will such order be ‘imperial’ or ‘egalitarian’? In that the future is open, this must remain unknown: we can merely commit ourselves to one or to the other.

The egalitarian solution implies the reduction of humankind ad unum, the emergence of the ‘universal type’ and of global standardisation. The imperial solution is hierarchical. If freedom in egalitarian dialectics is one absolute opposed to another (the denial of freedom), in imperial dialectics, freedom is merely a relative proposition directly linked to the notion of social responsibility. Within the Imperium, only the right of the best is absolute, measured according to the virtue manifested by humankind at a particular moment. However, Imperium is also, from a planetary perspective, the only means of preserving differences, thanks to the principle of unicuique suum, which implicitly recognises the fundamental inequality of values and identities.

Imperium may be seen as the alternative to globalisation: strength and cohesion in diversity as a model of planetary organisation.

(CD: I see speciation as an opportunity.)

Destiny: We are living in an interregnum

We should be aware that we are living in an interregnum (postmodernity), a period of waiting during which destiny hangs between two options: either to complete the triumph of the egalitarian conception of the world (the end of history), or to promote a historical regeneration.
(CD: Agreed)

Is European civilization going to expand or contract? No doubt the free capital to adapt is still there – for how long is another question.

But where is the plan, the idea (the myth) that can ignite consciousness? The Propertarian Institute should have the ambition of designing this map, able to take us to port while avoiding the most obvious pitfalls.

(CD: I think that I see that as our purpose, yes)

If we take a look at some of the most recent ‘sovereignty and freedom’ campaigns among Europeans:

A. Catalonian parody: a bunch of flea-ridden commies who proclaimed the independent republic of Catalonia and among other things wanted to outsource the defense of the territory to another European state?!?

B. Brexit fiasco: Nigel Farage, an Englishman with a French name and a German wife, collaborated with Boris Johnson, an Englishman of Turkish descent married to a woman of Indian descent, and Michael Gove, a Scotsman married to a Jewish woman of, probably German descent, to take Britain out of Europe. Also on their team were Priti Patel who was born in London to a Uganda Asian family, and Gisela Stuart who was born in Germany. This dedicated band of ‘Britons’ persuaded the British people to “take back their borders” and keep out the foreigners. If it wasn’t so serious it would be funny. Commonwealth immigrants were entitled to vote in the referéndum, but Europeans settled in the UK were not entitled. Also barred from voting were Britons living elsewhere in Europe . Most likely in a near future: Labour comes back to 10th Downing Street with James Corbyn (an admirer of Hugo Chaves) as PM.

C. Ukrainian tragedy (among the different intra-european nationalist projects, I have the warmest feelings for Ukrainians): Ukraine should have played the role of connecting bridge between Russia and the EU. After a series of catastrophic decisions (I don’t want to start apportioning blame now), the relations with Russia will remain fouled for a long, long time, and economic integration with the EU will not be a possibility for at least 40 years (I think that is the ultimate goal ofthe Russian military campaign in the East).
Old formulas, disconnected from historical and geopolitical reality, do not work.

(CD: I have too much knowledge of ukrainian circumstances and I see the Intermarium as necessary, not the preservation of ukraine as a torn state.)

Europe, despite current appearances, continues to be the only reality with potential historically to mobilise the European population. This is much more than so in respect of either the tangible and concrete nation-states—devoid today of any vis politica—or of those regional tendencies that will never come to represent even vestigial resistance to the formation of already moribund nation-states. In this sense—and contrary to anti-European propaganda—struggle for the construction of Europe is the most ‘realistic’ political position currently available.

(CD: I see a europe with a weak judicial federation in the ancient model, rather than a peer of the USA. So I see the opposite. The restoration of the european model with a weak federal judiciary (the role played by a church).

An extension of patriotism is needed—a higher patriotism which proclaims: ‘I am a European and therefore the heir of an ancient culture which has civilised the whole world.’ Only then will Magna Europe dominate the world, as is its birthright.

(CD: well, people pay the cost of patriotism when it is in their interest, either to seize an opportunity or to prevent a harm.)

Imperium and Empire must not be confused with each other. In fact, the notion of Imperium has found its truth and perfect realisation more in efforts that led to the establishment of the Roman Republic than in the maintenance of the post-Julian Empire. The notion of Imperium reflects a will to cosmic order, and it is this order that organises hierarchically the various ‘gentes’ living under the protection of Rome. In theory and in practice, Imperium is at the antipodes of any sort of ‘universalism.’ It does not seek to reduce humankind to one and the same; rather, it seeks to preserve diversity in a world heading towards unification.

(CD: I think I can express that less euphemistically but yes. the problem is, what is the incentive. Or rather the incentive is intuitied by some. But in this interregnum, the market for various incentives has caused a bifurcation.)

I also see speciation as an opportunity. But this time, speciation will take place due to a self-conscious decision, and the whole planet will be its stage. In that sense, I’m a Nietzschean, as you know. He was the first thinker who, in view of a world-history emerging for the first time, asked the decisive question and thought through its metaphysical implications. The question is: Is man, as man in his nature till now, prepared to assume dominion over the whole earth? If not, what must happen to man as he is, so that he may be able to ‘subject’ the earth and thereby reclaim an old legacy? Must man as he is then not be brought beyond himself if he is to fulfill this task? This thinking concerns us, concerns Europe, concerns the whole earth not just today but tomorrow even more.

(CD: This last bit takes some work to get thru. But I see the choice of monopoly world order of increasing parasitism and dysgenia, and market world order of increasing eugenia as a fairly obvious one. )

Part 6 – Religion

Evolution of Religion over time.

Phase 1: Burials > (Possible 1a: Marking as Monument?) > Phase 2: Sacrifices > Phase 3: Seasons > Phase 4: Politics > Phase 5: Education

Each of these is rather obvious in progression as complexity increases.

What’s The Oldest Religion?

THE OLDEST RELIGION. IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU DEFINE RELIGION

Which is the world’s oldest religion? What is the evidence of it? The correct question is “What is the oldest political religion?” Because that is the function of all surviving religions from the Axial period. Sumerians first wrote down their religions in 3500 BCE and most political religions evolved from competition with theirs. We see evidence if organized religion in Anatolia from 9,000 BCE, predating Stonehenge by 6000 years.

It appears we developed religious practices (what we call sacred, but is more correctly, suppression of all self interest, status signal, and dominance expression ) no less than 40k years ago. There was our first and longest dark age around 20-21k BC. Then practices resumed, around 13k BC.

It wasn’t that long – about 8000 BC – until farming, and farming creates folk religions in an and around Anatolia -still burial focused.

Around 5500BC the Indo-Europeans developed sacrificial religion, and spread it – man then bargaining with the gods.

And again, by 3300BC we see the rapid development of political religion in every region of Eurasia.

|RELIGION|: Burial > Sacrificial > Political > [Therapeutic]

All Religion Is The Construction Of Debt

ONLY THE FIRST RELIGION OF NATURE AND THE DEAD, TRUE.

THE TRUTH

The universe is in fact what enabled earth.
The earth in fact what enabled man.
Our Ancestors in fact who enabled us.
The Heroes among them who we imitate.
The Peers among us that persist their memories.

The only debts we owe are:
– nature/planet/the universe. (in truth)
– our ancestors, who made us possible (in truth)
– exemplary ancestors who made us possible (with truth)
– our peers who persist the gains of our ancestors. (in truth)

THE LIE

The Abrahamic Jewish, Christian, Muslim lies: false debt for false crime, with false promise, of false reward.

WHY THE LIE

All gods are lies by those lacking memory of worthy ancestors or worthy ancestors whatsoever.

WHY WE NEED NOT LIE

We are the gods among men.

And the fake gods were invented to undermine, weaken, and destroy us – and that is why those gods mandate everything counter to our ascendance into gods ourselves: ignorance, mysticism, sophism, pseudoscience, deceit, dysgenia, and monopoly. A god would be more like Aristotle Jefferson and Darwin than the god of the Semites – whose thoughts words commands and deeds look far more like the devil in our oldest myth – our founding myth: the Blacksmith and the Demon. Or what we know of today, wrapped in Christian dogma as Faust. The god of the Abrahamists is evil in thought, word, command, deed, and consequence.

When we pray to our god, we are praying to the god of our people. Sky father. Dayus Pitar, Dayus Phater, Zeus Pater, Jupiter, Sol Invictus, Sol, the eternal sus that ask us to rule, to reign, to join them. Our Heroes and Saints are dressed in clothes of political theatre to oppress us and deny us our ambitions of joining the gods. But we have our own:

|WESTERN CIVILIZATION| Transcendence (Evolutionary Velocity) via Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, The judiciary of the natural law, and the consequential markets in everything. Where there the militia constitutions a private partnership and there is non above them to perform the function of insurer of last resort, every man demonstrates reciprocity by performing the function of insurer of last resort.

This is a religion of gods. Men who would become gods. Heroes who have approached godhood. And peoples who follow them into godhood.

THE MILITIA, THE KING, OUR ANCESTORS, NATURE, THE LAW: RESTORE OUR NATURAL RELIGION

There is no substitute for a initiation in group of warriors (pack), and ritual thanks to one another, a king, ancestors, and nature. Everything else is education, therapy, and medication.

INDO EUROPEANS DEVELOPED MAGIC BECAUSE OF METALWORKING, SEMITIC CIVILIZATION DEVELOPED MYSTICISM BECAUSE OF THE STARS.

—-“In Indo-European civilizations,” writes Francois-Xavier Dillman, “magic definitely cannot be disassociated from all of the beliefs, representations, religious rites […] on the contrary, it is one of the most prevalent components, one of those that resists the most against Christianization. The same author underlines that runic writing and Germanic magic are often “one and the same.” Patrick Moisson also emphasizes that there is a fine line between magic and religion, but he notes that whereas religion seeks to conciliate divinities with sacrifice and worship, magic “constrains divine powers with appropriate rites,” which assumes the existence of impersonal forces and “means to constrain the supernatural world.”—

Small differences in large numbers over many years produce vast differences.

Religion: what we can get away with? (mysticism),
Philosophy: what I can get away with? (sophism),
Science: What we can’t get away with (warranty).
Law: What you can’t get away with (liability).

Why are Mythology, Oath, Prayer, and Ritual Necessary for a Polity? Debt. Contract for Payment.

Three Reasons: Decidability, Opportunity Costs and Transaction Costs.

We coordinate our actions a little bit by clear deliberate choices. But mostly we cooperate by many thousands of tie-breakers that we default to loose theories of the ‘good’: narratives.

In other words, religions provide means by which, in those many thousands of choices, where no choice is preferable to us, to prefer the choice that contributes to the advancement of the commons. Otherwise like Bouridan’s Ass we must find some method of choosing. This insight is profoundly important. Think of religions as a wishing well into which we toss the spare change of choice. But these choices reflect a group evolutionary strategy. And these strategies are not equal. The many small defeat the few grand.

 

THE CONSTITUTION OF RELIGION
Religion provides us with personal, social, and political rituals to train us to into mindfulness(tolerance), forgiveness, and cooperation at increasing scales. It serves as the institutionalization of harmony so that We Can Tolerate Anonymity, Lack of Reinforcement, Expansion of Hierarchy, Loss of Agency, in Markets, in The Division of Labor in Exchange for the Dramatic Lowering of Costs From That Division of Labor.

If you understand this then you will understand the purpose of religion, where it evolved, and when and why it evolved, and how and why a religion or any given aspect of a religion succeeds or is good, or fails or is bad. Religion trains the intuition, reason trains us in understanding, negotiation and planning, and skills train us in production in that division of sensation, perception, cognition, memory, advocacy, negotiation, and labor.

With Religion we scale the hunt. Which in turn consists of the phases of the prey drive. Which is the eternal cycle of our lives. To search, to hunt or gather, to come together, to feast, to celebrate, to reproduce, to rest, to care, to want or need, and to begin again. Religion is a celebration of the cycle of life from the reptilian, mamilial, and human brain. We can never fully leave the animal behind, we can only satisfy it’s needs so that we can be human and take advantage of the returns on the division of labor.

DEBT:
Where worship means demonstration of appreciation for inheritance: debt.
– Nature worship (debt)
– Kin and Ancestor worship (debt)
– Gods, demigods, heroes and saints worship (debt)

CAPITALIZATION:
And training in mindfulness:
– Action: heroism – achievement – contribution and competition (cost)
– Reason: stoicism – self authoring – tolerance and cooperation (cost)
– Experience: epicureanism – peace and security (cost)

REWARD:
And the Ritual of the Feast – building community.
– The Gathering, The Fire, The Call (reward)
– The Parable, The Oath, the Testimony (reward)
– The Sacrifice, The Feast, The Thanks (reward)
– The Celebration (festival), The Sport (competition), The Dispersal ( sex, rest, care) (reward)

RULES:
And there are three sets of laws evident in the structure of the universe whether those laws were made by structural consequence, the design of divinity, or the hand of god.
– The laws of nature. (physical limits)
– The natural law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity (personal limits), with the christian via positiva law of love improving upon the via negativa natural law.
– The evolutionary law of transcendence of man into gods. (political limits)

This constitutes the law of religion.

A Precise Language For The Discussion Of Religion.

We have been misled to thinking that ‘religion’ requires superstition. But that idea is a product of the authoritarian dogma created by the Church under Christianity. It’s simply not true.

Deconflated, Religion Consists Of:

1) Narrative: historical, mythical, supernatural
2) Metaphysical Judgments: (in many forms)
3) Group Evolutionary Strategy: (in many forms )
4) Debts: (intergenerational transfer of strategy)
5) Costs: (Demonstrations of conformity.)
5) Normative Rules: (in many forms to persist it)
6) Registries of Familial Accounting (birth, maturity, marriage, death)
7) Rituals both private and public: (mindfulness in its forms)
8) Feasts, Sports, Arts, and Festivals:(in their many forms)

Religion Satisfied Market Demand By:

1 – Providing some variation on ‘mindfulness‘ in which we can escape the problem of being honest with ourselves independently of all our accumulated intuitions and biases.

2 – Forming associations between the ‘pack-response‘ and group participation, and eliminating the problem of stress from post-tribal life’s lack of feedback, thereby extending trust bonds across kin groups, class groups, and market groups, which decreases transaction costs of all kinds in all walks of life.

3 – Establishing normative rules for familial and cross familial behavior, that made (and continue to) reduce natural frictions between genetic variations in gender, class, tribe, race that (truthfully) translate in to different demands for association, reproduction, economic cooperation, and rule – and the status seeking that affects each of those demands, dramatically.

Mindfulness

1) Mindfulness refers to  the physical, cognitive and emotional discipline to control the subject of attention on the present intent, insulated from distractions whether personal, environmental, or interpersonal.

2) But with preference for the stoic method (self authoring, virtues of action), the epicurean objective (within one’s control), testimonial (scientific) knowledge, the play (ritual), and team sport, festival, and feast (celebration).

3) The buddhist method, originally practical and insular evolved into semi-mystical, and survived the attack by monotheistic abrahamism, where the western schools that were practical and action oriented, were destroyed by design by the Abrahamic conquest and dark age.

4) East asian ritual, and Hindu ‘way of life’ survived as well. Each of these methods of physical, mental and emotional discipline reflects local demand given local degree of agency during the period of transformation. (although buddhism was imposed on japan unfortunately).

5) So I use ‘mindfulness’ in the sense that all groups sought to meet demands for some technique of achieving mindfulness of their eras by slightly different means. Since buddhism developed the most direct analysis of the objective, the terminology evolved into a universal.

6) But as in all things, the stoic method, epicurean objective, and scientific(empirical) paradigm, and pursuit of agency(dominance) rather than withdrawal (submission), reflect the european rather than african, semitic, hindu, east asian metaphysics: realism, naturalism, agency.

 

The Constitution of Religion

Religion Consists of:

|RELIGION| Mythos (strategy) > Debt > Repetition (ritual) > Recital (oath) > Feast and Festival.

But so does every other category of education:

|EDUCATION| Mythos (Logic) > Repetition/Ritual (Grammar) > Recital (Rhetoric) > Reward (Recognition of Achievement)

All education follows the same process:

|LEARNING| Logic > Grammar > Rhetoric > Success by accolade, application, or achievement.

All knowledge follows the same process:

|EPISTEMOLOGY| free association (+ test) > hypothesis (+ test) > theory (+test) > law ( survival).

All due diligence in the production of knowledge follows the same process:

|DUE DILIGENCE| identity > consistency > correspondence > demonstrated possibility > rational choice > reciprocity, coherence > limits > and completeness.

So, we have a rather odd misconception of ‘religion’ as something other than training the emotions such that we intuit values and relations that are coherent with our group evolutionary strategy (embedded in our mythos), which we rarely if ever understand – those rules of evolutionary strategy are obscured at the metaphysical level. This invisibility makes them sturdier because they are less vulnerable to argument and criticism and therefore more likely to persist due to simply imitation of myths and rituals that produces that strategy by externality rather than by direct apprehension.

There is nothing special about religion. If we look at the hierarchy of choice:

|REACTION| Physical Response (Automatic) > Emotional Response (intuition) > Rational Response(reason) > Calculated Response (calculation) > Computed Response (Computation).

… then EACH ONE OF THOSE STEPS allows for an increase in precision in the PRESENCE of knowledge and GRACEFUL FAILURE in the ABSENCE of knowledge.

This hierarchy means that at about every Standard Deviation in human mental (cognitive) ability,  there exists a grammar (methodology) of decision making from the base animal up to the most skilled professionals.

Humans are very simple creatures. It’s the lies we tell ourselves that confuse us, and keep us mere animals, responding by intuition and automatic reaction, rather than possessed of agency and welding reason, calculation, and computation, such that we evolve into the gods we imagine.

Everything There is to Understand About Religion

Religion consist of a category of education for the purpose of training the intuition (emotions), such that we are less dependent upon reason, calculation, and computation.

So just as we have:

|ANALOGIES| children’s stories, fairy tales, myths, legends > young adult stories > stories > novels > biographies > histories > the sciences and law > mathematics

And we have:

|ETHICS| Imitation of Parents > Hero Ethics > Virtue Ethics > Rule Ethics > Outcome Ethics

We also have:

|EDUCATION| Physical Training > Emotional training > Calculation training > Knowledge training > Professional Skills Training

And so we have developed these institutions to provide training:

|INSTITUTIONS| Play/Sports/Work(physical) > Church (emotion) > Primary School > Secondary School > College > University

 

 

“What I will rebel against, what I have chosen to conduct war against, is the cult of lies that originates in theology, is exacerbated under obscurantist language of rationalism, and worsened under pseudoscience and propaganda.

I will protect me and mine from nature. I will protect me and mine from virus and disease. I will protect me and mine from beast. I will protect me and mine from violence, theft, fraud, conspiracy, immigration, conversion, war and conquest. And the most important means of protecting me and mine, is to punish the smallest infraction of our promise of cooperation: lying.”

Understanding Religion

1) Each social order (Wisdom literature), whether legal(western), rational(Chinese) theological(Semitic), or literary(Indian), relies on criteria of decidability and method of argument in support those criteria.

2) We can train physical abilities, intuition-emotion, reason, and skills of transformation. We have developed ritual, religion, stoicism, and philosophy to train intuition & emotion and intuition, and developed calculation for reason, and techne for skills

3) Semitic argument consists of the sophisms of Pilpul, Critique, false promise, moral hazard, monopoly control of information, using threats of ostracization, disapproval, shaming, gossip, rallying and reputation destruction to impose a monopoly by suggestion and intimidation.

4) We call this combination of sophism (pseudo-rationalism), supernaturalism (occult), false history (pseudoscience) ritual indoctrination, false promise (fraud) to create a monopoly of conformity to falsehoods a “Religion” even though doing so is unique to the Semitic Religions.

5) This form of argument like mathematics, logic, writing, language or any other technology, is traceable throughout history as the incremental evolution of a technique of deception. It is used to produce natural neurochemical (opiate) responses and functions as an addiction.

6) So just as the Romans invented empirical law with the help of Aristotle and Zeno, the Greeks invented idealism and ideal argument, the Semites invented the sophistries of Pilpul and Critique and threats of ostracization thus weaponizing the female group strategy in argument.

7) meanwhile the west produced hero-worship, civic ritual, the cult of the empirical law of tort, reason, rationalism, empiricism, science as an evolution of their criteria of decidability: individual sovereignty, with disputes resolved by law of tort, and a MARKET for ideas.

8) It’s not that I don’t understand religion. It’s that I understand it completely; how to replace its falsehoods completely; and that Abrahamic religions were responsible for the dark ages, and the destruction of all the great civilizations in the ancient world – and modern.

 

Is Religion Necessary For The Individual?

Mindfulness is necessary. Religion provides us with mindfulness in the personal, interpersonal, social, and political realms by the use of ritual, feast, festival, and myth. There are biological and circumstantial reasons why we need mindfulness in a world no longer consisting of hunter gatherer bands.

You need a myth (archetypes), ritual (sacrifice), festival (feast), and Law, each of which produce commons most optimum for your people: mindfulness, discounts on cooperation, and material and institutional commons.

We all require mindfulness outside of hunter gatherer lifestyles where we know our ‘place’ with everyone around us. We need Personal mindfulness. Interpersonal Mindfulness. And socio-political mindfulness. We evolved as pack animals. A strange mixture of chimp and wolf. We all long for the security of some aspect of the elation, power, comfort, and security of pack. Yet the more advanced our civilizations the more isolated we are as individuals. This was the problem religions solved, and religions solved them by evolving all at about the same time, in response to the needs of living in greater numbers with less certainty in our relations.

We fail to grasp that religions are vast lies that provide mindfulness. We can achieve mindfulness through intentional discipline, a variety of rituals, participations in feasts, dances, parades, sports, celebrations, and especially in oration, ‘theater’, and Myth.

But we can obtain that mindfulness by truthful, half truthful, or entirely untruthful means. And there are profound consequences for any people given the means of mindfulness they choose.

If we were all taught mindfulness like we are taught table manners, reading-writing, arithmetic – even if we had to teach it by half a dozen different means in order to satisfy the needs of peoples with different brain structures, then we would have little need for religion.

It’s rare for humans to accidentally develop the intellectual agency to react to their emotions as nothing more than reactions changes in state of property given uncritical valuations of that property equally accumulated by accident. It is entirely possible to train humans to develop the intellectual agency to react to their emotions as nothing more than change in state of property to critical evaluations of property. Just as we taught humans all other forms of calculation that reduce the world to the simple and comprehensible and neither magical nor mysterious. Just as Buddhists teach the same principle through various forms of nonsense. In other words, it is possible to resurrect and expand stoicism – our natural religion. A religion forcibly taken from us by the Byzantines. A religion of lies replaced by a religion of truth

As ability declines demand for intuitionistic fictions increases, and conversely as ability increases demand for rationally decidable criteria increases. Meaning those of lesser ability require we appeal to intuitions, and those of greater ability require we appeal to reason. This is because those of lower ability have not been sufficiently domesticated (produced agency) by those of greater ability.

Literary analogy using archetypes and archetypal story lines (we can list both archetypes and story lines) can be decomposed into rational terms and tested. Literary analogy allows loading and framing so that individuals can learn by intuition rather than reason (ie: by suggestion). But if we cannot decompose these analogies to scientific statements we do not know if they are false, or harmful or ‘evil’ as Abrahamism has been.

People require a means of calculating (reasoning, thinking) in the broadest sense, and the most simple units of measure are anthropological. In the absence of tribal feedback they need what we call mindfulness but is better thought of a means of selecting and ignoring impulses (some of us call this agency). and in the absence of tribal community and dependence we need festivals and feasts. And to establish the limits we need an oath. All civilizations address this spectrum of mindfulness to oath, to feast, to festival to compensate for the competition produced by production, and the hierarchy that evolves form that division of knowledge, labor, and advocacy involved in the production of private, commercial, and public goods. This is because too few of us are evolved enough to survive without institutions that provide help to our remaining animal intuitions.

Addiction to Emotional Self-Indulgence.

MINDFULNESS IS ADDICTIVE

Mindfulness can be provided truthfully or untruthfully. Mindfulness is extremely rewarding. So rewarding that we defend it. Religion provides an addiction response, and the natural response of addicts to defend the source of their addiction.

The purpose of most religions is not mindfulness but supplanting it with addiction to emotional self-indulgence.

The purpose of buddha’s teaching was, originally, submissive mindfulness.
The purpose of stoicism’s teaching was dominant mindfulness – action.
The purpose of Epicureanism was evidentiary mindfulness: supplying the human with real demands instead of status competition.

And while the stoic METHOD – today’s cognitive behavioral therapy (training) – is superior to all others, the Epicurean objective is superior to all others. And this is in part why the anatolian, syrian, middle eastern fought so hard to destroy western heroism and it’s status competition by demonstrated action, sacrifice to earn the franchise, truth and duty to preserve the franchise: because all of these demands force us to obtain status through contribution to the commons (farmers and men ), rather than hyperconsumption of any available commons (shepherds and women), and emotional self indulgence.

Why? Because while the division of labor provides discounts on production, status provides a discount on opportunity. So if we can construct high status (sexual, social, economic, political, or military market value) we obtain more and better opportunities with more and better people.

The innovation in Abrahamic religion was to provide competition against aristocratic stoicism, truth, duty, and contribution to the commons, with self indulgence, justification of cowardice, and elimination of contribution to the commons – which is what we see in communism, neo-liberalism, and libertarianism: how to consume the commons rather than contribute to them.

The structure of this religion is dependent upon your learning to lie in the face of reality in exchange for denial of that reality, denial of truth, duty, commons. It is a narrative structure that recreates the nepotism and insularity of the wandering shepherds who have no land but live off common lands, and preserve insularity and non-defection in a condition of permanent competition against others of the same ilk, rather than the forces of nature.

Our gradual domestication of this religion the purpose of which was to undermine the aristocracy, by converting its women and underclasses, who could not obtain status in the meritocratic order in that era where industrialization and gunpowder had not yet produced multiples of force, and all was still dependent upon military participation and fighting.

The demand for mindfulness is largely a demand for means of training our demand for status. As the division of labor increases, the classes diverge in ability, productivity, and interest, and as power distance between bottom and top increases, we find those with the least agency seeking status by alternative means, and a caste of ‘talkers’ providing status (success) by alternative means – where are alternative does not refer to production contribution to the commons, or defense of the private and common.

Gods provide a means of obtaining approval without competing in the sexual, social, political, economic, and military markets for status and therefore opportunity.

Mythical Archetypes, heroes (masculine pagan markets), gods and saints (feminine Abrahamic monopoly), provide a diversity of heroes and interests as suits those with agency in a division of knowledge and labor.

The monotheistic archetype creates an anti-hero, in which the victim who suffers for his lack of ability and agency is somehow heroic. But the purpose of this anti-hero is the undermining of those who demonstrate innovation, excellence, competitiveness, production, and contribution to the commons, that increases the division of knowledge and labor, increases competitiveness, increases power distance, and decreases the opportunity for status in those lacking ability, training, and agency.

The Jesus-hero is a contribution to the heathen (ancestors, nature) pagan (heroes, archetypes) when one of many. But a disaster, like Mohammed, and the jews when a monopoly – for we are only equal in ignorance, lack of agency and poverty. We are always unequal in knowledge agency, and wealth.

It is not that we didn’t need the jesus-hero, since there is no equivalent of the feminine archetype in the european pantheon. and the teaching of forgiveness and love in christianity is commercially optimum for all peoples. Unless it is applied (as do christians) beyond our kith and kin.

There is no better method of training our emotions and intuitions other than the stoic method. There is nothing better to seek in life than the epicurean. And just as we domesticated christianity into a germanic folk religion, and just as we manufactured chivalry to direct aryan men to christian ends. These are the needs of the many ordinary men, while nietzsche, aristotle, alexander, jefferson, and frederick are examples for those of us who are not ordinary men. And it is only aristotelianism, heathenism, paganism , and christianity together that produce a religion for all the classes.

We have always been an aristotelian (natural law), heathen (nature and ancestor) and pagan (heroes and tribes) people. With competition between the martial, magical,literary, and rational in competition.

Addiction to The Submission Response

THE EXPLANATION OF THE SPIRITUAL

—“What do you tell people who have had very spiritual experiences that they attribute to their religion? Tell them they just imagined it? I don’t see how that’s going to work.”— Mitchell Ryan

They had the experience. They felt it. That it was produced by imagination is no different than if they imagine a ghost in the dark, or a car coming around a corner that isn’t there, or an argument with a loved one that didn’t or might happen. We feel all these things. We experience both the imagination of the context, the imagination of what might happen, or is happening, and the feeling of being in it, and we remember it.

Our brains work all the time by filling in with memory or prediction the ‘model’ our senses are continuously composing for us out of sense, memory, and prediction, with continuous recursion of the context.

Those Experiences existed. The conditions that cause them are either real or imaginary. We possess the ability to predict or forecast. That is the purpose of memory. We can predict all sorts of outcomes and then ‘feel them’ (imagine ourselves in them).

The fact that you can imagine yourself in a ‘religious experience’ or imagine yourself as king arthur and feel that experience, is just a matter of context you imagine and practice.

Most ‘intense’ experience I ever had was being very ill with a fever, reading a conan novel, and then experiencing myself in his place. it’s STILL the most intense experience I have had.

Is it a religious experience, or is a religious experience just a different story in just a different dream?

The question is only whether you are an addict reinforcing your addiction or not.

Most of us no. Some of us yes.

The question is whether you retain your agency (and experience) or retain your addiction in lieu of agency (and experience).

 

 

Why Teach Religion?

WHY? DO WE TEACH RELIGION? COST AND ERROR.

—“Religion is just sh-tty law, worse literature, and bad education. Heathenism is just thanking one another, our ancestors, and nature for bringing us into being. Debts. It’s just debts. Debts as a means of incentivizing us to repay them with conformity.”—

Myth must only be envisioned and accepted. Philosophy must be reasoned and understood to be envisioned and accepted. Science must be measured, reasoned, and understood, to be envisioned and accepted.

Myths are easier to teach than measurement, calculation and reason. Myths are false in that they are mere analogies, but having stood the test of time they produce ‘true’ or ‘correspondent’ actions.

It is easy commit error with measurement, calculation, and reason – and hard in myth. Why? That which we convey by myth requires only analogy to experience. That which we must measure calculate and reason is de facto outside of our direct experience. In other words, there is more falsehood but less error in religion.

Along the same lines, why do we possess these forms of ethics:
instinctual, imitated, mythical, virtue, rule, and outcome?
Answer: Pedagogy.

Why do we possess fairy tails, myths and legends, history, literature, and philosophy?Answer: Pedagogy.

Why do we teach arithmetic, mathematics, geometry, calculus, non-euclidean geometry, and statistics?
Answer: Pedagogy.

Why do we argue with one another using emotive approval and disapproval, morality, reason, rationalism, historical analogy, empirical evidence(direct), economic evidence(indirect), and ratio-operational-empirical argument?
Answer? Ability. 

Religion Is a Grammar of Cognition

All language consists of storytelling (changes in state). We program our generations with stories. We calculate with stories. Every grammar requires only a means of telling a story, a means of disambiguation, a means of internal consistency, and a means of decidability.

The question is only whether the lessons need be false. Germanics use fairy tales to demarcate between teaching children to be aristocracy (and therefore free of want).   The Russian fairy tales teach children to be skeptical (and therefore free of want). The Abrahamists lie to replace present wants with future false promises – at the cost of ignorance mandated by falsehood. Parables that are so obviously only parables make no pretense.

Gods Exist As Information: A System of Measurement

Gods exist like numbers, counts, weights, and volumes exist: their objective function is to provide a standard of weight and measure, and to do so for those human values that assist us in cooperating on some given group evolutionary strategy.

Such an anthropomorphized standard of weight and measure told in narrative form is both intuitive independent of one’s knowledge and ability, and insulated from rational argument and therefore contrived mismeasure.

Whereas, buddhist rituals, the stoic virtues, deliberate choice of rational philosophy, or purely scientific knowledge each increase the demands upon the person, and increase his choice.

The beauty of tort law, pagan gods, and western hierarchical disciplines all of which provide a means of mindfulness is that they adapt to the individual and provide a market for individual needs.

The beauty of monopoly gods is that they are very inexpensive, require little or no comprehension, and create a monopoly and relative equality of understanding the world.

The fact that monotheism brought about a more than one thousand year dark age via monopoly should not be lost on us. Whereas but a few centuries in the ancient and modern worlds using the market for mindfulness by a hierarchy of increasingly complex technologies that like virtue, rule, and outcome ethics, or myth, wisdom literature, reason, and science, can mature with each of us.

It is a fallacy to ask whether or not gods exist. Standards of measure exist. Gods are a standard of measure. A rich standard, like numbers are a rich standard – with many applications. So gods exist as standards of measure.

Do they exist as in ‘persist’? Then no. But neither do numbers. Nor do positions. The universe cannot remember so it cannot use positions, only states and forces in time.

So gods to not exist in any other form than as a various set of weights and measures by which we are provided mindfulness and decidability in personal, interpersonal, and community strategies of cooperation, satisfaction, fulfillment, conflict and war.

Now, we humans can speak of constant relations in many different grammars:
from logic to math, to algorithms, to processes and procedures, to models and simulations, to markets and reality’s high causal density, to descriptions, to ideal fictions lacking understanding of causality other than internal correspondence, to fictions that inform by analogy or inference, to the conflationary fictionalisms that combine magic(technology): pseudoscience, myth(history): Pseudo-history, wisdom literature(law): pseudo-rationalism.

And those grammars either provide continuous relations between the physical universe and speech describing our imaginings, or they do not.

Some of our grammars produce ‘stories’ that correspond to reality and some that don’t, some to a possible reality and some that don’t, and some to parable that corresponds somewhat or not, and each of these correspondences provides us with mindfulness or not, and agency in reality or not.

Thankfully we can measure both mindfulness and agency, and their consequences.

And in general, like anything else, there exists an optimum medium between the twin axes of (a)mindfulness and worry, and (b) correspondence and fiction.

And it’s fairly obvious (empirically) that it’s cheaper to teach mindfulness and allegory by fiction(acceptance), and more expensive to teach worry and truth (ambition).

And that higher intelligence discounts the cost of teaching truth and lower intelligence limits us to fictions.

Intuition (analogy) is always cheaper than reason(measurement).

The Geometry of Meaning : The Demand for Narrative

From the series:

math/logic > science > philosophy > religion

We can construct the series:

physical > mental > emotional,

And the series:

logic > description > fiction,

And the series:

associable > reasonable > calculable > computable.

And we can use them to calculate the series:

lack of agency > potential agency > demonstrated agency

Demand to Satisfy Our Wills

The weak of will want religion, to defend against others’ wills;
The able of will want philosophy, to advocate their will and;
The strong of will want science, to put their will to work;
And those who are strongest will want Law:
Because law is the means by which the strong impose their will.

We all want what our Agency demands.

Can We Eliminate Religious Education?

NOT REALLY, NO. BUT THAT STATEMENT REQUIRES WE DEFINE RELIGION AS MARKET DEMANDS RATHER THAN THE CURRENT MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

—”However unrealistic of a goal it might be, wouldn’t the ideal situation be a world without organized religion? Or is there some benefit to religion that I’m not seeing?”—Dan Hopkins

Religion is just education. that’s all. Period. The ‘trick’ of both church and state is to claim church does no education, or that state education is sufficient.

We need training in physical fitness, mindfulness, manners-ethics-morals-rituals (payments to the commons), the laws, the means of calculating that we think of as the 3R’s, the skills to run a household, and the skills for employment.

It does not, as it once did, provide for physical fitness. It provides mindfulness in the personal, interpersonal, and public spheres of life. It provides the some of the manners, ethics, morals rituals that are the positive laws of the social order (not negative laws as is law proper). It provides a venue for public contract making (this is my child, this is my promise to the community, this is my mate, this is our property, this person has died and his or her property may be distributed). It is, to some degree, a computational necessity – meaning that it is very bad not to have that mindfulness. It provides child-level parables and myths which are no less a form of calculation about action in the world than are laws, logic, and mathematics. But there is no reason we cannot have lessons, parables and mythos and histories for each class of people at each stage of their lives, all of which contain the same messages.

There is no reason the church rather than the school, post office, or library is not still the center of civic life, and that government is not relegated to the production and maintenance of material commons, just as we keep commerce out of religion.

What We Learn from Religion

What we learn from religion can be taught by many methods, and that Abrahamic religions are one of the worst possible methods because they have a record of manufacturing ignorance. Despite being the most literate people in Europe the Jews contributed nothing to mankind for two thousand years until converted to Aristotelianism (Testimonial Truth).

Christianity created order cheaply but maintained ignorance that cut the rate of literacy, learning, and innovation to near zero for over a thousand years. Islam destroyed the accumulated capital of every single great civilization of the ancient world other than India, China, and southern Africa who were all geographically isolated from Muslim Raiders, and their continuous destruction of capital, and mandated ignorance through religiously enforced predetermination.

Of the major religions of Abrahamism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Ancestor and Nature Worship, and Stoicism, it is quite clear without exception that Nature and Ancestor Worship and Stoicism are the optimum methods – Particularly for the optimum group evolutionary strategy: ethnocentrism and nationalism. In fact, every other strategy is far worse than ethnocentrism. And only ethnocentrism leads to beneficial continuous eugenic evolution by resisting regression to the mean by continuous dysgenia of underclass reproduction.

That does not mean church(education and universal cults) and temples(banks and personal cults) aren’t a good thing. Church (communal ritual, of lesson, oath, and feast) is a good thing if it’s actually transmitting temporally useful content. (its not currently.)

But the lies of the Abrahamic religions are horrifically destructive compared to the Trials of Achilles, hero, ancestor, and nature worship, or the continuous self authoring of virtues in stoicism and Buddhism – and our original religions of nature, ancestor worship (thankfulness) and Stoicism (mindfulness)were far superior at making mentally healthy people who are able to adapt to constantly changing conditions – and possessed of independent minds: something the authoritarian Semitic religions could not tolerate, and actively suppressed.

Religion is dying everywhere. And it is being replaced with things that are almost as bad if not things that are worse. The question is how we provide the necessary services of religions in a manner not constituted by lies that do not decompose in to scientifically testable, and therefore indisputable prose.

The problem is…. we all love our little lies.

And in my world, it is the lies that cause all the world’s problems, and justify all the world’s crimes, and encourage all the world’s evil.

The problem, religion is the ABSOLUTELY WORST POSSIBLE way of achieving mindfulness. And of the worst possible kinds, Abrahamic Monotheism is the ABSOLUTELY WORST POSSIBLE religion – regardless of whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

The Hard Problem

RELIGION IS THE HARD PROBLEM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

Religion is, surprisingly, the ‘hard problem’ of social science. Every other problem I have set out to solve (or at least understand) has been trivial by comparison. Truth took me a year. The grammars took me less than six months. And those are very hard problems. Religion was much harder.

People are ignorant of the available options and their intuitions have been so successfully trained by the one technique they already hold, that they cannot imagine training their intuitions by any other means.

So (a) man needs mindfulness, and (b) and man needs mindfulness to different degrees, and (c) the mindfulness is dependent a bit on genetics of mindfulness (males less than females in general, and females more in general), (d) personality needs, (e) class circumstances, (f) cultural-political circumstances – all of which generate (or do not generate) demand for mindfulness.

Now, that mindfulness can be provided by the Hindu Means (literary immersion), the three Abrahamic monotheistic means (organized indoctrination) of low(Islam), working(Christian), and middle (Jewish) religion; the Buddhist means (training); the rather ‘new age/European’ (philosophy-as-religion-substitute) means; the Shinto and ritual means (ritual); or by cognitive-behavioral education that we call ‘Stoicism’ for context.

And there is a great deal to lean just from the ORDER of those methods of training: how much infrastructure is needed to preserve the ‘illusion’ of the mythos vs. argument vs. ritual vs. education. And how much ‘ability’ given the means of training (immersion in Hinduism through individual education in stoicism). But this is just a matter of WEALTH sufficient to pay for the means of TRAINING vs. a given period of time: i.e. producing the mass illusions of the ancient religions required an informational vulnerability (absence of knowledge and alternatives) that existed only in the past – and no longer does.

So if one wants to produce a religion that is not made of lies, it is entirely possible to do so – with a total absence of religious parables. And instead, a reliance on parables of history, and training in the virtues.

Christianity has a very simple set of underlying principles that are constituted in only four statements. Islam and Judaism can also be, but to do so is horrifying. Christianity’s four statements are quite simple and will in general produce consequent goods.

There is just no need to lie to people and train them to be vulnerable to lies, and train priests to lie, and politicians to lie by the same means in order to teach those four rules.

No more lies by Judaism, devolves into Christianity, devolves into Islam, evolves into Marxism, Postmodernism, Feminism.

No more lies. People need “imaginary friends, parents, leaders” for very well understood reasons: they have been failed by those around them, to provide positive socialization and training by existential means.

We are able to teach truthful speech (science) and there is no reason we cannot provide positive socialization and training (mindfulness) by equally truthful means.

Convergence on the Truth: continuous increase in the precision of correspondence between reality, perception, cognition, recollection, description, negotiation, and advocacy.

Religion via Negativa

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

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

On the other hand – more precisely – it means those of us with a great deal of agency do not need it, but we desire it’s consequences.

It means that those with the pretense of agency – the ‘atheists’ need a substitute for it, and have chosen pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience.

It means that some of us mouth pretense to it because we understand the value of religion but find the superstition, supernaturalism, fictionalism, and outright falsehood merely an absurd cost of obtaining the good produced by the rituals and discipline.

And it means that those without the ability to trust those with more agency than they, need the superstition to sate their emotions, the supernaturalism to grant authority to the fictionalism, and the outright falsehood as a means of insulating themselves from suggestion by those who would sway them from the strategies embodied in all of the above.

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

 

 

 

Our Natural Religions

We Had No Religion. We Had Law, Festival, and Myth.

—”It is perhaps misleading even to say that there was such a religion as paganism at the beginning of [the Common Era] … It might be less confusing to say that the pagans, before their competition with Christianity, had no religion at all in the sense in which that word is normally used today. They had no tradition of discourse about ritual or religious matters (apart from philosophical debate or antiquarian treatise), no organized system of beliefs to which they were asked to commit themselves, no authority-structure peculiar to the religious area, above all no commitment to a particular group of people or set of ideas other than their family and political context. If this is the right view of pagan life, it follows that we should look on paganism quite simply as a religion invented in the course of the second to third centuries AD, in competition and interaction with Christians, Jews and others. — North 1992

PAGAN VS HEATHEN

Technically ‘pagan’ is the name of a Christian criticism of heathens the way Marxists used capitalism to criticize the middle class. Heathen means, as far as I can tell, ‘religion of the hearth’, or more correctly ‘folk religion’, or ‘natural religion’. Whereas monotheism is a political religion – an unnatural religion.

—”This process of accommodation resulted in the essential transformation of Christianity from a universal salvation religion to a Germanic, and eventually European, folk religion.”—

The West Has Always Been Polytheistic Because Its Poly-Grammatic

While it is the secret to the west’s competitive advantage, we are sometimes misled by our (false) historical narrative: The west never engaged in conflation, by creating ‘one book’ so to speak. We have always had:

1) Law (limits) for the Ruling (fathering) Classes,
2) Commerce (pragmatism) for the producing classes.
2) Religion (utopianism) for Science / pseudoscience, philosophy / pseudo-rationalism, and Theology / fraud for the Educating (mothering) classes (church/academy).

And have always maintained the three estates of the realm using the three methods of coercion:

1) Law/Limits: Force / ostracization from movement/ resources / life itself.
2) Exchange/Utility: Payment / Remuneration / Ostracization from consumption.
3) Religion: Resistance / Undermining / Gossip / Rallying / Shaming / Ostracization from opportunity for insurance from the tribe.

Without the Supernatural: Stoicism

Stoicism

Stoicism consists of disciplined self authoring.
The purpose of stoicism is to teach mindfulness.
Not escapist mindfulness, but actionable mindfulness.
Not fantasy mindfulness, but actionable mindfulness.
Not victim mindfulness but actionable mindfulness.
Enumerate a number of virtues (these are open to debate)
Write a plan for your life that includes achievements and virtues.
Every day plan your day. Every night review your progress.
Repeat this process until you do it by nature.
The purpose is to insulate you from opinions, influences, and manipulations of others, while gradually achieving your ends, without falling into manipulation, influence, and opining others.
That’s it.
That’s all there is to it.
The rest is just a romance novel we wrap around that discipline.
It’s the best method we know of so far, with buddhism a far distant, and escapist, second.

RPO ON STOICISM

Revilo P Oliver was one of the best classicists the USA had. It‘s a shame that – due to his political associations – his name is almost forgotten today.

In diverse essays‚ but mostly in The Origins of Christianity,‘ one can read:
„…Unlike Epicureanism and the New Academy, which were philosophic products of the Greek mind and expounded by Greeks, Stoicism was an alien doctrine foisted onto the Aryan peoples of Antiquity…

„…Stoicism was founded and to a considerable extent promoted by Semites, and although it included, by chance or design, much that was in conformity with the Aryan spirit and mentality, it was hybrid, a bastard philosophy, for it also contained much that was Semitic and alien to our race.

That criticism may make you uneasy. I understand. We all respect Stoicism because it was endowed with a glamorous prestige by the great men whose creed it was. We are Aryans, and by a racial imperative inherent in our blood, far stronger than ratiocination, we admire heroism and fortitude. Stoicism was in practice the creed of Cato of Utica and many another Roman aristocrat who lived bravely and died proudly, meeting his fate with unflinching resolution. We instinctively pay homage to such men, and we venerate even more women of exemplary courage, like Arria, the devoted wife of A. Caecina Paetus (“Paete, non dolet.”) Panaetius did make of an originally Semitic doctrine a creed that includes much that was consonant with the spirit and mentality of our race.
But much as we admire great Romans, we must remember that, as Gilbert Murray remarked, Stoicism retained from its origins a latent fanaticism in its religiosity and it professed to offer a kind of Salvation to unhappy mankind; despite its ostentatious appeal to nature and reason, it was a kind of evangelism “whose professions dazzled the reason.” It professed to deduce from biology an asceticism that was in fact fundamentally inhuman and therefore irrational, e.g., the limitation of sexual intercourse to the begetting of offspring. Although it was the creed of heroes, we cannot but feel that there was in it something sickly and deformed.

Stoicism, furthermore, was an intellectual disaster. It carried with it the poisonous cosmopolitanism that talks about “One World” and imagines that Divine Providence has made all human beings part of the Divine Plan, so that there are no racial differences, but only differences in education and understanding of the Stoics’ Truth. That is why we today so often do not know the race of an individual who had learned to speak and write good Greek (or Latin) and had been given, or had adopted, a civilized name. Our sources of information were so bemused by vapid verbiage about the Brotherhood of Man that they forgot to discriminate…”

Epicureanism

EPICURUS AND HIS PHILOSOPHY

Epicurus was an Athenian philosopher who lived at the beginning of the Hellenistic period (341-270 BC) and founded the philosophical School of the Epicureans, called the “Garden”. Epicurus teachings is a timeless source of inspiration, because the philosopher understood the nature of humans and the universe and described the way to achieve a happy life .

He was the first humanist philosopher because he was interested in the happiness of all people. In an era when the Platonic Academy and the Aristotelian Lyceum taught only rich men, the Epicurean Garden taught equally rich and poor, men and women, prostitutes and slaves. Epicurus was the first existential psychotherapist, according to psychiatrist Irvin Yalom, because he was interested to soothe mental agitation, which is caused by subconscious fear of death.

He was the first enlightening philosopher because he realized that people would be able to save themselves from superstition and irrational metaphysical fears only by observing nature and having objective scientific knowledge. He was the first philosopher who taught that true reverence for the divine is respect and admiration for the wonderful and blissful nature of the gods, while it is nonsense and disrespect to fear the deities or to want to use them as servants who satisfy our desires.

For Epicurus there is no pleasant life unless it is accompanied by wisdom, goodness and justice and there is no wisdom, goodness and justice if there is no pleasure in life. Justice is not self-existent in nature but results from the agreement of the people not to harm and not to be harmed, i.e. the social contract. Epicurus considered any idea of duty or objective that is not anthropocentric (human centered) to be a hypocrisy. The prudent, virtuous and pleasureable life with a relative self-sufficiency can ensure human freedom.

Before Epicurus, the disciple of Socrates and classmate of Plato Aristippus taught that the purpose of life is the constant enjoyment of carnal pleasures. Epicurus disagreed completely with this unrestrained and foolish hedonism of Aristippus. In contrast, he thought that the purpose of a prudent human is happiness (well-being), i.e. the lack of physical pain (aponia) and the lack of mental agitation (ataraxia). Epicurus taught that the blissful state of aponia and ataraxia can be achieved only using prudence to select fulfillment of natural and necessary desires (e.g. for food when hungry) and avoid unnatural and unnecessary desires (such as vanity ). Without rejecting the pleasures of the body, Epicurus thought that mental pleasures are superior and that the most pleasurable and undisturbed life stems from the scientific study of nature and from teaching a sound philosophy that promotes people’s happiness. According to him, wisdom is the most important personal virtue and friendship is the most important social good. For the Athenian philosopher acquiring friends is the most important means to achieve a the happy life (“we can be saved through each other”).

Epicurus combined the atomic physics of Democritus and the biological ethics of Aristotle, checking empirically and correcting each point of the previous philosophies with admirable consistency. Using an observation and analogy methodology he developed, the Athenian philosopher built an extremely coherent worldview without any conceptual contradictions. He was the first philosopher who spoke of the existence of chance in nature which allows the existence of human free will. He was the first who linked the free will with prudence, critical thinking, responsibility and pleasurable pursuit of virtue. He was the first to speak about progress of humankind from the primitive to the civilized era, based on the observation of nature, technology development and the moral and cultural maturation of humans. Utilizing observation data from several areas of knowledge Epicurus was able to express views that were confirmed in the last two centuries of Science: the weight of atoms, the new properties of molecules resulting from their atomic structure, the materiality of the human mind, the molecular basis of diseases, the evolution of living organisms, the numerous worlds in the universe. The ingenious philosopher suggested even the existence of extraterrestrial life, a notion that modern science still searches.

The Epicurean philosophy spread over almost seven centuries in Hellenistic and Roman eras assisting many thousands of people to live happily. With the advent of the Middle Ages human civilization retreated and the philosophy of Epicurus became defamed and forgotten for a millenium. During the Renaissance, the great scientific poem of the Roman Epicurean Lucretius “On the nature of things ” was discovered from obscurity and influenced many humanists. Two centuries later the Epicurean philosophy was revived by the natural philosopher and Catholic priest Gassendi. This revival led to the Enlightenment and Science eras influencing (among many others) Galileo, Newton, Locke, Diderot, the third USA president Thomas Jefferson, Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill and Charles Darwin.

–“Plato’s philosophy was for ‘the intellectuals’; the ethics of Plato are tied to his whole system of knowledge, including politics. The doctrines of Epicurus appealed chiefly to the middle classes, the bourgeoisie; the ethics of Epicurus are separated from politics and joined only with physics (and Aristotle). The teachings of Jesus were for the very poor, the lost sheep. The ethics of Jesus are isolated from both physics and politics and fitted into a development scheme of salvation.”—

Curt and I were trying to figure out why Epicurean philosophy was wiped out so easily after the fall of the Roman Empire. There were never strong Epicurean communities. Epicureans prioritized their small groups and chose not to engage in politics (a consequence of the civil wars that used to plague the ancient world).

I was recently reading “Liberalism: Ancient & Modern” by Leo Strauss. The central chapter and the longest chapter is his “Notes on Lucretius”. He identifies one of the main tenets of Epicurean teaching–that the world that we love is not eternal, because every world is mortal within the eternal universe of atoms in motion–as “the most terrible truth”.

Philosophers can live with this truth with a tranquil mind. But most human beings cannot. And consequently most human beings can find peace of mind only through the “pleasing delusion” of a religious belief that the world of human concern is supported by a loving intelligent designer.

I guess that the temptation for the Platonist “intellectuals” to lead the “lost sheep” and at the same time sandwich the middle classes has always been there.

 

The Anti-European Revolution

THE SEMITIC DESTRUCTION

The most frightening aspect of this story is that it confirms that hell has no fury like a scorned woman, so to speak. The plebs, stirred up by the priests, was as destructive as an atomic bomb.

Democritus, father of modern science, nothing left. Aristotle, only lecture notes. Cicero described his literary style as ‚a river of gold’, we can just dream. The Epicurean tradition survived thanks to the discovery of the only surviving manuscript of ‚De Rerum Natura’

and the excavations at Herculaneum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_of_the_Papyri

I can easily imagine the mob in a few decades burning Monticello down.

 

 

 

 

Christianity

A Treatment of Christian religion.

As I’ve stated;

1. Our next expansion of incremental suppression by Natural Law consists largely of the extension of fraud protection from commerce to all walks of political life. That extension has been necessary to save our people from extermination, because of their genetic, cultural, and religious vulnerability to false promise and sophism (fraud).
2. Our people are being conquered in the present by the use of a particular technique invented by the ancient Jews, and practiced today: false promise and baiting into moral hazard, and argued with Pilpul (justificationary sophism) and critique (critical sophism).
3. Marxism (working classes), Postmodernism(intellectual classes), Feminism( women) and Denialism (political classes) are simply another means of defeating Europeans in the present using the same techniques as Judaism (undermining) , Christianity (weakening), and Islam (conquering) in the ancient world. And we were only saved in the past by the restoration of Aryanism by the northern Europeans in both the old and new worlds.
4. The Abrahamic religions are a cancer to mankind: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and they have destroyed or nearly destroyed (us), every great civilization of the ancient world. They are, figuratively, the most dysgenic thing that has ever happened to mankind, with only Manorialism, aggressive hanging of troublemakers, wars, and harsh Winters providing resistance to genetic cultural and institutional regression.
5. However among those lies exists the optimum group strategy which is the reason that Christianity assists primitive people in developing a middle class:
6. a) that the commons is sacred – meaning not for personal consumption or cost imposition.
7. b) the eradication of hatred from the human heart.
   c) the extension of kinship love to non-kin.
8. d) the demand for personal acts of charity and personal cost,
9. e) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war.

This strategy is, logically and empirically the optimum group evolutionary strategy – if limited to the in-group.

6. But Christianity is not limited to the in group and universal meaning it is suicidal. The strategy has a very limited range of success, and that is about the rate at which we produce generations. And therefore we cannot use this strategy in concert with immigration (invasion).
7. But Christianity says we are equal and we are not. Many people are either a dead weight or harm to the population and are best removed from it – but since others do the job of out-casting Christians ‘free ride’ (break Christian rule).
8. But Christians do not perform personal acts of charity today. they do the opposite. They virtue signal. And as such are no longer Christian. Since without personal (not monetary, but interpersonal) acts of charity one is no longer a Christian just a claim to the benefits of Christianity, without paying the costs of it.
9. The Churches and Christianity are in decline, impoverished, closing and absent a new generation of members (a certain death) for the simple reason: that the only religious group that reformed post-Darwin were the evangelicals. They moved to Jesus rather than god, they moved to mindfulness rather than submission, and they retained family, and they emphasized personal relationships and large scale gatherings. The Mormons have an exceptional social order but are running out of population to convert, have broken ethnicity, and have not adjusted accordingly. These are common problems of businesses that cannot produce results without new products or new customers. Orthodoxy is less political and more ritualistic and seems to have survived simply by not seeking to obtain or retain the political and economic power of the protestant and catholic churches. Catholicism as unabashedly given up on Europe and Anglodom, and is an African and south American and east Asian religion today – because it cannot reform nor can it survive without economic rents it had under the middle ages.
10. I cannot and will not leave a ‘hole’ in the law for Abrahamists to use false promise, baiting into moral hazard, Pilpul(justificationary sophism) and critique (critical sophism), and the associated straw manning (distraction and overloading), to once again come back and attempt to harm my people with their frauds. This would mean not solving the problem permanently – and our law must do so for our survival.
11. I have deflated and disambiguated religion into its requisite components. These components serve only one purpose, and that is to provide mindfulness that is necessary given the our prey response and related neuroticism given the uncertainty of human scale of cooperation – more so than the suffering (borderline starvation) and disease endemic under agrarian life. and even more so given the current problem of the dissolution of the family – the only remaining tribe in which can insure its members.
12. These components consist of

(a) Some method of obtaining mindfulness, through some sort of ritual,
(b) some mythology that provides a common group competitive strategy across the classes permitting cooperation without conflict toward a shared end between peoples of vast difference in ability, value, and resources,
(c) ritual of recitation, oath and feast to demonstrate and reinforce and repeat investment in that strategy,
(d) festival feast sport and holiday that again reduce the differences between the classes, and reinforce the sense of reciprocity and proportionality that the (purely analytic) subconscious mind requires to maintain trust
(c) the intergenerational transfer of familial and social debt obligations.

And these religions evolved in this sequence:

(a) burying the dead (mindfulness over loss by paying debts)
(b) celebrating victories or hunts (by paying debts)
(c) sacrifice (making a deposit )
(d) seasons (deposit and debt payment)
(e) organizing plantings and harvests (forecasting)
(f) a political religion (organizing a large illiterate society under storytelling )
(g) an undermining religion – reversing evolution and power by undermining the aristocracy with writing and speech.
(h) pseudoscientific religion – conducting warfare against a people with false economic promise and political promise, rather than life after death.

 

A religion is not what it claims or its doctrine mandates or wisdom literature advises, but the result of their observation and practice regardless of those claims. A study of world religions through time illustrates quite clearly that while each religious system provides some benefits it comes at great cost.

(a) Gypsies and Judaism through persecution by hosts for their survival by parasitism. They are throughout history parasitic peoples. Gypsies through petty theft and prostitution, Judaism through undermining, baiting into moral hazard, allying with the state, and seeking rents against the people, their culture their norms and their institutions; and Islam directly so under physical threat forcible indoctrination, taxation into submission, rather than cunning and manipulation and deceit.

(b) Islam results in internal genetic, cultural, and institutional decline (accumulated capital consumption) and the inability to develop a central government, a bureaucratic class free of corruption, an educated populace, and a demographic distribution sufficient for scientific literacy and cognition.

(c) Christianity, vulnerability to deception, vulnerability to military conquest, insulation from scientific knowledge, and escapism over action, leaving a minority of the aristocratic class to parent the society in order to protect it from the same decline as Islam.

(d) Buddhism detachment from reality, and the incentive for tolerance rather than action – leaving the aristocratic Chinese-Confucian and the martial Japanese paternal classes to parent these civilizations. and the people in stasis rather than decline.

(e) Hinduism is hard to judge but it is perhaps the most honest religion, but leaves the people vulnerable to conquest by every single group that happens to wander by. Whether this is a result of demographics or the religion is something difficult to understand. But the general orderliness and pacifism of the religion and the politics, the submissiveness of the people, the lack of a militia left India vulnerable to divide and conquer politically, and easy conquest militarily. Russia has her winters and scale, but India has her population and scale, and both are difficult to defeat in the long run for reasons not related to their culture or wisdom. Pakistan is the center of ancient India and hit has been conquered and taken and is now hostile to the core of the remaining civilization.

In the old world, secular Indian thought, Chinese secular thought, and European secular thought appear to be the only thought of value in the world for organizing a large ignorant, unintelligent, superstitious, poor underclass such that they produce sufficient income that the patriarchal aristocracy can hold the territory from conquest. The rest was just habit.

We cannot know this yet but it is likely that groups simply do then as today, practice grammars of allegory on one end and reason on the other depending upon the median of the distribution of the population and that the reason for secular and scientific rise is largely due not only to trade but to eugenic culling of the classes dependent upon superstition and deceit for survival.

1. The west’s organizing property was the common law. The gods were not superiors but those to be tolerated or asked, or those that we might ascend into by heroism. This resulted in a separation of rule (law) and festival (religion) rather than the totalitarian conflation of religion and law. Leaving open a competition. Greeks invented reason and moral law. Romans invented empirical law and disavowed Greek idealism – in concert with traditional European tradition. The Greco Anatolians brought up epicureanism and stoicism as means of providing the middle and upper middle classes with mindfulness possible in the world of reason. The romans expanded it. so as far as I know the law, ancestor thanks, archetypal thanks (proxies for kin and nature)and stoicism are the only ‘good’ religions, free of the vulnerabilities of Semitic deceit and the cancer they bring to each civilization.
2. So I know how to allow our natural religion to emerge by combining the good of Christianity and the good of ancestor and nature-thanks (intergenerational transfer of debts), and I know how to use Stoicism, Epicureanism, Ritual, Festival and Oath to restore our people. I know how to restore religion (teaching, education) to a central function of the social order. I know that with enough time the religions will adapt to natural incentives. But I do not know how to do this without either engaging in Abrahamic lying myself (Pilpul) or prohibiting the church from making claims that everything in Christianity is either children’s story or lie, and that we must take the wisdom from it despite its falsehood rather than claim that any of it is true. And yes, I understand that the reason these religions function is that they are producing a natural drug response within the brain’s reward system, and that followers experience an addiction response when threatened and defend the source of their addiction to the death. I understand the underlying psychology of disintermediation by fictional characters and the value this has to the human mind – particularly the dim, vulnerable, and undisciplined.
3. Worse I understand that our history alone is that of gods ourselves, for a having dragged mankind out of ignorance and superstition, an poverty, and disease. And it is our people, our kin, and our civilization in the pre Christian and post Christian worlds that did so. And that this comparison between truth and lies makes the Semitic people and their death cults look like the peasantry they are, and the liars they are, and the low trust people they are, and the cancer pon making that they are. So why submit to the gods of evil and failed parasitic and destructive peoples who are a cancer upon mankind and the bringers of ignorance and superstition and dark ages – rather than give thanks (pay debt) our own ancestors, our own ancient gods (archetypes), our own heroes and our own achievements, and the beauty, wonder, and plenty of nature itself?
4. If we are to survive, we must survive the Semites, and their death cults of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and the language of death and deceit we call Abraham: false promise, baiting into moral hazard, an the sophisms of Pilpul and critique.
5. It is thru the window of Christianity and the submissiveness that these people lie, bait, guilt, invade, and destroy us. If Christianity is our weakness, than I see it must be reformed from a Semitic death cult to the history of a very simple man, the son of a roman solider and a Jewish prostitute, with a very simple message of love for one another and the end of predation upon one another. And the rest of Saul of Tarsus’ lies must be gone forever. Along with the excuses for those lies we call theology and doctrine, and the long literature of our defeat, conquest, and submission. Instead, law, science, truth, and history and the glory and divinity of our people.
6. So in the conflict between the future our people, and your addiction to a death cult and the means of lying within that death cult – and the promise of a new religion that takes the best of all, and one of the lies, I chose the new: Our own. My people. Our people. The European people – those people that have dragged humanity from a victim of nature to its master. Man is now god he imagined. But he is so because of the indo European people, and in particular the people of Europe and their strange law in the ancient and modern world, while the Chinese hid behind their desert and walls and left the hard labor of resisting the animals to us. We have been at war with the Semites since we crossed the Bosporus. And they have been winning for all but the past hundred years. Time to end the war – and separate from them and prohibit them and their ideas from our lands, our minds, and our religions. Because the alternative is our extinction or theirs.

 

The Functional Problem Of Western Religion

1 – Separation of education and religion
…….. – The failure of religions to reform in response to the scientific enlightenment.
…….. – The failure of religions to reform in response to Darwin.
…….. – The Academy’s seizure of the functions of the church upon the failure of the church to reform.
…….. – The End of western separation and competition between Religion and State by the adoption of the synthesis of Jewish cosmopolitan and puritan Postmodern by the State, Academy, Media complex the current generation of thinkers refers to as “The Cathedral Complex”, or just “The Cathedral” for short.
…….. – The beginning of state financed New Indulgences (we call them ‘college diplomas’) that promise a middle or upper class level of consumption instead of forgiveness of sins and entry into heaven – when the postwar economic boom that made possible the rapid expansion of the consumer class was just a temporary product of the combined tragedies of the Great European Civil War’s destruction of centuries of accumulated production capacity, plus the destruction of, and delay of expansion of, world production caused by the movement we call world communism (and now, its inheritor, world Islamism).

2 – The academy seized control of the commercial education and the ‘religious’ education (liberalism), but failed to seize familial education – and in most cases, assisted the state in the destruction first of black families, then white families, and now all families, in order to (a) provide women with child care (schooling), force them into the labor pool (Feminism), and then consume the entire proceeds of women’s labor so that the war and boomer generation could retire early and lie on the next generation’s labor, and then immigrating third world labor to provide cheap labor (social programs) that cannot replace the prior generation because of lesser aggregate abilities. The family destruction was increased by attempt to create a mobile workforce and thereby deprive women of the multi-generational support necessary to raise more than one child without exhaustion. And now it is impossible for women to return to child bearing and child rearing because of the tax demands placed upon their earnings by the immigration of underclasses and the dependency of the aged yet healthy enough to work.

3 – The state sponsored secular ‘religion’ that we currently teach is pseudoscientific (false, and dishonest), where the content of Christian religion (the extension of kinship forgiveness to non kin) was ‘true’ but conveyed by nonsense and authoritarianism.

4 – One of the unstated drivers for the current conflict in America is not just the decline of the white population and the ascent of the colored cities, but because science has caught up and since 1990 has been aggressively disproving the universalist, globalist, equalitarian democratic secular socialist religion. And those who are aware of this are … angry … and full of conviction that their traditions and intuitions were correct. Therefore they feel betrayed and deceived.

 

Why Our Christian Religion Fails

LANGUAGES, GRAMMAR, VOCABULARY, MEANING, KNOWLEDGE AND THE TECHNOLOGY OF TESTING MEANING

It was a very long time ago, and that the Levant was a very poor and backward ghetto of the empire, and that while we had roman rule, law, and commerce, and Greek philosophy, reason, mathematics, the primitive people had only their primitive language to speak with and they did the best that they could – they spoke in primitive language.

Like the few primitive people living today, they had no reason, no philosophy, no science, no mathematics. And so they had to say something was good or ‘true’ because it was commanded by the gods, not because it was reasonably comprehensible, rationally consistent, philosophically sound, scientifically demonstrable, or mathematically consistent.

They had only ‘because the boss says so’ to use as ‘this is true’. We can, today, say the same things without primitive language, and by making truth claims using reason, rationalism, philosophy, science and mathematics. But … our words, grammar, and pronunciation, are not the only content of language, but the meaning, values and emotions that we describe with those sounds, to produce those words, using that grammar.

So just as we have difficulty losing our accents, and our grammar, we have difficulty losing the ideas that we learned with which to produce those sounds, words, grammar and language. We all have trouble losing our vocalized and intuited ‘accents’ – what we call ‘biases’. They are the foundations upon which all our consequential words, sentences, paragraphs, and stories depend.

So just as the Chinese sound very differently from region to region, yet use the same character set for writing, we can, in the same culture, do similarly: use the same words and grammar despite very different meanings, and values in our minds that we describe them with. And so, if someone is raised using English, but learns archaic Semitic parables; or someone is raised using English but learns historical and biographical parables; or someone is raised using English but learns scientific and mathematical principles “parables”, then these are very different internal meanings using very similar words.

The difference between the ancient parables, the historical parables, and the scientific parables, is that we can empathize with anthropomorphized parables without much general knowledge, empathize a bit less with historical parables with quite a bit of general knowledge, and empathize with sciences only if we possess very specific knowledge in addition to general knowledge. So that the cost of learning to speak each language increases in time, and effort.

And so we tell primitive people and children parables of animals and people and gods and heroes. We tell young adults rules that require reason. We tell adults about law that is internally consistent requiring rationalism. We educate specialists in the sciences where specialized knowledge is necessary. And the old and wise, among us who have studied all of the parables, the histories, the laws, and the sciences, can try to provide answers for all those groups in the languages that they can hopefully one day understand.

Once you grasp that we use spoken languages with common, uncommon, and specialized terms, across all people in a political system. But within that system we use multiple languages of MEANING. And that each of these languages of meaning, relies upon that universal spoken language; and that each of these languages of meaning uses a technology of ‘validation’ or ‘truth testing’, that varies from the primitive and experiential, and anthropomorphic, to the historical analogy, to the legal evidence, to the scientifically precise; and that it requires much more knowledge and often, much more intelligence, for each additional level of precision that we add on top of the anthropomorphic.

Then you realize that while we use the same basic words and grammar, we do not use the same vocabularies; and that vocabularies tell us which technology of understanding that a person relies upon, the relative inferiority or superiority of that language in solving problems of increasing precision; how much general knowledge is requires for that person to retain that technology of meaning; and the likelihood of the intelligence of that person who employs that technology of meaning. And this is what we do.

We form hierarchies and classes and each class uses the same root spoken language and grammar, but uses the language of meaning suited to his upbringing, his degree of ability, and his degree of accumulated knowledge. So we do not only judge people by their dress, and by their body language, and by their manners, but by the spoken language, and language of meaning that they rely upon. Because these are demonstrated rather than reported evidence of the person who acts, speaks, and thinks by those dress, actions, manners, and words.

THE CHURCH FAILED AND CONTINUES TO FAIL

How can you advocate Christianity as a market good (something that people want to believe), when it so clearly is failing to compete in the market? What do socialism and cultural Marxism, and postmodernism sell that people prefer to buy over Christianity? What does Islam sell that people prefer to buy over socialism, cultural Marxism postmodernism – as well as Christianity? Even as an evil it fails to compete against more advanced evils. It doesn’t protect us from them – but makes us more vulnerable to more advanced evils. Judaism to undermine, Christianity to weaken, Islam to destroy.

Why Our Church Failed

THE CONTENT OF RELIGION, AND THE FAILURE OF THE CHURCH

Why did the church fail to reform?

– anti-intellectualism.
– superstition rather than myth.
– peasant rather than middle class
– agrarian rather than industrialism
– suffering rather than heroism and possibility.
– Semitic rather than European.

Why did the Church fail to produce a reformer?

– Why no Augustine, or Luther?
– Why was Smith/Hume/Jefferson insufficient?
– Why no accommodation for Darwin, Menger, Maxwell, Durkheim, Nietzsche?

The answer: Too much of a change. So, the academy took possession away from the church. The academy took funding away from the church. The state took all lands from the church.

It might have been possible if not for the world wars and communism. However, the Germans were very close. The British traditionalists were very close. The Church could have seized the opportunity, or it could have defeated the opposition: Marxism. But it did neither. It was lazy and intellectually incompetent.

As far as I know, an organized religion must provide:

(a) a community setting where individual expression prohibited. (signal free environment)
(b) a very simple set of comprehensible laws (strategy)
(c) a method of achieving mindfulness, and excuse for it.
(d) recitation of myths, legends, history, heroes
(e) application of past wisdom to current issues.
(f) participatory rituals (praying, singing, moving).
(g) participatory holidays ( relief – vacation days )
(h) participatory feasts (special holidays – family)
(i) participatory festivals (sports, plays, games)
(j) an institutional means of transference of all of the above between generations. (profession)

The acts matter much more than the words. The acts produce the experience. The words only JUSTIFY it. The Church was so heavily anti intellectual it abandoned the people to the profit seeking of the academy, the profit seeking of the state, the profit seeking of the financial sector, and hid among the developing world’s poor.

Why Is Organized Christianity Losing?

Westerners were naturalists and empiricists back into prehistory for the simple reason that western civilization’s first organizing principle is the militia and the sovereignty that a militia grants and requires of each individual in it.

The militia was necessary on the vast European plain for the simple reason that no flood river valleys with centralized organization of irrigation existed as did in the south east, India, and far east, wherein a small force could seek rents upon agrarian production, centralize capital, and create parasitic central governments and empires – first by priests, secondly by warriors, and third by their merger.

Instead, westerners had horses, cattle, pigs, crops, and good arable land, and production remained distributed – and because of that distribution, lower populations, but higher eugenic evolution (suppression of underclass reproduction.)

So, possessed of small numbers, but horse, metalsmithing, and the wheel, they compensated for inferior numbers with technology, risk-taking, and maneuver – adaptation to changes.

And since metal, wheel, and horse were expensive, they were supplied by families (knights were armored by families right up thru and after the crusades – only gunpowder changed the financing. It became cheap to field soldiers.)

Such a voluntary militia requires sovereignty. The only way differences in sovereignty can be resolved is by reciprocity, and the only possible test of reciprocity is tort.

In other words, the western common law began and remains empirical. Not authoritarian, and not ideal, and not supernatural. But purely empirical and reciprocal. And it was this first organizing principle that caused the evolution of reason, mathematics, engineering, stoicism, Greek and roman law, empiricism, and finally science. Because debate was forever necessary. The growth of commerce only exacerbated and reinforced this behavior.

The Abrahamic Dark Age of Christianity/Judaism/Islam is over, and western people have returned to their original traditions. The traditions by which they dragged themselves out of the ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, starvation, disease, infant mortality and early death.

There is nothing good in Christianity that was not there before it. And there is nothing bad in Christianity that was not put there to undermine the western aristocracy so that the eastern empire could rule a land of the ignorant as had the despots done time immemorial in the fertile crescent.

In other words: we were always empirical, and we have returned to type.

The lies of priests no longer fall on illiterate ears.

Why is Christianity Semitic, Not European?

INSPIRING BEHAVIOR COMPATIBLE WITH NATURAL LAW BUT, THOUGHT, SPEECH, POLITICS, AND VIRTUE INCOMPATIBLE WITH IT.

What makes Christianity Semitic and Jewish is the method of presentation (fictional history), the adaptation rather than Homeric repetition (justification), the method of argument: Pilpul(sophism), the demand for exclusivity (monotheism), the demand for submission(slave morality), the demand for obedience (law vs wisdom) rather than respect and tolerance, the demand for expansion (domination), divisiveness and demonization (poly-ethicalism – although Christian is less so than Judaism or Islam), the primacy of priests and conformity(positive) rather than law and conflict resolution (negative), the maladaptivity (devolution) rather than adaptivity (markets), the genetics (dysgenic rather than eugenic), and the spreading of ‘sources of ignorance’ rather than knowledge and innovation. The fact that it has been called an opiate of masses is simply a medical truism, since that’s precisely what it does (literally).

The fact that people spoke and wrote in Greek, in Greek-conquered lands, does not make them Greek. What makes on the member of a group evolutionary strategy is their method of cooperation toward a given end. In the case of western vs. Semitic, it’s Truth, Correspondence, Heroism, Agency, Innovation, and Rule of Empirical Law, vs Lying, Non-Correspondence, Slavery, the absence of Agency, Stagnation and the Rule by Fictional Law.

The historical problem facing aristocratic western man in curing himself of the underclass and effeminate infection of Abrahamic sophism, is that empirical law, commerce, and science is simply practiced while literature is debated. Once you understand this, the parallel between Judaism and Marxism, and Christianity and Postmodernism is obvious: Jewish pseudoscience and law that is non-correspondent, and Christian literature and rationalism that is allegorical and non correspondent. They attempt to achieve by overloading reason, with framing obscurantism and suggestion, an appeal to intuition of the interpersonal experience, rather than informing us as to the limits of personal perception and experience and the use of measurements both physical and logical to extend it.

The Abrahamisms are Sophisms – by analogy, not Measurements – by description. Western man measures the empirical to understand and defeat reality. Semitic man fictionalizes to ignore, and circumvent reality.

Abrahamic fictionalism is the very opposite of Western Description. They tell fictions. We report on events.

HOW OUR NATIVE RELIGION WAS ABRAHAMISED:

1. Poet: Homer -> Saul of Tarsus
2. Prophet: Aristotle -> Abraham
3. Hero: Achilles -> Jesus, Muhammad
4. Superhero: Mithras -> Moses
5. Deity: Sol Invictus -> Jesus
6. God: Dyeus Pater -> Yahweh/Allah
7. Mindfulness: Stoicism and Epicureanism -> Faith and Prayer
8. Ritual Feast: Mithraic Mysteries -> Mass
   — by Yiannis Kontinopoulos

Christianity, Judaism, And Islam: Moral Or Immoral?

ASSUMING YOU TEACH CHRISTIANITY AS MYTH RATHER THAN HISTORY, BY AND LARGE IT’S COMPATIBLE WITH NATURAL LAW. BUT THE SAME ISN’T TRUE FOR JUDAISM AND ISLAM.

If by Christianity we are talking about the content of the bible, and in particular of the new testament, then this is different from the doctrines of the church.

1) The ten commandments enumerate what we call natural law, or property rights, prohibiting envy, deceit, interference in others contract, theft, and murder – thereby preserving the value of cooperation.

The nuclear family is the basic unit of social production, and the costs of it must be born by all of us in every generation for the good of all.

Invest heavily in the creation of opportunity and insurance of others even in the face of offense and rejection by treating non-kin with the tolerance and care of kin, in order to increase the number of those with whom we can cooperate with us, just as we cooperate with kin.

Impulsivity, Selfishness, Arrogance and Hubris await us at every moment and it is only through constant practice at patience that we learn enough about the world to avoid impulsivity, selfishness, arrogance, and hubris.

The state – the aristocracy and our enemies – cannot be resisted by the force of the weak, but the weak can insure one another independently of the state – we are weak, but if we are many, and we treat one another as kin, we will be equally as strong in resisting the state. If we are not dependent on the state, but dependent upon one another, we create the power of a state without a state.

Regular prayer for advice to an all knowing ‘father’ will teach you to be as honest with yourself, and once honest with yourself honest with others.

Reserve regular time to contemplate this law together, and seek to apply and improve it in daily life.

There is no law higher than this. And any that says or does otherwise is not only to be mistrusted, but shunned, and if necessary, punished.

2) Most of the Babylonian myths are stated in slave language, but still informative. Read in parallel to the Greek myths they’re the lower class version for the weak, just as the Greek myths for the strong.

3) The lives of the saints tell us about how to extend that kinship love.

4) Most of the catholic encyclopedia provides an exceptional history of Europe.

5) the church dogma is reducible to “we will ostracize you if you don’t believe this nonsense as your price of insurance by the insurer of last resort: the church”. The rest is all drivel.

6) the content of a religion varies, but the method of constructing a religion through the evocation of the elation we feel from the pack response in every walk of life remains constant. All members of all religions think that it is the content that provides the elation and spirituality but it is merely the pack response produced by the rituals.

We can judge the content of the message separately. Christianity’s content tends to be compatible with natural (cooperative) law.

 

FIRST THINGS FIRST

It is not obvious, but quite simple if you look for changes in the composition of capital by means voluntary or involuntary, fully informed or not fully informed, truthful or untruthful, warrantied or not warrantied, transfers.

CHRISTIANITY

Christianity consists mostly of church manufactured dogma for the purpose of persisting authoritarian rule, by preserving the ignorance of the population, but suggesting, directing, and commanding them to act in accordance with natural law with one another, using readings from the text. This is, from what I understand, why prosperity increases with the distribution of Christianity: trust extension through constant repetition and virtue signaling.

BUT WHAT DO WE MEAN BY CHRISTIANITY?

However, we are often the victims of the fact that the Church held a near monopoly on literacy, and just as Bede manufactured a history of England, the church manufactured a history of its own over-importance. The reason being that the church/state divide was always present – a division of houses of government. So the church’s message of submission must be retained in context of the nobility’s caprice, aggression, and violence – a constant battle between two extremes.

Once literacy arrives via the printing press, and the bible is available in the vulgate, and other books are available as competitors to the dogma, Christianity does not consist of the church falsehoods and authoritarianism, but the expansion of Christian virtues. (The so called “Germanization of Christianity”.) These virtues combine with the rise of the Hansa civilization’s gradual middle class expansion, and the expansion of the population after the decline of the plagues. The power of the church declines. And the number of educated preachers increases (my family members among them in England). We see the professionalization of the craft of teaching rather than the expansion of the church bureaucracy.

When I refer to Christianity, I am referring to the German professional era rather than Latin bureaucratic era. The Latin era which I consider lingering only in third world countries. And moreover, that the decline of the church has largely to do with the failure to complete the transition of the role of the priesthood to professional teachers that not only retain myth and ritual, but that teach what the common people need to be taught in order to oppose the (evil) religion of the totalitarian state: fitness, virtues, friendship, marriage, parenting, household management, money, accounting, economics, natural law, history, and the conduct of WAR. And to provide banking services that have been monopolized by the state against the interest of the people. This is the reason for the failure of the church to preserve intergenerational relevance, while the state simply “manufactures skilled labor for the tax-mines”.

JUDAISM

Judaism is poly-moral. In other words, there are different moral standards for in-group and out-group members. The general strategy is to contribute nothing to the commons, nothing to the host, but to extract and hold within the clan (tribe) every calorie possible. It is perfectly acceptable to create negative externalities, to ‘cheat’, and it is part of the law that permits them to – and encourages them to.

So where Christianity tries to increase their numbers by low-cost purchase of options to build trust, Judaism tries to accumulate capital by parasitic exploitation of the commons and host.

ISLAMISM

Islamism is immoral. it seeks and spreads obedience and ignorance. it asks not for Christian productivity and trust expansion to all, and instead of Jewish parasitism, seeks expansionary conquest and predation – the expansion of mandatory ignorance. And it does so by fascinating means: the promise of respect for submission (non-contribution) rather than contribution. Islam spreads the curse of ignorance stagnation illiteracy and impulsivity and weaponizes reproduction. it is not a primitive religion. This is the mistake we make. it is a very sophisticated means of spreading ignorance via the expansion of a lower class that is antagonistic to any competitor that falsifies its false promise by higher correspondence with reality.

The Next Era of Domestication

ENDING ISLAM AND THE RELIGION OF IGNORANCE

We are -because we evolved to be – super-predators that choose to cooperate ONLY when it is MORE beneficial to cooperate than to enslave, or exterminate.

The west advocates meritocratic trade because as a more advanced society and can compete better than others on the basis of merit. So it is to the west’s advantage to advocate trade and commercialism and consumer capitalism. But if cooperation by trade (or any other method) has become parasitic, then it is to our advantage to return to rule. If not rule enslavement. If not enslavement, extermination.

Invasion of our lands by semi-human, ignorant, mystical animals is enough of a reason to return to rule, if not rule, enslavement, if not enslavement, extermination.

Since all societies want to exterminate Muslims EXCEPT the west, if the west stops protecting freedom of religion then all societies will justifiable exterminate Islam and Muslims.

The Muslim is teaching the western man that he must not tolerate freedom of religion, since Muslims do not practice a religion, but a law, and a law is a political system not a religion.

End the west’s protection of islam, and we end much of world conflict. Islam is the source of world conflict. It is a cancer that infects the west, Africa, Hindus, and East Asians.

 

 

 

 

So, once we have literacy and have escaped the church’s imposition of ignorance and submission against the population, we are left with the current state of these three Abrahamic religions:

1 – (Reformed) Christian expansion of trust and production.
2 – Jewish expansion of deceit and parasitism
3 – Islamic expansion of ignorance and predation.

If that is not a damnation of all that exists in all three then I don’t know what is. But we have largely reformed Christianity. And the only step remaining is to redirect our churches to their role as professional teachers of inter-temporal knowledge that is a competitor to the predatory education of the state.

What the church spread was literacy, and diplomacy, and eventually natural law. The rest was a bucket of catastrophic lies.

What’s the difference between the Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, and Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media? Nothing

The Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, were invented to defeat the aristocracy using false promises to rally women and proles.

Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media were used to defeat aristocracy, by using false promises to rally women and proles.

Cultural Marxism and Postmodernism are nothing more than an attempt to use secular language as ancients used mysticism: for deceit.

The western tradition consists is in heroism, empiricism, the oath (truth and non parasitism), the common judge discovered law, the jury.

We have been attacked in our duress (post our European civil war) by the same method that the romans were attacked: invasion, new ‘mysticism’ in The form of pseudoscience. And attacked the same way the Byzantines were attacked after their war with the Persians by Islam.

Christianity ushered in a thousand years of ignorance. Islam has ushered in nearly a thousand, and has no sight of stopping.

Is there any greater evil than Abraham and his lies?

The Great Lie of Abraham

Religion gives advice – wisdom literature.
Politics gives law
Science gives truth 

If your religion contains law, it is not religion but politics.
If you worship your politics it is still politics.
Your law is either compatible with natural law or it is not.
Their laws are not compatible with natural law
Their religions are not religions but politics.
As politics they are acts of war.
As acts of war they may and must be fought as war.

There is only one enemy in the world today among all civilized peoples.
It is the great lie of Abraham and all that descended from him.

We have been at war since the Persians invaded the Aegean.
We have been at war since the Greeks crossed into Mesopotamia.
We have been at war since the Romans crossed into the Levant. 

There is only one enemy for the rest of the world.
It is the cancer that drives world conflict.
And it has for more than two thousand years.

The Murderous Jews, Christians, And Muslims

—”The Greek-Roman world was not…converted to a new religion, but compelled to embrace it.” The Emperor Theodosian issued a series of decrees or rescripts in the years 341, 345, 356, 381, 383, 386 and 391 CE. They effect of these orders was to “suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older [Pagan] religions.” The period of relative religious tolerance in the Roman Empire ended as Pagan temples were seized and converted to Christian use or destroyed. Priests and Priestesses were exiled or killed. Christianity and Judaism became the only permitted religions. In Spain, bishop Priscillian, who taught some Gnostic beliefs was the first person to be condemned as a heretic and executed by his fellow Christians on religious grounds. The church used the power of the state to begin programs to oppress, exile or exterminate both Pagans and Gnostic Christians. By the end of the century, Pagan temples had been either destroyed or recycled for Christian use. Pagan worship became punishable by death. But government toleration was not without its cost. The Emperor Constantine and later political rulers demanded a major say in the running of the church and in decisions on its beliefs. “—

Magical Thinking

–”Magical thinking is the attribution of causal or synchronistic relationships between actions and events which seemingly cannot be justified by reason and observation. In religion, folk religion, and superstitious beliefs, the posited correlation is often between religious ritual, prayer, sacrifice, or the observance of a taboo, and an expected benefit or recompense.”–

PERSECUTION OF PAGANS BY CHRISTIANS

1. Theodosian Code XVI.i.2: Banning of Other Religions, 379-395.
2. Theodosian Code: On Religion
3. Zosimus: Historia Nova. [At Then Again]

On the ending of Paganism.

1. Mark the Deacon: Life of Porphyry of Gaza, 5th Century, [full text]

fascinating account of the Christian destruction of Paganism in Gaza.

2. Socrates Scholasticus: The Murder of Hypatia.

A leading female philosopher, Hypatia was murdered by a Christian mob in Alexandria, urged on by St. Cyril. See also The Hypatia Page. Three historical version’s of Hypatia’s murder are available, and useful for comparative purposes:

Damascius: The Life of Hypatia, from the Life of Isidore, reproduced in The Suda. [At cosmopolis.com]

Socrates Scholasticus: The Life of Hypatia, [At cosmopolis.com]

John of Nikiu: The Life of Hypatia. [At cosmopolis.com]

The purpose of the imposition of Christianity by the Greek-Levantine Eastern Empire, was the destruction of the way of life of the eastern roman empire, the slaughter of the philosophers who constituted our evolution of religion, the closure of the schools, the destruction of the aristocracy, it’s art and its literature.

THE GREATEST CATASTROPHE IN HISTORY EQUAL TO THE BRONZE AGE COLLAPSE

There has never been so great a catastrophe in human history as the dark ages of ignorance brought on by the destruction of roman civilization, weakened by Germanic invasions, by the eastern empire, to limit it’s competitors, and spread Semitic tyranny, mysticism, obedience, and ignorance over the only free people on this earth.

European Civilization Is At Least 5000 Years Old And Christianity Was Its Dark Age

THERE IS NOTHING IN CHRISTIANITY THAT WAS NOT PRESENT BEFORE IT. THE CHURCH “REVISED HISTORY” THE WAY THE MARXISTS AND POSTMODERNISTS DID IN THE CURRENT ‘DARK AGE’.

While it is hard for us to imagine, there is nothing good in Christian culture that was not there before Christianity. Nothing. Hence why so many contemporary thinkers argue that Christianity is a western religion, and the result of western (or at least the result of Anatolian-Greek culture.

The problem is, that as Nietzsche tried to explain in his rather poetic German prose, we do not remember our pre-Christian ethic in other than our northern European fairy tales and myths – even though it is endemic in the structure of our thought and in our traditions and in our laws.

The Church co-opted, reframed, and stole everything it could and took credit for appropriation as if it was invention. Even Bede simply fabricated a history that did not exist. The church created and instituted a culture of fictionalism (lying).

There is a very good reason that Christianity was let into Europe by illiterate south eastern Europeans – as a means of moving power from the poorer more remote aristocratic west to the wealthier local theocratic east.

I went thru the period of being angry with Jews for libertarianism. Then for Marxism. Then for Postmodernism. then for Christianity. Then for Abrahamism. Then for Platonism. Then for mysticism.

Once you see the cancer and how it spread, it makes you furious that we have been defeated in the ancient world by lies and in the modern world by lies for no other reason than that we create sufficient wealth, security, and liberty, that priests, public intellectuals women and the underclasses can destroy us.

Why? because each demographic group wants reality to reflect its evolutionary advantage.

The inferior prefer lies and R, and the superior truth and K.

It’s not complicated. It’s just so many layers of lies it’s obscured.

Is It Possible To Eliminate Religion?

Yes, but again, it’s not possible to deny that religion did serve as a (very) cheap (simple) universal (available to morons) education (training) in mindfulness (and sacredness – non-consumption ), and in the positive laws (manners, ethics, morals, rituals, traditions) in an era where only the privileged could get an education.

The only difficult education in that list is mindfulness and stoicism was clearly the best of all methods, and epicureanism the best content of mindfulness discovered in both the ancient world and the present (cognitive behavioral therapy).

The rest is just ordinary education through repetition (ritual) and oath (prayer). There is nothing else other than the act of doing all that repetition and oath in public. There is some advantage and giving that oath to a proxy (ancestor, king, hero, god) rather than to each other – those with whom we have material conflicts.

That Abrahamism and the Abrahamic religions are outright evil is not to say that the category of training (education) that religions provided is not both beneficial, and very likely, necessary – because it’s as unnatural as reading and math.

The question is how can we convert the depreciating asset that is our existing religious infrastructure into a new asset that is appreciating, and removes the vulnerability and harm of the past.

No Falsehood Required

WE NEED MINDFULNESS, BUT NOT BY FALSEHOOD

The law says that any religion that is not false, parasitic, predatory, or devolutionary, is a good religion. The problem is we think that religion requires falsehoods, because you have been immersed in an ocean of ‘forgivable, convenient,’ falsehoods. But that’s only because the faithful haven’t researched the religions that aren’t false, and tried to develop a religion that likewise isn’t false. And the reason you must, is that the only means of eliminating bad religions and their falsehood, parasitism, predation, and devolution. And if you preserve those falsehoods and ‘Bads’ for your own you license the ‘Bads’ of others.

We all need general rules of cooperation, and we need them in a hierarchy of graceful increase in precision and graceful failure – given our ability, knowledge, and available time and resources – from parables, to histories, to sciences, to calculations.

Not all people have ‘religion’ in the ‘made up lies’ east asians laugh at those who do – rightfully.

We need mindfulness. We can teach truthful mindfulness, truthful history, and it is more beautiful than the death cults of primitive desert dwellers rebelling against their indo-european masters.

Christianity does in fact produce mindfulness – as does and must, any religion. And mindfulness does in fact produce agency. The question is whether we can produce the same mindfulness but far greater agency if we retain the scientific (secular) content of the religion, reform the history, reform the lessons, reform the oath, and sacrifice/feast.

There is only one route out of the great deceits, of Abrahamic Pilpul and Critique: truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, markets, and as a consequence, transcendence of man into the gods we imagine.

EVIL SWIMS LEFT – ERGO MY INTOLERANCE

—”Religion breeds multiculturalism amongst a people that need cultural pluralism.”—Brad Umbaugh

The Demons and the Devil Swim Left. Any system of thought that is not explicitly True and Reciprocal will eventually migrate False and Irreciprocal Ergo our mandate of intolerance.

What About Freedom of Religion?

1. NO UNLIMITED FREEDOMS EXIST

The Limit of Religious Freedom

–-“Freedom of religion as a fundamental right is an incomplete rule, and as such a deception. There are no unlimited — unbounded – general rules. The limit of religious freedom that can exist as a fundamental right is compatibility with Natural Law. The only fundamental rights that are possible are those compatible with Natural Law, since it is Natural Law that is the cause of fundamental, necessary, natural, rights.”—

( … )

Religions provide wisdom, and governments provide laws. If your religion conflates wisdom with law it is not a religion but a form of government masquerading as a cult. Ergo, if your religion contains laws it is a competitor to, not a compliment to, a government. As such it can be regulated, prohibited, and warred against if necessary.

There is no reason not to outlaw anything false: religion, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience. There’s no value in fraudulent products, services OR information. Assuming we teach Christianity as myth rather than history, by and large it’s compatible with natural law. But not Judaism. And not Islam.

There is a great difference between establishing a religion and banning a religion. There is no reason we do not ban religions – frequently.

Sorry but if your religion isn’t compatible with natural law, then it’s not compatible with rule of law, and not compatible with the west.

And, while we cannot control what nonsense you believe but we certainly can limit what nonsense you distribute and infect others with.

Judging a Religion, Philosophy, or Ideology

There are good people everywhere. But it’s not the good people we worry about. it’s the bad people. And we must if we are honest not measure a philosophy ideology or religion by it’s good but by its bad. Why? because there are good people who will fit into anything anywhere. The question is, how do these philosophies, ideologies, or religions, prohibit their bad people? By these measures, Islam and Judaism are the most evil religions of all. The reason is that they justify those very desires that all other religions evolved to suppress: lying.

Good people will be good no matter what. It’s whether religions attract or encourage the bad people to be bad that is their measure.

Reciprocity

The Second Principle of Freedom of Religion is Reciprocity. So if a religion violates the principle of reciprocity, then it cannot be claimed as a fundamental right, since reciprocity is a necessary fundamental right.

Accountability

The Third Principle of Freedom of Religion is accountability. That is, that all members of any faith are responsible for the heresies within that faith. Ergo, if your faith has members that violate natural law, reciprocity, or accountability then, this religion is by definition not a right, and does not protect fundamental rights.

Religion is just law … in fictional form.

Political Models as Religions

Religions evolve slowly and normatively. Common, discovered, laws evolve rapidly in response to new discoveries of methods of parasitism. Between durable religion and tactical law, Political Models serve only as organizational tools that we use to advance our strategies. In our case, that strategy is liberty

We do not fear liberty. We can compete on merit. It’s those that cannot compete on merit that fear a condition of liberty. So it is rational to say you ‘are’ a member of a religion, and rational to say that to achieve liberty in the current context you suggest we employ one political model or another.

But to grant political models the same constancy as religion is to de-facto cast political models as mystical religions independent of world circumstances, instead of operational tools by which we modify the world’s circumstances in pursuit of the political conditions we prefer.

Steady-state political orders are as fictional a theory as an evenly rotating economy. Neither exists or can.

—”The bigger, systemic problem isn’t separating a church from state, but keeping the state from becoming the “church” … The State has, in the vacuum that the absence of a godded religion has generated, deified its social and environmental markets. The State wants religion.”—AS

Homogeneity vs Diversity

Diversity not only generates demand for an authoritarian state, but for supernatural religion. Why? To find an alternative to KINSHIP RULE, AND ANCESTOR WORSHIP. Conversely, homogeneity generates demand for Nationalism and Ancestor Worship .

Institutions

The west has demonstrated that market competition between institutions employing different weapons of coercion, is superior to the monopoly of any of those institutions employing more than of the three weapons of coercions. Financing, Violence, and Gossiping must remain separate. The reason for the retaliation against the church in the west versus orthodoxy in the east is the Roman church’s attempt to function as a government in the byzantine monopoly model, rather than maintaining the balance between the martial, commercial, and gossiping classes.

DEFLATION (Market Competition): Literature, History, Philosophy, Economics, Law, Science, and Mathematics requiring reason and calculation

-vs.-

CONFLATION (Monopoly): Semitic Religion (Theology) dependent only upon intuition and imitation.

There is nothing in either religion(Fictionalism) or the law(Descriptivism) that cannot be taught by deflationary means (truthfully) rather than conflationary means (untruthfully).

No Right To Spread Ignorance and Falsehood Can Exist – No Matter the Excuse

Why do you have the right to ignorance?

Well, there is a difference between enjoying the luxury of ignorance at other’s expense, and distributing ignorance by your words and deeds.

And there is a difference between general knowledge that allows us to escape our ignorance, and the means of testing information against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit, that allows us to increase our knowledge and decrease our ignorance, and to speak truthfully and avoid speaking untruthfully.

And since the animal man evolved to negotiate and deceive as well as describe and inform, and since we evolved to act rationally – meaning morally when in our interests and immorally when in our interests – the reason it has taken us thousands of years to develop the technology of truth telling that we call ‘science’, is because it is unnatural to us. We evolved to negotiate, not testify.

So just as we must learn manners, ethics, morals, and laws to obtain access to and participate in the benefits of that market for cooperation that we call the ‘social order’, we must learn the ethics of knowledge: how to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and framing, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.

And we must teach one another manners, ethics, morals, laws – not only defensively: to limit the ill-mannered, unethical, immoral, and illegal – but also as investment: to increase the number of people with whom we have an option to cooperate at ever lower costs, in the production of private and common goods, services, and information, for mutual benefit.

So defensive and investment reasons we must invest constantly in the teaching of manners, ethics, morals, and laws, including the ethical science of interpreting and giving testimony: truth telling.

And conversely we must punish those who cause harm to manners, ethics morals and law; cause harm to the production of private and common goods, services, and information.

But how do we punish? By the incremental suppression of ill-mannered, unethical, immoral, illegal, speech:

1. Deprivation Of Opportunity To Speak

First with disapproval, ridicule, and shame
(Ya f’n idiot! What are ya thinkin’? Or ya not thinkin’?!?)

2. Deprivation of Opportunity To Cooperate:

2nd with ostracism
(I’m afraid I can’t associate with you. You’re deceitful and just repeat lies you’ve been convinced of as true in order to influence)

3. Deprivation Of Goods, Services And Information

3rd loss of privilege
(I can’t trade with you or offer service, ya on ya own!)

4. Deprivation Of Choice

4th loss of liberty
(You’re a danger. You lose the ability to make your own decisions. You demonstrate a high risk to other’s welfare)

5. Deprivation Of Action

5th loss of freedom!
(Off to Jail ya go ya f’er! Or war in the case of the state )

6. Deprivation Of Existence

6th loss of life
(hanging)

 

 

What Would Constitute a Truthful Religion?

I have a soul. I can observe it through introspection. It is a full accounting of my impositions upon the interests of others, offset by a selective accounting of my acts of charity. I know the balance of that account. We all know the balance of that account – even if we fear to look at it.

The chief value of an all-knowing god, is as a psychological device that assists us in looking at the transactions in, and balance of, that account, without any ability to lie to ourselves.

The chief value of confession is to publicly admit this balance, and use peer pressure to eliminate any deficit.

Whether that soul is eternal is not a question – of course it is. We can commit no sin or perform no charity without the existence of others to sin or perform charity against. Our actions leave a permanent record in the universe. We live on eternally in the changes to the universe that we have made by our actions. That is what acting means: to alter the course of events. Each action does so. That our simple human minds need to anthropomorphize these ideas so that they are easier for the ignorant, dim, and fearful to grasp is no more surprising than that children need parables, myths, legends, and fairy tales to grasp basic concepts using models for concepts otherwise beyond their experience.

—The practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests.—

As such I merely prefer the least false set of beliefs, and the most constructive forms of ritual. And those are, from my knowledge: the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests.

 

Reducing Demand For Falsehood in Religion

REDUCING OR ELIMINATING THE DEMAND FOR FALSE RELIGIONS

Hierarchy of Political Grammars

1 – Legal (complete),
2 – Scientific (correlative),
3 – Philosophical (justificationary),
4 – Literary (allegorical)
5 – Mythological (intergenerational contract)
6 – Religious/Theological (fictional),
7 – Occult (post-rational).

The Christian Churches each serve classes (IQ ranges), with philosophy, law, and science above them. The future will continue to consist of churches (religions) that segregate by class (intelligence) for the simple reason that sortition is available to them.

On the other hand, if we eliminate the demand for cults because we teach mindfulness as we do fitness, calculation, and skills, demand for cults will continue to decline.

The only reason for the expansion of cults is a failure to institutionalize training of emotions the way we institutionalize training in the calculations (reading, writing, grammar, logic, math, physics, chemistry, biology, programming, sentience).

Those who fail to innovate seek to repeat the errors of the past, not recognizing the contextual frame past ideas required.

 

Perfect Religion

—”History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government” and “[i]n every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”— Thomas Jefferson

—The most preposterous notion that Homo sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.” –Robert A. Heinlein,

The Perfect Religion we Also Lost

A RELIGION WITHOUT CLERGY – A MILITIA RATHER THAN ARMY – A GOVERNMENT OF LAW NOT MEN.

A religion without priests.
A government without politicians.
A market without ‘journalists’.

 

The Cult of Stoicism and Epicureanism (Emotional)

The Cult of Nature (Religion)

The Cult of our Folk (Mythology)

The Cult of the Law (Intellectual)

The Cult of the Militia (Physical)

—”The Distributed Dictatorship of Sovereign Men”— Eli Harman

 

THOSE WHO GOVERN

The Theologi-tariat claim you are should be governed by a moral religion.
The Poli-tariat claim you should be governed by their judgement.
The Comment-ariat market that you should be governed by philosophy.
The Economi-tariat that you should be governed by consumption.

In practice you are governed by the Law, and all else is an attempt to subvert it. And In absolute terms, you are governed by men who fight and their tolerance of the current condition.

We are the men who Choose.

So Choose.

 

The Cult of The Law, Wherein The Law is Sacred

THE WEST’S ADMINISTRATIVE RELIGION

—“There are feminine theologians (weak), ascendant male philosophers (able), and masculine law-givers (strong). I know what I do. I do law as Odin did. I do law, as Aristotle did. Law states the Truth, via-negativa, theology states imagined via-fantastica, and philosophy attempts the via-positiva to produce human action that delivers the compromise results.”—

The West’s Administrative Religion Is The Common Sovereign Indo-European/Aristocratic/Anglo Saxon Law, And Its Priest’s Are Our Judges

 Reason, empiricism, science, and now ‘Testimonialism’ (the completion of the scientific method) all evolved out of western empirical common law.

There is no reason our founding myths cannot be taught as ‘religion’ and their contributions celebrated.

1. Homer and The Trial of Achilles
2. The Tales of Kings, princes and princesses: the Germanic myths, legends, and fairy tales;
3. History and the lives of the great Heroes;
4. History and the lives of the great Thinkers;
5. The tales of Jesus and the saints;

Religion is necessary for evolutionary reasons, but superstition, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, conflation and deception are not.

There is no conflict between science and religion – only between Logic, Reason, Science, Testimony, the Natural Law, and false religions.

Truth is the most intolerant religion. It is a religion that selects in and out for very good reasons.

The Truth Is The Most Intolerant Religion. And our ancestors produced the only Cult of Truth and Law.

Choosing Godhood as Our Own

There is good Christianity and bad. There are good Christians and bad. I’m not going to criticize good Christians – at least unless good Christians (a) violate natural law (unlikely), or (b) seek to use faith in argument rather than faith in self confirmation (too commonly). Faith is for the faithful, literature for those without faith. Aristotle for those who have no need for, and science and law for those of us who rule and cannot afford it. Render under each, that which is needed by each, and natural law of men, and physical law of science to decide the conflicts between them.

My objective is to institutionalize the insights (habits) of Christianity in scientific prose, and provide means of ritual mindfulness for those that cannot or will not tolerate ‘magic’. And a set of festivals that all of us can participate in.

Those insights are (a) the daily discipline of personal humility, (b) the elimination of hatred from the human heart, (c) the extension of kinship love to non kin, (d) the exhaustion of personal forgiveness as a means of training the most misguided, and (e) the empiricism of direct, personal charity as a means of achieving, and testing both, and (f) the political intolerance of those who do otherwise, (g) the limiting of government to the natural law of reciprocity leaving only market harmony and charity for the achievement of goods, and (h) surrender of defense and rule to the aristocracy who master in violence what we master in love and charity.

And I know that this is the ultimate strategy for optimum human cooperation because science and logic tell me so.

There is an ever declining percentage of educated people that find value in the parables of underclass Semitic pastoralists, depending on magic and an after life to escape lack of agency in this one, and an ever increasing percentage of people that find value in scientific exposition of the same virtues, and historical and mythical ideas of OUR PEOPLE, for whom their ‘book’ was that of homer (the trials of Achilles), the great Greek and Roman heroes, the Carolingian, Germanic, Arthurian, Scandinavian pagan myths, and the REAL accomplishments of OUR people, which begins with the cult of non-submission of those with agency. Just as the cult of submission is the retreat of those lacking it in Islam and Christianity.

There is nothing in the world of faith that is not available to those who practice natural science, natural law, the histories, rituals of self authoring, and the festivals of the heroes and seasons – except a greater need to negotiate between different wants, and greater demand for mindfulness against the saddening, and a greater demand for agency and reason in taking actions in the world.

Among the poor, feeble, and lacking agency in the world, Christianity is the compromise position between barbarism and science that Augustine intended to make it. And among those who are increasingly joining the prosperous, the able, and those with agency, it is increasingly unnecessary. Among the prosperous, the able, and those with agency, that compromise is harmful. And this is what we have seen.

Morality is fully contained in individual sovereignty, physical and law natural law and the markets for cooperation, and exhaustive forgiveness in bringing the immoral into both.

The only people that need comforting lies are those that cannot look the only ultimate truth in the face without fear: the universe is a hostile place, we are an nothing but a deterministic accident, and it is we who shall be the gods who transform it into the Eden we desire.

We must only choose godhood as our own.

You might argue that putting the Natural Law of reciprocity of Sovereign Men above all other considerations is just science, or you might say that choosing that science is equivalent to a religion. I wouldn’t disagree with you too much if you cast it as a religion.

1. It provides an ultimate goal (transcendence),
2. It provides a group evolutionary strategy (rapid adaptations through markets),
3. It provides a moral ethical, and legal code (reciprocity),
4. It puts limits on the actions of government,
5. it requires a continuously born cost of truth telling, an oath, and the ritual of oath taking, the practice of military rituals and feasts.
6. And for the western people, our history provides a non-false mythos of continuous success at the transformation of self and man into gods.

So as such it would be the one true religion for the simple reason that it would be the one religion without falsehood.

Truth is the one religion that unites good men against the multitude of evils.

Transcendence by Truth is the most intolerant religion of all. … The Most Intolerant Wins.

The Cult of The Law is the Religion of Men As Gods.

The Endgame?

I understand that believers are non rational, and un-persuadable, and over invested in a network of falsehoods, and so believers will not change except to follow an even larger and safer herd.

As members of cults we are always in conflict over the legal systems under them, since those legal systems are arbitrary means of advocating different group evolutionary strategies of cooperation – all of which, under religion, despite their early utility, evolved to be more hinderance than good.

As member of the Love of Man, of our Peoples, In nation-states, producing commons suitable to our needs, we are not enemies but allies in a division of labor producing the transcendence of man.

If there is a better religion than that I do not know what it is. A religion of the love and transcendence of man into gods, not into the subjects of priests and politicians, investors and industrialists.—

The endgame is the completion of the transformation of Germanized Christianity to Natural Law under Reciprocity, completely laundered of sophism(Abrahamism), superstition, mysticism, magic, falsehoods, and lies.

Truth is enough.

Instead of inventing false insurer of last resort, we can make an insurer of last resort: our polity. Our polity in which men are better than the despotic gods we dream of.

 

 

 

Christianity Extends Natural Law

EXHAUSTIVE FORGIVENESS IS AN IMPROVEMENT ON NATURAL LAW

What we call ‘Christian Love’ means treating others as kin. Now, Natural Law is reducible to reciprocity. And it turns out that being very forgiving, over time, is the best possible cooperative strategy. While we evolved altruistic punishment for the untrustworthy (violators of reciprocity), meaning that we retaliate at high cost against ‘cheaters’ (untrustworthy), it turns out that exhausting forgiveness produces the highest trust polity, and by consequence the most prosperous.

Unfortunately, the limit of such tolerance is in interpersonal relationships and does not scale AT ALL. And so Christian tolerance in politics and group evolutionary strategy is suicidal, even if Christian tolerance in interpersonal relations is extremely beneficial. The reason being is that an individual can eventually know the limit of tolerance for another, while none of us can know the exhaustion of tolerance for those we do not personally know. As such all Christian tolerance and charity is limited to the interpersonal, and all political tolerance is limited to reciprocity.

Because the moment we engage in political charity or unlimited charity we create the very evil that we seek to eliminate through our tolerance. Or in economic terms: if you subsidize any behavior you will always get more of it. This is not true on an interpersonal scale, but it is always true beyond the interpersonal scale.

Worse, there are many people who seek virtue signals (status) by giving away that which others produced. They steal status from others by this means. So tolerance, especially Christian tolerance, beyond the personal scale, where you pay the costs of your charity yourself, merely creates more evil in the world.

For this reason most Christians are anything but. They are just seeking self congratulatory virtues without actually earning them – but instead, they become bad people in and of themselves, and subsidize bad people in politics, and subsidize bad people in the community.

As such Christianity is a defect if practiced on other than the interpersonal scale. So the optimum strategy is “A Prosecutor in Politics, and a Saint in Person.” Christianity became suicidal when it became political rather than merely personal.

So natural law then provides us with an equilibrium of the via-negativa and the-via positiva: the via-negativa (law) being reciprocity, while the via positive (wisdom) being interpersonal exhaustion of opportunity for cooperation.

You see, this is why science and scientific law are so important: so that those who pretend they are good are not able to create evil on vast scales under cloak of moral intentions.

If you bear no cost, you can earn no virtue. Period.

And that is a necessary consequence of the natural law of reciprocity.

 

How is Christianity Permissible Under Natural Law?

IF CHRISTIANITY IS NEITHER GOOD NOR TRUE BUT AN ELABORATE DECEPTION, HARMFUL, AND FALSE, THEN HOW IS IT PERMISSIBLE?

That depends upon what you call ‘Christianity’ and whether you think whatever that refers to is good.

Christianity can refer to the ratio-empirical (Truthful) content, and the consequences of that scientific (truthful) content, which while very limited we can demonstrate are in fact good. Or whether you think Christianity is all the nonsense that is wrapped around it (lies).

I have to acknowledge that the optimum game theory humans can play is the Christian command for love of others. I can’t escape that. I have to acknowledge that everything else about Christianity is catastrophically bad, even if not as evil as Judaism or Islam.

Now, once we distill Christianity down to those few rules (rules of optimum prisoner’s dilemma), the question is whether it is still ‘Christianity’ in any meaningful way.

I would argue that it is still Christianity, because religions constitute our means of intuitionistically training members of the polity, nation, and civilization, to pursue the same strategy – hopefully one in their interest – that allows different groups to cooperate at large scale.

I think (well I’m certain) that the short list of rules in Christianity are optimums. But I do not think the Jesus story is good or true. I am certain the god story is bad. And I think as do many that the Christian god is a Semitic tyrant over the Semitic slaves – and completely against the interests of our people – which is why our people have incrementally escaped Christianity, turned it to our own, while the Jews and Muslims have only become more obsessed with theirs.

So, in attempting to solve the problem of the future, how can we provide the same psychological, social, and political functions as did Christianity, and suppress, defeat, or eliminate competitors to those rules – competitors that would return us to the Semitic darkness that we have saved ourselves from.

Now, we have tools of …

Naturalism(reality) < Logic and Mathematics (Measurement) < Science(Due Diligence, Naturalism) < Law and Economics(Decidability) < History (Evidence) < Literature (Analogy, Pedagogy, Theorizing), Philosophy (Removing Science), and Theology(Removing Reason)

… to work with.

And I can find no reason to gracefully fail across the spectrum of Measurements, Due Diligence, Decidability < Evidence < Pedagogy, if we supply mindfulness (what we consider spirituality) through equally scientific means (training).

And if we have to teach people SOMETHING, why teach them a falsehood when we can teach the same content truthfully (scientifically)? And the only answer is to preserve the psychological malinvestment of preceding generations at the expense of all past and future generations.

I think moral education – and a uniform one – is necessary, just as is fitness, daily survival knowledge, calculation ability, and job skills. I think personal, interpersonal, and civic mindfulness is a natural demand of conscious creatures. I think the civic ritual of church: the oath, the historical lessons, and the balance between the heroic tragic warrior and the loving tragic saint (Jesus) are important.

One can look at the great religions and traditions and observe relatively easily how each tries to, and succeeds in, providing those goods in satisfaction of those demands.

It is very difficult to look at Judaism, and Islam and say that they are other than a destructive force in the world compared to the other religions and traditions – particularly the Hindu, Chinese and Japanese traditions. When we look at Christianity it was designed as and used as a destructive force in the world. And the three Abrahamic religions are responsible for more evil than all but the great plagues.

Our ancestors succeeded in Germanizing Christianity by keeping it’s good parts and eliminating its bad parts.

I see my function, and our function as the living generation encountering this remaining problem, as continuing to modernize that “sick, twisted, desert anti-civilizational blood cult’, into an institution like the catholic church once provided as a competitor to the state, and restoring its role in education, but to deprive it of Semitic deceits, and use our own far superior history.

I might fail, but it is my job to remove as much lying from our civilization in order to defend our high-trust people against further decline. And if that means the church must further reform then that’s what it means.

The alternative is not restoration, but that the church, within a generation or so, will die off.

If we are to have a church so to speak, and a civic religion that is more than just legalism, that includes the personal mindfulness, socialization and festival that legalism doesn’t provide – making us all invested in one another – then we need a church that provides future benefits to people not past.

And while I haven’t discussed much of this in public yet, I think I know at least MOST of the answer.

We never ceased being polytheistic. Ever. Just as we are poly grammatical (Frames, Paradigms). Many heroes are always better than one, as long as they are compatible. We are too different in our abilities, social roles, occupations and responsibilities. There is a basis upon which the heroic family in all her grammars and stories, rests, and that is Individual Sovereignty, the natural law of reciprocity, truth and duty and, yes, charity. And it is Christian charity: exhaustive optimism and investment in others – rather than donations or mental fantasies that forms that basis.

Is Reformation of Christianity Possible?

IF YOU TOOK ALL THE FALSEHOOD OUT OF CHRISTIANITY THEN WHAT WOULD REMAIN?

What would remain?

1. The mass (a lesson, a Prayer, an Oath, a feast), and festivals.
2. The extirpation of hatred from the human heart.
3. The exhaustion of interpersonal forgiveness as the optimum group cooperative strategy.
4. The demand for personal acts of charity.
5. The Ultimate Prisoner’s Dilemma strategy for any group. Especially a middle class polity.

If you replace life after death with living a good life, persistence through actions, genetic persistence, and human transcendence of our descendants into the gods we imagine.

If you replace lessons against the aristocracy in favor of diasporic pastoralists, and instead restored our original mythology of the trials of Homer.

If you restored the festivals with those of heroes, ancestors and the seasons (nature).

If you add ethnocentrism (the optimum group strategy), government by rule of law and markets in everything (the optimum competitive strategy), and stoicism (the optimum mindfulness strategy).

Then you have a religion free of lies.

By and large, Christianity is not incompatible with natural law. The whole narrative is. But otherwise, the basic principle of direct demonstrated charity, exhaustion of opportunity for forgiveness, and reciprocity is compatible with natural law in practice if not in word.

Seeking Both Preservation and Restoration

THE PRESERVATION OF CHRISTIANITY AS A POLITICAL RELIGION, AND THE RESTORATION OF PAGAN AND HEATHEN CULTURAL RELIGION UNDER THE NATURAL LAW.

Christianity teaches natural law – just poorly. Christianity teaches (exhaustive tit-for-tat) the optimum IN-GROUP strategy as an extension of natural law – but does do poorly, and because it does so poorly – does not limit to kin, (is universalist (out-group)) and therefore a mixture of good and bad.

The evidence is that Christianity produces prosperity wherever it goes, but is a higher demand than Islam, like Judaism is a higher demand than Christianity. But the fact remains that western people still retain both Legal (roman) intellectual (Greek), familial (heathen European), and political(Semitic) ‘cults’. And these cults are all reflections of our classes. And all of the classes make use of what set of cults is necessary for cooperation at their level of agency.(ability to act).

The purpose of Christianity, Marxism, Postmodernism, and Feminism, was to destroy the empirical, rational, military, legal, and commercial order and replace it with Egyptian, south Semitic, north Semitic, and Persian means of ruling an underclass through false promises (life after death), false debt(‘for our sins”, “original sins”) using supernatural frauds in the ancient world, and using economic (Marxist), social (Postmodern), and political (Feminism and multiculturalism) in the modern world.

My understanding is that especially among those who will fight, Christianity must be accommodated, and the law says that it can be accommodated because among religions it teaches natural law.

Any of our ‘natural religions’ can obtain the same cultural, economic, political centrality once again, by providing particularly powerful incentives, including restoring education and educational funding to ‘churches’ in the broadest sense (and ending centralized education). (in other words, prohibiting falsehood is different from demanding certain skills).

Under these incentives our religions will slowly (possibly rapidly) migrate away from falsehood to truthfulness due to incentives of (a) simple economics (b) increasing vastly their influence, (c) defending themselves from the state. In other words, ‘let nature take its course’, and keep the state out of Christian faith, and keep Christian faith out of TRUTH CLAIMS.

This sets up a market for the three categories of religion, while providing mindfulness.

A Christian can say “I hold [xxxx] as a matter of faith, I do not claim it is true, because what is true must be open to testimony, and Faith itself is not open to testimony. As long as I do not try to use truth claims (arguments) in matters commercial, financial, economic, and political, then I have not broken the law.”

One cannot claim something false is true for the purpose of induction (consequential argument). And in particular (Islam, Judaism, Catholicism) because one may not claim there is any law other than the natural law (no competitor). And one may not advocate a religion that is duplicitous because of that (Judaism and Islam are duplicitous and poly-ethical.).

With the prohibition on Judaism and Islam, the preservation of Christianity due to its natural law, the universal education in stoicism (mindfulness), and the combination of Christian and European (heathen) festivals, my understanding is that we will see our religion return to its natural condition where the poor are Christian, the middle ancestral (heathen), an the upper-classes, as always, purely empirical and giving respect to the middle and lower through participation in oath, ritual and festival.

So it is not so much that we need to end Christianity, as it is we need to create a range of churches (holistic mindfulness, socialization, and education) that will serve the interest of the different classes In content, while the same underlying constraint on adherence to natural law.

In other words, we must make a practical accommodation for faith in those who need faith because they have no alternative to faith for the purpose of obtaining that mindfulness necessary in a complex society in which many of us lack the familial, social, economic, political relations, as well as perhaps the genetics to provide value in social, economic, and political markets.

So there is ‘something for everyone at a cost to everyone’ in my proposal. But it is hard to argue against the collection of goods. we know this because while people will claim they are Christian, go to church, celebrate festivals, take oaths, abide by rules, they will very rarely, under oath, claim such things are true.

All humans follow interests. They follow interests because it is in their interests. And they use propaganda, deceit, argument and belief to justify the pursuit of those interests.

Christianity is in need of another reformation or it will continue to die. Neither the Vatican II or the evangelical movements were sufficient – although the evangelical more so.

We could restore the church to centrality of education, require that they teach mindfulness (stoicism, epicureanism), and a program of continuous stoicism(Self Authoring), and return the function of consumer banking and organizing the militia to the church again. In exchange we could require the churches who obtain those benefits to reform such that they don’t teach Abrahamism in any form. (They can determine that reform themselves).

I prefer we eliminate all political religions and restore folk religions (family, ancestors, people, nature).

The market pressure for attendance and income with take care of itself.

The Christian Compromise

I would suggest that all but the most Abrahamic of Christians might rather we institutionalize Christianity in the constitution as the practice of the five rules of Christianity, the natural law of reciprocity, and that no other religions counter to such may be tolerated, would give them sufficient license to show that their religion is in fact ‘True’ when taught as a mythology of wisdom literature, and only ‘false’ if they teach it as history. (Because that is what most smart folk in the world think.)

I am a Christian in that it means property rights (ten commandments), the sacred (limits to my rights of expression action and thought), natural law (reciprocity), and Jesus teaching (exhaustion of all possible opportunity for forgiveness for in-group members). THIS IS THE STRATEGY UNDER GERMANIZED CHRISTIANITY.

But the magic-man nonsense for illiterates and idiots so that they believe an omniscient and omnipotent yet never evident someone worth worshipping as a slave master loves them despite their low status low agency and low ability – is just that and nothing but fairy stories for slaves to tolerate their enslavement until death.

So we are really in a question whether we continue the evolution of our religions of heathen, Aryan, Greco-Roman, Christian, philosophical and scientific into something we all can COMPROMISE UPON, or we can keep those individual religions and agree only on the scientific substance behind all our natural religions.

There have been many reformations to Christianity. It is not a matter of abandoning Christianity, but further reforming it so that it is a European religion of transcendence, not a middle eastern, or third world cult of poverty, ignorance, and servitude.

Restoring Our Religions as well as our Law

I am  trying to save Christianity – which is in rapid decline in the west – and restore Christianity as the church should have done, by restating the theological, in philosophical, rational, and scientific terms – and in doing so ending the criticisms of it, and the removal of it from its position as the state religion.

But you know, if one’s faith cannot tolerate that it doesn’t matter how we hear and follow the message, that it’s the same message, then I would think something is wrong with with you: that you are neither christian nor good person.

If one needs an evil and vengeful god to obey, and the threat of hell as defense against others, and his own nature;

Or if one needs a loving Jesus as a parent and guide as defense against the hardship of reality, and to share that love with a community;

Or if one wants a set of moral rules that can demand of himself and others to create a society in harmony;

Or if someone says that the laws of nature find these moral rules the optimum for himself, others, and the polity and to capture that in law;

Then it is against those same Christian rules to deprive people of that which they need in order to obey those rules. That is not Christian love. That’s selfishness and hatred. That’s Semitic Lying and despotism, that our ancestors escaped, not European Christian love that our ancestors sought to extract and preserve as a germanic religion of our people, instead of a means of oppression of the european people that kept them in ignorance, illiteracy, poverty, starvation, disease, child mortality, and early death.

Many men have reformed christianity over the centuries. Many recent men have tried to end. The modern church has needed an Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Locke, Smith, Hume, and our Founding fathers, and instead found jewish communism, jewish feminism, and jewish postmodernism, and an academy media, and state, under our own peoples desire for power, and jewish and now islamic undermining, seeking to destroy not only European christianity but european civlization, and european peoples, in a great genocide that the muslims and jews have brought to every other great civilization that existed in the ancient world.

I do not want this job. But we must do these jobs out of duty, to preserve our people, and their way of life – that way of life that has dragged the rest of the world out of poverty, starvation hard labor, ignorance, tyranny, slavery, disease, and unnecessary death and suffering.

We did this through our pre-Christian traditions and law, and our Christian traditions and faith.

And the entirety of humanity is punishing us for our gifts.

So Christians can help me adapt and restore Christianity and natural law and Aristotelian reason to our age, as the great men of our past have done, or out of arrogance, selfishness, spite, and envy, bring by not acting, end not only Christianity but our entire civilization, our nations, and our race.

 

 

Against Atheism

ATHEISM ISN’T A RELIGION. AT BEST IT’S AN IDEOLOGY.

Atheism isn’t a religion (and casting it as such is a fraud), it’s a statement of Science (measurement) and used as an Ideology (political change), and arguably a Prosecution (law against fraud and harm).

The only reason atheism is ridiculous is because we haven’t restored the oath (offer), prayer (request), mindfulness, and ancestor, and nature worship (celebration of inheritances). (native western religion).

As such Criticism without Replacement is IDEOLOGICAL, for the simple reason that intuition(emotions) DO REQUIRE training, just as do our bodies, reason (reason, calculation, computation), and memories (knowledge, skills).

Religion is just one of the layers of education. The education of our moral intuitions. We can perform that education by various means. The whole set of Abrahamic ‘lies’ isn’t a necessary means. There is no evidence of it.

 

 

 

 

Closing

Truth Is A Merciless, Zero-Tolerance, Weapon.

Truth is merciless. Truth is the scientific, legal, political, educational, and religious means of defeating the Abrahamisms. But Truth is not a selective weapon. It is indiscriminate – a weapon of zero tolerance. It will destroy your Christianity along with the first generation Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and second generation Abrahamic religions: Marxism (Judaism), feminism, and postmodernism (Christianity), and fundamentalism, (Islam).

It’s Not Useful to Debate the Faithful

—“One may speak the law to religion, but one may never speak religion to the law. This is the law.”—

I don’t debate ‘the faithful’ because realism, naturalism, reason, empiricism, operationalism, science and law are incommensurable with faith. And I debate exclusively in writing because Abrahamic sophism and GSRRM is easier to expose, and analytic prose more than the faithful can follow by intuition.

So just as I do not debate with women, because they argue by intuition, and proportionality while men argue by testimony and reciprocity’ the faithful rely on the tactic of females: outcasting those who will not conform to myth, vs. men outcasting those who will not conform to Truth.

The only reason the faithful have political value is remaining numbers. So rejection of cooperation in exchange for tolerance of circumventing testimony is still possible. Otherwise not. The faithful are historically allies of the enemy, and only joined the ‘right’ after ww2.

This is because the tools of rallying to a false promise, despite the moral hazard of doing so, and using GSRM, Pilpul and Critique (which my work exists to end), are the tool of communicating the Abrahamic religions of the old world, and Marxism, Postmodern, Feminism today.

So the problem for the faithful is that the tools of persuasion by which they construct their internal contact for faith, is used against them, by a competing new religion of pseudoscience evolved to replace them.

Since we have spent 1500 years Germanicizing this Semitic religion, it is defended by the aristocratic(law) class on tradition and kinship interest alone. However, the faithful will prevent the martial class from defeating this new pseudoscientific set of religions.

And while I have found a method of using the law and testimony to end these competitors, our ‘traditional’ faithful, those same faithful are clearly unwilling to trade “Faith for the Spiritual, and Law for Reality” in matters of public speech – which is necessary to end competition.

As such the only possibility going forward is mass appeal to the material interests of the majority of the population, whom under pressure of subjugation and genocide by the new pseudoscientific cults, will follow their material interest.

This means we simply write the law without compromise and let the interests of faith compete with everyone’s material interests; and as such we cannot restore education and state support to the churches, which they desperately need for their survival and political influence.

And most faithful interpreted my inquiry as an attack on the faith, rather than a test of whether it is possible for the faithful to tolerate such a constitution when my objective was to determine if it was possible to return the church to its central role.

My first draft restored the church to central functions of education, and cut public schools, post offices, title registries, banking and credit, and returned those functions to the church. thus ensuring its survival, and the starvation of competing cults.

But this solution requires that the spectrum of ‘churches’ serve the interests of our people from devoted to disinterested to (as I do) those who prefer our native rather than alien religions of community, ancestors and nature.)

But there is no reasoning with faith. Faith is designed to resist reason. And the caliber of people to discourse with on the ‘alternative right’ is not exactly that which assists in anything other than surveying the range of positions of those lacking agency.

Hence in any discourse with ‘the faithful’ one is forced to state the truth, that one cannot debate with those who practice the methods of argument evolved precisely to deny means motive and opportunity to reason. And ergo one must resort to ‘calling out’ Abrahamic sophism.

Which is true, but useless with the faithful who deny reality and the tools by which we warranty our speech is consistent, correspondent and coherent with actionable reality: reason, empiricism, operationalism and science.

 

The Economics and Ethics Religions

(this one is going to hurt. hold on to something)

There is no existential god other than the information in the mind of man, and teh consequences of that information that mainfest in human thought, display, word and deed. And that god is only the god imagined by the faithful such that they preserve the peace between them by the prohibition on variation in strategy, and the prohibition on debate, and the prohibition on learning, and the prohibition on innovation and evolution. It’s a contract with one another written in fiction.

I agree that there is value to the faithful in the production of psychological mindfulness from certainty, conformity, under this contract written in fiction. It re-creates the safety of the herd for those who lack agency, by casting submission, conformity, stagnation as heroic.

I also understand that there is value in the freedom from emotional burden, intellectual burden, that the rest of us bear on behalf of Christians, who are nothing but free-riders – Christians ‘free ride’ on our emotional, and mental hard labors.

The feminine christian perpetuates the female reproductive strategy of worrying only about the safety of her nest, while the men do the hard labor of transforming reality into safety and resources which she can spend on her nest, herself, her offspring.

Yet as Christians daily demonstrate, she maintains utility in hostility to his breaking of her illusion, because then she would have to acknowledge the debt and provide something in trade.

Why do you think Islamism, marxism, feminism, and postmodernism, make the same promise of equality, in exchange for the same contract written in fiction, that the will work together to live parasitically upon the emotional and intellectual efforts of ‘men’: The Aristocracy.

So pay your way.

The Spectrum of Belief Claims

We’ve been discussing this in my corner of the universe, and I tend to work with the following terminological sequence:

Faith = recognition that you’re position is indefensible, but you report that you hold some position.

Belief = a ‘signal’ in the report that you might decide in favor of the position were it of no cost to you, but that you aren’t accountable for the truth or falsehood of it.

Know = that you are not signaling, but with present knowledge, will defend your claim that you will decide in favor of the position, even if it costs you minor reputation for defending it.

Promise = that you are willing to commit status and reputation to defend the assertion that you will choose in favor of the position.

Warranty = that you are willing to commit materially to defend the assertion that you will choose in favor of the position.

Demonstrate = that you have chosen in favor of the position.

We have a lot of evidence that says this hierarchy of costs reflects the ‘put’ that an individual is making on the proposition at hand.

Belief is irrelevant.

We do not know what you believe. We cannot know. We can only judge you by your actions. If you testify to an un-testifiable belief, then you can only lie. If you lie then you have a reason to lie. I can only seek to discover the reason you lie. I cannot distinguish a profession of belief in an un-testifiable lie, from any other lie.

Belief is irrelevant. Either you imitate the works of Jesus or you are just another liar, fraud, and thief.

Keep a diary of the actions you make in the service of others for no other reason than the love of others, and the cost to you for having done so.

If it is not an action, is not in the services of others, is not in the service of others by your personal service to them, at personal cost to you, then you are a liar, fraud, and thief, and your claims of Christianity are no different from wearing the uniform of those who did service, when you have not done so, a pretending to equal their honor.

No. You are just a free-rider. A parasite on other’s labors. A free rider on those few Christians who exist, just as a free rider on those few warriors that exist.

Truth vs Lies

Nature worship – or the sacredness of nature – and ancestor worship, and hero worship, and stoic rituals that produce mindfulness are hard to call dishonest or untruthful. Praying for wisdom from any of the above is pretty hard to posit as anything worse than mental discipline that encourages self honesty.

No more lies. No more utopian lies. No more lies for the purpose of marketing advertising and selling. no more lies for accumulating political power. No more lies for entertainment purposes that we call news. No more lies from the politicians platform, no more lies from the professor’s podium, no more lies from the intellectual’s media, no more lies from the priest’s pulpit. No more lies.

If you are not willing to pay the cost of forgoing your lies, you are not willing to enter into the exchange that requires others to forgo their lies. As such you are a liar, a fraud, and a thief.

No more lies. It is expensive for all of us to stop lying. It is burdensome to speak the truth in matters of the commons. It is expensive to learn to speak truthfully.

But it was expensive not to kill. not to steal. not to commit fraud. not to engage in entrapment (usury), not to engage in free riding, not to engage in conspiracy – and tremendously rewarding for us to be forced into engaging in production.

It was expensive for us to learn literacy. It was expensive for us to learn scientific thought. It was expensive for us to abandon mysticism. All these institutional changes cost us heavily.

Truth is the most expensive commons in the world which is why none else does it. Truth prohibits parasitism. And the majority of the world has chosen to perpetuate parasitism internally, if not professionalize in parasitism externally.

But the returns on truth will be as great as the returns on science.

Stop Trying To Lie

There are no theological sophisms that we cannot falsify and unmask as an attempted fraud or theft.

Man can sense by his nerves, associate sensations into relations, disambiguate relations into fragments, fragments into categories, distinguish categories of objects, spaces, scenes, and locations, and associate them, reinforce them by rehearsal, and recall them, and hold one or combination – or a prediction from a combination – in his attention, recursively modify it, and in that order, because of his purely physical, biochemical, biological, neurological ability to identify constant and inconstant relations between stimuli over time. That’s all neurons do: on-off, faster, slower, together, not-together, and maintain attention on whatever we find useful enough, and release our physical bodies to act if we intuit it’s useful – all the rest of our brain does is try to keep us alive while doing it.

Deliver Each Unto God and Unto Caesar

Christianity has everything to say about family, manners, ethics and morality, and nothing at all to say about sciences, economics, politics and law.

Deliver unto God(Faith) what is his, and Caesar(Truth) his.

Otherwise we must go to war between the truthful and the faithful, and while the faithful can undermine, and resist, they poorly war, and this is not only because they are poorer, but because they are more feminine in composition and cognition.

“Deliver Unto To Each” is a compromise between the male political-empirical and the female emotional-faithful, just as marriage is a compromise between male and female – under which neither obtains their ideal, but both achieves the optimum possible.

 

 

Part 999 – The Abrahamic Method of Deceit

Abrahamism – Specialization in Undermining, Parasitism by Lying

“Abrahamism” refers to the argumentative technique of using Pilpul (via-positiva), and Critique (via-negativa) to construct sophisms (the argumentative equivalent of numerology and astrology) via the use of loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, overloading, the Fictionalisms, appeals to reasonableness, and false promise, to create hazards.

All three Abrahamic Religions, Kantian philosophy, Marxist argument, and Postmodern thought all make use of this technique of argument, often stated as “Dialectic” but operationally consisting of nothing more than Pilpul and Critique.

The Technique of False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard Absent Warranty;

False Promise, Baiting into Hazard, Absent Warranty;

Examples:

1. If I suggest you might win at gambling, that’s baiting you into hazard.
2. If I entice you into buying drugs, claiming they aren’t addictive or destructive. I’m baiting you into a hazard, since addiction is a spiral – and don’t warranty it because I can’t and don’t want to.
3. If I offer you a loan to get what you want under impulse or duress, but I can extract interest from you, and then seize your property in restitution.
4. If I offer you what appears to be a good deal without informing you of the possible negative consequences – and don’t warranty even though I can.
5. If I promise you equality or socialism when it’s genetics that causes our differences, and you act to destroy your civilization, then that’s all baiting-into-hazard – because do not and cannot warranty it; and you lack the knowledge to grasp the impossibility of Pareto organization, nash distribution, the role if innovation, or impossibilities of productivity, incentives, and economic calculation.
6. I promise you power and equality if you undermine the political system(Marx) – but I do not and cannot warranty it.
7. I promise you political equality if you undermine men (feminism) – but do not and cannot warranty it – and you lack the knowledge to grasp its impossibility.
8. I promise you status if you undermine the status hierarchy (postmodernism)
9. if I promise you salvation in heaven if you rebel against the government that is trying to create order and prosperity over the next few decades, that is baiting you into a hazard – but I do not and cannot warranty it.
10. I  promise you virgins in heaven if you die for the cause of undermining aristocratic civilizations – but I do not and cannot warranty it.
11. I promise you life after death if you obey and undermine the upper classes. (Abrahamism) – but do not and cannot warranty it.
12. A woman implies access to friendship, affection, or sex, which she will never deliver, in exchange for your association, money, labor, efforts – and doesn’t warranty it – even though she can.
13. I appeal to your morality and pass the 1965 Hart-Cellar immigration act, promise it will not lead to third world invasion – and do not warranty that promise, even if I can.

Those are just the easy ones. These are all lies that bait you into hazard (risk and loss) so that I may profit from your ignorance, and then claim innocence or ignorance over what was not said, and moral justification for profiting from your harm

In other words, you are entering into a voluntary exchange that is not in your interests, simply because for whatever reason you are vulnerable to the trap.

Pilpul (Sophism to Advance) – Overloading. Misdirecting. Obscuring. Disputation by sheer volume and variety of fallacy to overwhelm resistance to false and pernicious conclusions.  It can include sophism, pseudoscience, fiction, fictionalisms, or supernaturalists.

Critique (Undermining to Resist, or Distract) – Criticism of a straw man to undermine without proposing an alternative or superior solution open to equal analysis and criticism. Includes loading, framing, obscuring, suggesting, fictionalizing, denying, deceiving and outright lying.

Heaping of Undue Praise – Advancing a hero in order to create an appeal to authority rather than advancing an argument to test whether it survives application to the context.

Propaganda – narrative manufacturer by sheer repetition to fill the “marketplace of ideas” with bullshit congenial to the gatekeepers who control the broadcast channels and media.

The Technique of Hiding Under Plausible Deniability – Escape

( … )

A lie (incentive), a half-truth(distraction), a False dichotomy (choice).

Low trust people simply don’t go beyond the tangible. High trust people do. Our asset of high trust in constructing the commons which produce such outsized returns compared to other peoples. But our trust( suspension of disbelief), and vulnerability to anchoring, suggestion, and obscurantism make our ordinary folk easily deceived, manipulated, controlled, and preyed upon.

The Technique of Pilpul – Persuasion

Their technique of Pilpul: They use an element of truth to create a false dichotomy and therefore frame the question by suggestion, and obscure the solution due to anchoring.

• We are always vulnerable to anchoring.
• Because we are vulnerable to anchoring we are vulnerable to framing.
• Because we are vulnerable to framing we are vulnerable to suggestion and obscurantism.
• Because we are vulnerable to suggestion and obscurantism we are vulnerable to influence.

If we are provided with an incentive to justify that influence we can be controlled – by Blocking our Opportunity and Motivation for seeking the truth.

The three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all produce recursive ignorance due to BLOCKING our search for truth.

This is how PILPUL is used to deceive, and why math, logic, science, economics, law and testimonial truth are such an important defense.

The Athenian Art of Truth vs Jerusalem’s Art of Lying

Pilpul is a craft. It is ‘the art of lying’. It is one of the oldest written arts. The art of justifying anything. The art of loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion. The art of constructing loaded relations in the mind so that a justification for a desired action can be found. It’s the art of overwhelming the human mind with the stimulation of language so that the stimulations of experience cannot compete. Because while searching to understand one is open to suggestion – to inception – to deceit. It is the source of the last century’s transformation of western law from a descriptive science that prohibits involuntary transfers, and preserves the peace, to a system of moral justification by which people can be brought into political conflict so that political power can be obtained by force of government.

Marx’s “Dialectical Materialism” is just an application of Pilpul. The vast expansion of pseudoscience during the 19th and 20th has been achieved through the use of the technique whereby it is possible to justify anything if you seek justification of it through ‘meaning’ rather than seek correspondence to existence using internally consistent and externally correspondent language.

In the west, we use the opposite technique: existential operations. We did so because of the Roman conversion of greek platonism to empirical law. Because if you want to justify something using ‘meaning’ rather than existential operations, you can find or create that justification. This is the meaning of hermeneutic interpretation. The study of texts and language in order to assist you in free association by which you can justify anything is in accord with that text.

And this is why strict construction and operational language, identity and non-conflation, external correspondence and internal consistency, full accounting, parsimony and limits, and objective morality are required of us if we are to speak truthfully and cause no harm to others by untruthful speech. Westerners invented truth and we speak the truth. We are so indoctrinated into seeking to understand one another, and so habituated trust in one another, that we have forgotten how to detect lies. Our empathy, our trust, are exactly what is needed for the naive training of – deceit of – our minds through suggestion.

We have stopped teaching logic and rhetoric so that the left could spread lies. But even in teaching logic and rhetoric, we taught rhetorical fallacies of construction. We did not teach how to counter lies of loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion. Nor did we teach (or know) our cognitive biases – which are now the central canon of psychological study, or our genetic biases – which must become part of that canon. Even in our rhetoric, we assume the others merely err, not that they intentionally lie, seek justification, and deceive. We have been trusting for so many thousands of years that we do not know the art of lying. We hare become naive in our trust.

Pilpul is the training that educated the great deceits of Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, [even some of Popper], Rothbard, and the Frankfurt School: (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Pollock, Fromm, Kirchheimer, Löwenthal, Neumann , Grossman). Christianity and Kantian rationalism are the training that was provided to the great continental liars that still persist in both the german rationalist and American postmodern traditions. The originators and the propagators do not really know they lie any more than women who engage in ever-present never-escapable, but often unimaginable female wishful thinking know they lie. But if enough people go along with the lie, it is as good enough for them as it is if we discover some fundamental truth and spread it.

It is the technique by which academics, jews, and women have used their weakness to create a new religion as mystical and deadly as the last that sent us into a dark age for a thousand years, from which we emerged over the next thousand through the use of truth under the name we surreptitiously called ‘science’ in order to not accuse the church and academy and state of lying. Science is the discipline by which we practice the art of speaking truthfully. That we had to call it something other than truthful speech is an indictment of all the rest of society by the few who practice truthful speech. Reason, reasonableness, and science (and not philosophical rationalism) have been attempts to create a specialization in truth-telling without threatening the religious moral and legal leaders.

Our law was converted from an empirical science to a religo-moral form of Jewish mysticism over the course of the twentieth century by the constant use of the PilPul tradition. Law identifies and lists the methods by which we humans prey upon one another, and prohibits them going forward. Law is a purely empirical study. But the Talmud is not a vehicle for science of truth-telling. The indo european anglo saxon law is such a vehicle. The Talmud is not empirical it is justificationary. It is an instruction manual for lying. And pilpul is the technique by which one learns to lie. The ancient battle between Athens and Jerusalem is one between science and truth, and justification and deceit. And governments are pragmatic. They will use truth or lie as it suits them.

Notice how rationalism in philosophy and legal relativism have evolved in tandem. Philosophy has been used to lie as much as it has ben used to tell the truth. Legislation is not law, unless it is also legal. Legislation consists of some combination of law(science of prohibition of parasitism), contract (exchange between parties), and Command (export of costs), and predation (bureaucratic parasitism). But law is a very simple thing: an empirically accumulated record of the methods of parasitic action, and the methods of restitution for having committed them. The only western philosophy needed is and has ever been our common law. The rest of it is an attempt to gain power, or an attempt to justify the separation of truth seeking in the form of science, from the discipline of lying in its many forms – particularly religio-moral forms.

We are in this position because only Darwin and Einstein fully succeeded in their disciplines. Spencer failed in philosophy because he was not co-temporal with Popper’s falsification. Popper failed in epistemology – an irony for the ages. Mises, Hayek failed in economics. Brouwer failed in math. Bridgman in Science. All our sages failed in law – first because western law is practiced as a cult of the law, rather than as a science of the prohibitions of involuntary transfer. And Tesla and Turing and programming came to late to instruct all of the above in the solution of strict construction and operational language by limit of discourse to existential terminology. It has fallen to my generation to stand on the shoulders of great men and look back at their failings and to understand why it is that they failed, and how to restore truth to our discourse.

When we encountered the enlightenment era we had to solve the problem of cooperating at scale – with different people from different nations. But all our moral discourse for intertribal and international cooperation was constructed out of myth and mysticism. We had to invent economics. Not as ‘truth’ but as a separate discipline in order not to offend our elites. Just as we had to invent science and reason as separate disciplines as not to offend our elites.

We have spent millennia trying not to offend our elites – who rule by lie. To solve this problem forever, we have to punish our elites for their use of anything other than truth.

We humans can organize around truth, morality, and correspondence, or we can organize around falsehood, immorality, and non-correspondence. By constructing these great deceits, the jewish enlightenment caused tremendous damage to western civilization. Although ALL the enlightenments did so. Look at what France has become? Look at what england is becoming. Look at all of europe. The lie of Rousseuaian France. The lie of Kantian rationalism. The lie of british aristocracy of everyone. The lie of the free ride of Keynesian Economics – that we can increase employment without consuming all other forms of national capital in the process. That between keynesian pseudoscience and jewish pseudoscience, our civilization had been destroyed, and we have been brought to near extinction.

What is the difference between the immediacy of a gas chamber and the slow process of extermination by a new process of conversion and gradual suicide? What is the difference between gradual suicide and immediate displacement through immigration of non-kin and competitors? If we give the Chinese heroin and ruin their civilization and they kick us out forever, they are right. If we give teh lie of the good of democracy instead of the truth of the common law and science to others, they are right to reject us. If the jews and germans, and french and anglo enlightenment thinkers give us intellectual heroin and we like it very much – hyper-consumption is a naturally occurring heroin for humans – and it produces the exact same effect as heroin over longer periods. It overwhelms our reason. Hyper consumption of our genetic, territorial, physical, traditional, cultural, normative, capital, has been stimulating just as heroin is stimulating. But neither is an objective good.

I think we forget that jewish verbalism and female verbalism have the same cause. That jewish argument and female argument have the same cause. That jewish group evolutionary strategy and female group evolutionary strategy are identical: to gossip, rally, shame and frame through repetition, to in order to survive no matter which group of males are in charge of them. Women act as such. Jews act as such. Jewish women are more masculine, and jewish men more feminine than competing orders. Conversely, western people absolutely LOVE to protect the weak as a sign of status. We love to demonstrate our masculine superiority by hosting more of the weak. Yet we merely invite those who conspire against us. The female encourages consumption to increase her rate of reproduction. That is her strategy. It has no mind or reason. Man herds. He manages his herd. He manages his territory. He manages the balance of each. He fights competitors. He expands his territory. In doing so he captures the genes that let him do so.

END THE LIES. NOT JUST OF THE JEWS BUT OF ALL ENLIGHTENMENT THINKERS.

Return the west by returning us to our martial foundations: Truth, Reason, Science, Testimony, Jury, Common Law, Rule of law, Universal standing, Natural Law necessary for rational voluntary cooperation.

TRUTH IS ENOUGH.

 

The Technique of Critique – Lying by Undermining, and Reputation Destruction

( undermining )

The Female (herd) competitive strategy by circumventing argument, and contract for truth;

by use of;

undermining, poisoning the well, reputation destruction

By use of;

(G)ossiping (S)haming, (R)allying, (R)idicule, (M)oralizing, (P)sychologizing,(U)ndermining, (R)eputation destruction. and solving for (F)ace or consent – instead of Male (pack) strategy by factual argument solving for truth regardless of face or consent. In other words female “feels” using rejection or approval vs male “reals” of truth or falsehood.

Full List

(D)enying
(D)isapproving
(O)utraging,
(R)idiculing
(S)haming,
(M)oralizing,
(P)sychologizing,
(R)allying
(G)ossiping
(P)ropagandizing
(U)ndermining,
(R)eputation destruction.
…and solving for…
(F)ace, approval, or consent – instead of truth.

Undermining takes the form of these attempted thefts:

• Fraud – promising benefits that will never be delivered at costs that will never be disclosed.
• Slander(oral) and Liber(written) Defamation – malicious lies designed to slur, marginalize, and dehumanize rivals or critics.
• Obscenity – Transgression of taboos for the purpose of subversion, demoralization, and/or parasitic profit.
• Blasphemy – Attacking the sacred for the purpose of subversion, undermining, the destruction of intergenerational wisdom, and the erosion of necessary and helpful moral rules.
• False Alarm: relentlessly fear-mongering and sensationalizing imaginary threats as a means of obscuring/justifying real ones.

Men generally make an argument and let the argument do its work. Men use shaming if necessary in response to Undermining. Whereas the feminine cognitive strategy is to rely entirely on Undermining as a means of denying or suppressing the argument rather than refuting it.

The Illegality of Undermining in European History

In western history, undermining by Shaming (GSRRM) was largely illegal or punishable by direct violence between men via the duel. And laws against “scolds” -women’s gossiping and undermining – were enforced to keep the peace.

During the Democratic and Marxist and Postmodern movements as women demanded political power, they undermined these laws of the duel, libel, slander, and scolding, under the pretense of free speech – rather than free truthful factual speech (testimony). Marxism, Postmodernism, and feminism consist largely of sophism pseudoscience and denialism defended by GSRM.

GSRM, like outright denial, is one of the means of dishonesty that avoids the argument, whereas dishonestly constructing argumentative deception is done by Loading Framing Obscuring Cherry Picking, Fictionalizing, Sophisms, and the Fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience.

The Reversal Of Illegality of Undermining In Recent European History

( … )

Psychoanalysis (Psychologising) – pseudo-scientifically pathologizing legitimate disagreement as a means of obtaining and exercising social control and marginalizing and silencing dissenting voices and views.

Feminine Coercion – Rallying, shaming, gossip, disapproval, moralizing, mockery, ridicule, nagging, scolding, and character assassination to raise the emotional and social cost of disagreement and dissent without addressing their causes.

All Abrahamic Argument is Lying

1 – Either we are engaged in
… … productive,
… … fully informed(truthful),
… … warrantied (skin in the game),
… … voluntary transfers (exchanges),
… … free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated investments of others by externality,
… … limited to our ability to perform restitution (reversal),
.. or we are not.

2 – Every forced transfer is a lost opportunity for exchange for mutual benefit – even if an exchange of good(resource), for norm (behavior).

3 – In other words, all demands for goods independent of exchange are simply the use of threats of disassociation (boycott) as a means of extraction (rent-seeking).

Critique is simply the technology invented in the Levant for the purpose of ‘selling’ the monotheisms to the underclasses as a revolt against the great civilizations of the ancient world – but this time in pseudo-scientific (Jewish Marxist) and pseudo-rational ( Jewish and french postmodern ) prose.

We are all gene machines so to speak, with our agency dependent upon knowledge reason, urgency,  and ability. Hence why the language of science(due diligence), and natural law (reciprocity) are so important to speech, and why literature and literary argument are always and everywhere – like most of intellectual history – attempts at some form of fraud.

The Complete Definition of Abrahamism

Abrahamism: consists of False Promise, Pilpul (positive sophism), Critique (negative undermining), straw-manning, and heaping of undue praise, to force you to appeal to your intuition rather than reason and evidence.

Abrahamism (noun)

1. Stating or Implying a False Promise, (escape from laws of nature)
2. Without the provision of Warranty, (skin in the game)
3. For the purpose of Baiting into Moral Hazard, (profiting from your failure)
4. Where one can profit from others’ loss, by 
   1. Murder,
   2. Violence,
   3. Theft,
   4. Fraud,
   5. Free Riding,
   6. Socialization of Losses,
   7. Privatization of The Commons,
   8. Conspiracy,
   9. Statism,
   10. Conversion,
   11. Immigration,
   12. Conquest
5. Persuaded or Argued by “Pilpul” consisting of the
   1. Sophisms of:
      1. Loading,
      2. Framing,
      3. Suggestion,
      4. Conflation (!!)
      5. False Dichotomy
      6. False Equivalency
      7. Double Standards
      8. Cherry Picking
      9. Obscurantism,
      10. Overloading,
   2. and the Fictionslisms of:
      1. Innumeracy
      2. Idealism,
      3. Pseudoscience
      4. “Magic” 
      5. Supernaturalism, and
      6. Deceit,
6. Appealing to:
   1. NAXALT (‘not all x are like that’)
   2. Optimisms or Pessimisms as Medians (outliers)
   3. Reasonableness (limiting to interpersonal)
   4. Morality (limiting to global)
   5. Face (Status, Reputation, Honor)
   6. Norms (what others do)
   7. Authority (scripture, law)
7. Instead of:
   1. Truth or Falsehood
   2. Rationality vs irrationality (self-interest)
   3. Reciprocity or Reciprocity
   4. Probability or Improbability
   5. Possibility or Impossibility
8. And defended by “Critique”, consisting of:
   1. Heaping of Undue Praise on Straw Men (positive)
   2. Criticism by Straw Manning (negative), and
   3. Poisoning the Well (Polluting the Informational Commons)
   4.  and GSRRM (denial, disapproval, ridicule, shaming, reputation destruction), consisting of:
      1. denial
      2. disapproval,
      3. shaming
         1. ridicule,
         2. shaming,
         3. moralizing,
         4. psychologizing,
      4. reputation Destruction
         1. rallying,
         2. gossiping,
         3. and reputation destruction –
9. Demonstrating
   1. deceit,
   2. distraction, and
   3. disapproval
10. Instead of:
    1. True of False argument,
    2. Fully Informed Agreement or disagreement
11. Thereby
    1. advancing a falsehood on one hand, and
    2. attacking the person rather than the argument on the other.
12. In order to obscure:
    1. lying,
    2. cheating,
    3. stealing, to directly lie, cheat, steal, or
    4. baiting into hazards from which they can
       1. lie cheat and steal under cover of
          1. ambiguity and
          2. the pretense of ignorance, and
          3. the pretense of innocence for the harm done.

The Spectrum of:

1. False Promise,
2. Without Warranty,
3. Baiting into Moral Hazard
4. Where one can profit from others’ loss

Includes:

(list here ………… )

Common Techniques in Abrahamic Deceit

1) Restatement of Myth as History
2) Projection of Traditional Wisdom as Authoritarian Law
3) Dependence upon Supernaturalism (“Magic”, “Miracle”)
4) Monopoly (exclusivity) and the threat of loss for non-compliance.
5) False Promise of Impossible (supernatural, natural) Reward for Compliance.
6) Use of Pilpul and Critique In Defense of the falsehoods.
7) Castes of Priests with status, power, and economic incentives to perpetuate the falsehoods.
8) Secret Knowledge, or Prohibition on Competing Knowledge, or Denial of contradictory knowledge.
9) Costs of Entry:
… Oath to a falsehood. (prayer)
… Payment of Ritualistic costs to the falsehood. (rituals)
… Payment of ‘donations’ (fees) to the priesthood (tithes)

The Revolt Against Truth, Reciprocity, Productivity, Markets, and Eugenics

Abrahamism is a Grammar of Dysgenia and Deceit

The Revolt Against The Invention of Truth Duty Aristocracy Meritocracy And Eugenic Evolution.

Abrahamism =
…. Pilpul(positiva) + Critique(negativa) =
…. …. …. …. (undermining, loading, framing, overloading, suggestion,
…. …. …. …. obscurantism, propagandism, fictionalisms) =
….. …. Gossip (undermining) =
…. …. …. Female Group Strategy of Undermining Alphas =
…. …. …. …. Female reproductive strategy of advancing her high-investment
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. offspring regardless of merit =
…. …. …. …. …. Dysgenic Parasitism.

The Evolution of The Art of Abrahamic Lying:

• Abrahamism v1: Judaism against Babylon’s Aristocracy
• Abrahamism v2: Christianity against Western Aristocracy.
• Abrahamism v3: Islam against the ancient world’s Aristocracy
• Abrahamism v4: Marxism against the modern world’s Aristocracy.
• Abrahamism v5: French Postmodernism against the current world’s Aristocracy.
• Abrahamism v6: Islamism against the entire world’s Aristocracy.

[ graphic goes here]

The Abrahamic Strategy 

• Abrahamism = authoritarianism (submission) + Pilpul + Critique + fictionalism.
• Gods serve as a system of calculation (decidability) by most primitive means (anthropic comparison).
• Abrahamism is Incompatible with Western Reason
  • Universalism, Monopoly, authority, justificationism (lying), polymoralism, fictionalism, deceit and parasitism;
• …are very different from…:
  • Nationalism, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, falsification, reciprocity, warranty, and truth, and productivity.

This is why the Abrahamic (Jewish in particular, or Semitic in general) means of countering greco-roman-european argument by using false promise, baiting into hazard, pilpul (sophism), and critique (undermining) is so effective: it is how our females talk to us, and because of our high trust, we are either genetically or culturally vulnerable to it – where other lower trust people are not. And we are easily undermined politically and academically because our females naturally find greater ‘affinity’ with Semitic non-argument (religion, postmodernism, feminism, denialism) than with european reason science truth testimony.

Propaganda

Propaganda is intentionally defective product, produced for the purpose of obtaining power, delivered with intent to persuade by deception, using rhetorical devices including: conflation, loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, straw-men, outright lying, and dependent upon repetition as a means of creating confirmatory “evidence”, to produce an intuitive rather than rational response.

The traditional, consensus argument has been that we are all smart enough to dismiss propaganda, to learn to distrust arguments, but history says that this isn’t true. Instead, we seek to confirm our moral biases. Not only because it is in our reproductive interest, because those biases reflect our reproductive interests, but because we have invested so heavily in our biases that the cost of training our intuition – intuition that we rely upon to decrease the burden of reasoning – is simply too high. In the kaleidic universe, without prejudices (biases) decisions are not decidable. We MUST rely upon intuition – we have no other choice.

The various pseudoscientific and rationalist movements, from Marxist ‘scientific socialism’, to Freudian Psychology, to Keynesian economics, the Anthropology of Franz Boas, to the outright fabrications of the Frankfurt School, to the postmodern philosophers, to American Feminism, to today’s political correctness – all relied, and continue to rely upon, deception by the use of conflation, loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, straw man, outright lying and cumulate in the use of Critique: confirmation based straw men as vehicles for criticism of opposing propositions, heaping of undue praise, piling-on of opponents with false arguments, and repeated chanting of falsehoods through the media.

These groups all make use of constant repetition of false statements consisting of various uses of conflation, loading, framing, obscurantism, straw men, and marxist ‘Critique’ to stimulate our intuitions, and generate confirmation bias, via normative awareness, rather than rational persuasion by truthful means.

In other words, its a very complex and innovative form of deception using suggestion, in order to confirm our moral cognitive biases, rather than education and persuasion by reason. It is an organized, intentional, systematic war against truth, reason, and science and morality for the purpose of establishing control of our thoughts, actions, and resources, and to justify theft from us, consumption of our historic commons.

We call this war by various names: the counter-enlightenment, the postmodern movement, socialism, marxist critique, pseudoscience. But these names give neutral moral judgement on what is an objectively immoral activity: deception for the purpose of control, theft, and virtual servitude. The truthful, rational, scientific name for these movements is ‘deception’.

 

Undermine A Polity

“Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals”

The Female Method of Warfare:

• Reputation Destruction,
• Alliance Destruction,
• Trust Destruction,
• Social Destruction.

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

Power is derived from 2 main sources â?? money and people. â??Have-Notsâ? must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

Curt Doolittle:
The only material power is violence. Everything else is tolerance by the powerful. If you cannot use violence you are not in fact powerful. If you can use violence and you do not then you are unworthy of rule, and merely free riding, parasitizing, or conspiring. What does this teach you? Master Organized Violence. Use it with Zero Tolerance.

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”

It results in confusion, fear, and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals donâ??t address the â??realâ? issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

Curt Doolittle::
Straw manning is only effective if we are tolerant of straw manning, and avoiding the central issues at hand. The only reason not to engage in war, decimation, enslavement, and enserfment of the various type available, is truthful, productive, discourse on the central issues. If we cannot discourse on issues then we either war if we can, or are destroyed if we cannot. Ergo, the only power is Violence.

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”

Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety, and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

Curt Doolittle::
Again, straw manning is effective in particular because those who specialize in truth, duty, sovereignty, reciprocity, voluntary exchange under the natural law, and markets in all aspects of life, develop specialization and habituation of doing so. Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Nietzsche (and me for that matter), and The Great Generals, are not telling us how to fight war. They are telling us that we must not be ‘christianized’ by our own moral rule. This is one of the secrets to the west’s success outside of the abrahamic dark age: rule by warriors ensures we are not victims of ingroup morality extended to outgroup conflict. It is also one of the reasons for the success of islam: it is a continuous call to war against aristocracy, by every living soul, to reverse aristocracy and restore dysgenic pastoralism.

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entityâ??s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

Curt Doolittle::
Critique is a powerful means of avoiding the act of providing a solution that ‘in total’ is more

(need to understand how they seek reciprocity)

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

There is no defense. Itâ??s irrational. Itâ??s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

Curt Doolittle:
Ridicule is not discussion, debate, or argument… it is admission one lacks one, and as such breaks the incentive for non violence necessary to negotiate. Therefore all cases of ridicule that are tolerated are nothing more than you avoiding the cost of policing the commons against those who would undermine, free ride, parasite, and predate.

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. Theyâ??re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid â??un-funâ? activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

Curt Doolittle:
tolerating small wins by the enemy only gives them positive reinforcement. If you are practicing truth, duty, sovereignty, reciprocity, natural law, and markets in everything the only objective people can have is falsehood and duty(debt) avoidance, reciprocity and non-sovereignty, arbitrary rule, and free riding, parasitism and predation, and in such cases they are almost always unwilling to trade improvement in their behavior for commons and consumption that results from their improved behavior.

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

CD: …

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”

Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

CD …

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activistsâ?? minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

CD …

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”

Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred managementâ??s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

CD …

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

CD …

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

CD: …

Undermining Institutions – The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

The courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868) to give the government far more “eminent domain” power than was originally intended, Under the rubric of “eminent domain” and various zoning regulations, land use regulations by the Bureau of Land Management property taxes, and “environmental” excuses, private property rights have become very diluted and private property in landis, vehicles, and other forms are seized almost every day in this country under the “forfeiture” provisions of the RICO statutes and the so-called War on Drugs..

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913 (which some scholars maintain was never properly ratified), and various State income taxes, established this major Marxist coup in the United States many decades ago. These taxes continue to drain the lifeblood out of the American economy and greatly reduce the accumulation of desperately needed capital for future growth, business starts, job creation, and salary increases.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Another Marxian attack on private property rights is in the form of Federal & State estate taxes and other inheritance taxes, which have abolished or at least greatly diluted the right of private property owners to determine the disposition and distribution of their estates upon their death. Instead, government bureaucrats get their greedy hands involved.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

We call it government seizures, tax liens, “forfeiture” Public “law” 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of Congress in 1913, is indeed such a “national bank” and it politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal counterfeiting in the United States. This is exactly what Marx had in mind and completely fulfills this plank, another major socialist objective. Yet, most Americans naively believe the U.S. of A. is far from a Marxist or socialist nation.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

In the U.S., communication and transportation are controlled and regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established by the Communications Act of 1934 and the Department of Transportation and the Interstate Commerce Commission (established by Congress in 1887), and the Federal Aviation Administration as well as Executive orders 11490, 10999 — not to mention various state bureaucracies and regulations. There is also the federal postal monopoly, AMTRAK and CONRAIL — outright socialist (government-owned) enterprises. Instead of free-market private enterprise in these important industries, these fields in America are semi-cartelized through the government’s regulatory-industrial complex.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

While the U.S. does not have vast “collective farms” (which failed so miserably in the Soviet Union), we nevertheless do have a significant degree of government involvement in agriculture in the form of price support subsidies and acreage allotments and land-use controls. The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920’s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000. And I almost forgot…The Equal Rights Amendment means that women should do all work that men do including the military and since passage it would make women subject to the draft.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

We call it the Planning Reorganization Act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136.

1. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

People are being taxed to support what we call ‘public’ schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based “Education” .

 

The Left “debate” Strategy Isn’t to Debate – it’s To Undermine

Duplicity, ir-reciprocity, honor-in-deceit, profiting from inciting and exploitation of moral hazard, false promise, justificationary sophism (Pilpul), straw man sophism (Critique), and disapproval, shaming, rallying, moralizing as substitute for argument is a cultural strategy.

The Abrahamists institutionalized this method of ‘resistance’ to the Masculine(Aryan) method: reciprocity, honor in truth duty and sacrifice, suppression of moral hazard, limiting promises to the truthful and possible, using falsification (rather than justification), sticking to the central argument, and avoiding disapproval, shaming, rallying, and moralizing – and constraining to costs and benefits.

Consumption(Leftists) = female reproductive strategy, associated cognitive biases, and associated brain structure:”The Herd”. It uses threat of ostracization from the Herd by disapproval, ridicule,shaming, gossip, moralizing, rallying – and not argument. I listed the steps in the technique.

Capitalization(Rightists) = Male reproductive strategy, associated cognitive biases, and associated brain structure: “The Pack”.

The left (feminine cognitive bias) lacks Agency. The right possesses agency.

It’s that simple.

 

The European Strategy

????????

Male European – Truth over Face, Regardless of cost.
Male everywhere else – some degree of face over truth.
Female everywhere – nearly universal face over truth.

Yet it’s truth-over-face that is the reason for the ‘Western Miracle’ – why the West is so different from the rest: our rate of innovation, and adaptation.

Our Own Christians and Women Remain Our Vulnerability

This is why Christians are the current vulnerability of western civilization: their religion was developed to obtain the attention of women, and to appeal to GSRM. The religion is stated and argued with false promise(‘salvation’), baiting into Hazard (cultural vulnerability to conquest), using pilpul (excuse-making) and critique (straw-manning), and the fictionalism of supernaturalism.

Judaism to undermine, Christianity to weaken, and Islam to consume and destroy.

The Middle East uses the female reproductive strategy and the far east and the west use the male reproductive strategy, with the far east using face over truth to defend hierarchy and the west using truth before face to defend the market of the peerage. And the middle east today just as in the age of the greeks, just lying and shaming all truth without end.

The world is not complicated. It is our lies that make it seem so.

Warranty of Due Diligence

(…)

Ignorance Is Not an Excuse for Failures of Due Diligence

The fact that one has habituated a means of deception (continental conflationary philosophy and literature) rather than habituated a means of transparency (anglo analytic deflation – ie: science and law) and therefore argues for the profoundly dishonest and immoral out of cultural habit, has nothing to do with whether one INTENDS to argue immorally – it just means one’s CULTURE is endemically immoral. Which is just an argument-to-ignorance. It doesn’t absolve you from the failure of due diligence for the consequences of your display, speech, or action.

Reciprocity (morality) requires one do nothing (by Display, Word, or Deed) that one cannot perform restitution for – else one is externalizing risk upon others (conducting a theft). And some costs are impossible to perform restitution for. For example, what has been the cost of the pseudosciences and pseudo-rationalisms and pseudo-histories, of the French (Derrida, Rorty, et all) and Ashkenazi (Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Adorno (et all), Mises, Rothbard, Leo Strauss) – all failures of due diligence against the immorality of their habits (cultural assumptions and argumentative grammar)?

If you cannot make an operational argument in economics and politics ( that means a procedural model) that tests your theory then you do not know of what you speak. These people made Rousseauian (false) assumptions of human nature, and economic possibility – most notably because Rousseau was a profoundly immoral (irreciprocal) man, and the entirety of the french and Ashkenazi, and some of the German intelligentsia, produce a reactionary movement misrepresented as ‘the enlightenment’, as always do people of armies, or of diaspora, seeking ‘liberty’ and thereby lacking the ‘sovereignty’ of the Scandinavian sea-farers. They attempted to return the church’s demands upon others (appeals to the common good) counter to the British (anglo empirical) intellectual revolution (markets in everything.)

In law, (conflict resolution by tests of reciprocity), and in war (conflict prevention by tests of reciprocity), we do not make excuses for ignorance – ignorance and indiscipline (failure of due diligence) are just means of reducing costs and externalizing risk upon others. That is what these people did. They were liberated (no thanks to them) by the Atlantic transport, agrarian, and industrial revolutions and made arguments that they were ‘kept down’, and politically liberated, rather than that they sexual, social, and political market value, and that with increased productivity they could not consume vastly more of everything, and create a little market value despite their lower previous market value.

 

 

Part 999 – Crimes

Crimes of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims

The Essence of Europeanism Over Abrahamism

—“Our ancestors took great men and turned them into Gods so that we could follow their example and rule ourselves. Abrahamism took God and anthropomorphized him so that we are better able to follow his commands and be ruled over.”— Andy Lunn

The middle east slaves and shepherds under the despots of the flood river valleys versus the european militia under chosen kings of the farmers and cattlemen of forest and plain.

NO MORE LIES. Europa Juris: The Supremacy of  Natural Law, and Sovereignty, the cult of non-submission.

The Abrahamic Method of Civilizational Destruction

I refer to Abrahamism as a group (judaism->undermining, christianity->submitting, islam->conquering) because analysis of any SINGLE sub-religion obscures the function of the group of Abrahamic religions as a force of destruction.

Because those are the three stages of Abrahamism’s method of conquest of the aristocratic peoples by conversion and conquest of women and underclasses (those yet not ‘domesticated into agency’).

Stage 1 – Small external population (vanguard) undermines the main by straw man criticism and ridicule of the organization and its categories relations and values (Judaism – GOSSIP: Reputation Destruction)

Stage 2 – The population is undermined into submission by the sale of a false promise – the verbal equivalent of a physical drug (Christianity – FRAUD: Selling a false promise ).

Stage 3 – The major external population conquers the submitted through raiding the trade routes, immigration, conversion, and conquest and population replacement. (Islam – FORCE).

The consequence is the reversal of civilization of the hierarchical pack and the restoration of the primitivism of the equalitarian herd.

Only the west Subsaharan Africa and the far east were able to resist the regression due to rates of underclass reproduction and raiding on aristocracy (Judaism), culture (Christianity), population and economy (Islam).

Understand the ancient enemy of mankind.

Fear of being Left Behind > False Promise > Sophistry > Critique > Pilpul > Supernatural.

Women are the most vulnerable because they evolved to be irrationally dependent upon the ‘cover’ of the herd. The underclass as well. the less capable classes out of utility. The middle class out of profit from it, and the upper class replaced by a priesthood (frauds) rather than military (science).

It is a very simple process once understood.

 

The Enemy’s Technique

Civilizational Destruction from Within;
Instigating Construction of Internal Spirals of Capital Rivalry, Consumption, Destruction;
Baiting into Hazard (certain risk);
Those who are ignorant, or lack agency;
By use of False Promise (circumvention of reality);
Under the persuasion by Sophism (pilpul);
Justified by Critique (lie, criticism, straw-manning)
Under the cover of Moral Pretense (lie);
Under the cover of Plausible Deniability (lie);
For the purpose of profiting (by harm)
From the consumption of accumulated capital (undermining):
… truth, reason, delay of gratification, manners, ethics, morals, traditions, cooperation between classes, organization of the classes,
By not specializing in,
… The production of innovation in goods services information, both private and common
… Warrantied
By Specialization in fields permitting Export of Risk
And Absent Warranty
… Gossip for Undermining (Entertainment, Media, News, Opinion)
… Informational Destruction (Academy)
… Government (Facilitation of Conflict)
… Legislation (Undermining by, Facilitation of Conflict, Facilitating Dissolution of norms, traditions, manners, ethics morals,  Parasitism, Capital exhaustion)
… Rent-Seeking (special interests)
… Corruption (influence)
… Undermining the law (specialization in undermining the constitution via the courts)
… Law (specialization in coercion)
… Finance (Parasitism and entrapment)
… Tax and accounting (evasion)
… Marketing and Advertising (scams and undermining)
… Sales Scams
… Commercial Trade in Scams physical, service, and informational
… Black Market Goods, services, and Information.
… Check Cashing
… Loan Sharking
… Gambling
… Pornography
… Prostitution
… Drug Dealing
Thereby;
… creating conflict,
… destroying trust,
… generating demand for restitution
… generating demand for authority,
An authority that recursively issues another iteration of
… false promise,
… baiting into hazard
Causing a Continuous Conflict Spiral
And Tragedy of the Commons (Conflict for consumption)
until all accumulated assets:
… genetic,
… cultural,
… normative,
… artistic,
… economic,
… institutional and
… political;
have been consumed;
by the conflict between classes and interests
and by the expansion of the underclasses;
whose numbers, invasion, reproduction, consumption, agitation,  had been previously limited by;
… productivity, property, market, law, and natural aristocracy;
… And the surplus proceeds from production devoted to the production of commons;
… Providing the asymmetric returns on those commons. 

 

Abrahamism as The Manufacture of Ignorance: Informational Dysgenia

We tend to look at the demonstrated verbal superiority of the Ashkenazi, their long history of literacy, writing, law, hermeneutic interpretation, persuasion, and consequent success in occupations that require a combination of the estimation of others ability, the accumulation of textual information, and the exercise of persuasion (or coercion).

But we forget that their group success is dependent almost entirely on eugenic reproduction, in which the community contributes money to the Professor (Rabbi)so that he may bear extra children, and that the community outcasts members who cannot perform to standard, and reduces the rates of reproduction through poverty of those that cannot perform to standard. So just as the european nobility redistributed to the middle and upper classes, the production of the underclasses, the Ashkenazi, redistributed the production of the host peoples to their upper genetic classes. And both the Ashkenazi and Europeans then specialized in self-transcendence by (beneficial) suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses, and the redirection of energies to the upper classes.

However, let’s have a look at what Europeans (Aryans) achieved when they were literate, and what the Ashkenazi (and jews) accomplished when they were literate. Or let’s ask it differently: what did Aryans and Jews accomplish when they practiced Abrahamism, versus before adoption and after departure from Abrahamism.

Or put another way, what have the Aryans and Jews accomplished under Aristotelianism (European Aryanism), versus what have they achieved under Abrahamism.

Moreover, what had the north Africans, the Levantines, the Byzantines, and the Persians accomplished before Abrahamism? What did they accomplish under the long term effects of Abrahamism?

Let’s bring in the Indians. What did the Dravidians (Hrappans) achieve before Supernatural Aryanism. What did they achieve after Supernatural Aryanism? What have they achieved since the introduction of Aristotelian Aryanism?

What did the Chinese achieve having never encountered Supernatural Aryanism, or Jewish Abrahamism?

What occurred when the Chinese resisted Aristotelian Aryanism? What occurred now that the Chinese finally adopted Aristotelian Aryanism?

Jews accomplished literally nothing despite being the most literate people in Europe. Islamists accomplished nothing except the selective import of classical, Persian, and Indian thought, and upon consumption of those parts of those civilizations that they could consume, declined rapidly into even lower trust, even greater ignorance after 1200, even while invading Europe for centuries to come, and spreading Islamic ignorance from which Spain and the southeast of Europe seem challenged to recover from due to both cultural and genetic devolution.

We tend to make excuses by justifying intentions. But if we look at the historical record, Supernatural Aryanism was used to educate if not subjugate the ignorant, and let to the eradication of the Supernatural (Iranian) Aryans.

There is no greater crime than Abrahamism in human history. There is no greater source of ignorance and deceit than Abrahamism. No greater source of poverty. No more severe limitation to transcendence.

There has been no greater source of murder, death, starvation, than the combination of Third Generation Judaism in the form of Marxism, Socialism and the first Jewish empire: the Soviet Union, and the French reformation of it into Postmodernism and the necessary reactions to it including Fascism; Nor and the Second Generation of Arab Abrahamism(Islam), in which the tactics of Arab expansion of Arabic Abrahamism (Islam) which relies on intellectual seduction of the underclasses and women, raiding of capital and trade, and decentralized warfare, to obtain sufficient power to conduct conventional warfare internally and externally, to impose Abrahamic Ignorance upon people, and devolve them into increasingly ignorant, and unintelligent peoples.
Just as freedom of speech must end, and be replaced by freedom of truthful speech. Freedom of religion must end, and be replaced by freedom of truthful religion.

That is the lesson of history.

 

The Jews And Their Deserved Reputation

Why Do so Many Cultures Think the Jewish People Are Nefarious?

—-”Why does dislike Jews?”—-

Fools talk about the six or seven usual justifications, all of which amount to claims of insubstantial difference, or mere psychologism, but as always people write justifications (fictions) rather than state the uncomfortable truth – which is always and everywhere, a matter of costs: normative, economic, cultural, institutional, political, and military.

Stated Causes (Psychologisims):

1. Competition between Religions (Norms, Traditions, Laws)
2. Banking (Usury)
3. Separatism (Preservation of Identity)
4. Success (Success + Separatism = Competition)

Material Causes are Parasitisms, Predations, and Undermining:

Peoples everywhere dislike or have disliked, or persecuted Jews for the same reasons every group in Christendom that dislikes the Jews did and does so:

1. Separatism (norm violation), and consequent Competition (predation and parasitism),
2. Polyethicalism (immorality) – Specialization in Profiting from Hazard Creation, Privatization of Commons, Socialization of Losses.
3. Truth Avoidance (Truth is what works regardless of consequences, not what is true including the consequences – what we call externalities)
4. The Big Lies, and the method of constructing them: The development of the Sophisms of Pilpul (excuses) and Critique (Gossip, ridicule, shaming, rallying) and its use in creating Supernatural Abrahamism (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – and the creation of the Abrahamic Dark Ages, Pseudoscientific Abrahamism, Marxism (Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Lenin, Trotsky, Mises, Rothbard, Strauss, Adorno and the Frankfurt School.)
5. Specialization in Parasitism and Undermining: Usury, Black Markets, Slavery, tax Collection, pornography, propaganda – judaism is hostile to commons and trust while western people specialize in commons and trust.
6. Irreciprocal nepotism: damning european nepotism while practicing jewish nepotism. (Polyethicalism)
7. Special Pleading (propagandizing) to cover polyethicalism and parasitism.
8. Alliance with or use of the state against the people.

Fools read what was OPINED about history. Wise people read about the data produced in history, not what people opined. The data produced in history consists of DEMONSTRATED not REPORTED behavior. By examining demonstrated behavior, we can determine the incentives that people followed when they seized opportunities of one type (moral or immoral) while not seizing opportunities of another (moral or immoral).
Books:

• The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State: Benjamin Ginsberg … Ginsberg will go into historical detail of how the Jews organize with the state against the people until the people rebel against them.
• 200 Years Together: Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn(This book is actively suppressed in the west but what is translated from Russian can be found on the internet – readily.)
• A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples by Kevin MacDonald
• The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements by Kevin MacDonald
• Tribes: How Race, Religion, and Identity Determine Success in the New Global Economy by Joel Kotkin. His analysis of higher tribalism and how certain tribes are more successful than others in the global economy.

The Economic, Legal, and Technological (Propaganda) Evidence:

However, I’ll add my research to those criticisms, which is the result of the evidence of legal and economic history – not propaganda.

Jews specialize in those occupations that host civilizations determine are immoral (because they are). Immoral meaning: irreciprocal. The various forms of Risk Avoidance, and Cooperation Avoidance, and Normative Cost Avoidance: Tax collection, Law, Finance, Advertising, Media, Entertainment, (Gambling, the porn industry, organized crime, and most commonly, slavery, privatization of the commons, or socialization of losses), where there is low if not zero accountability for promises made explicitly or implicitly. (Westerners specialize in reciprocity)

This is because Jewish Law (their religion) is (a) polylogical, and (b) poly ethical (what’s good for us, needn’t be good for them) rather than (western) reciprocal, fully informed and productive (their ethical code does not require productivity, and permits blackmail for example), (c) requires only voluntary in the moment and unwarrantied, (“only two people to make a deal”) rather than warrantied against retaliation (they can hide behind our law). (Westerners specify in monological universal law and ethics)

They use nepotism to concentrate the profits from specializing in immoral (parasitic, predatory, moral hazard creating, and risk externalizing) occupations to concentrate capital in investments that are non-productive (Rent Seeking): Same industries as above, but particularly hazard-creating finance, predatory finance and banking, moral hazard finance, tenement and landlording, and other real estate investments that are exploitable under the difference in their ethical model and western ethical models. (50% of pundit propagandists are Jewish and leftists). (Westerners specialize in meritocracy over nepotism)

They use the profits and influence from finance, investment, rent seeking to fund groups that intentionally target undermining of American constitutional law, the germanicized christian (reciprocal) ethics the churches, and the demand for loyalty from the citizenry that westerners have practiced for 4000 years, as a militial (self defending) people of the sea, river, forest, and steppe. It is a conspiracy of common interest more so than outright conspiracy, to ‘make the world safe for jews’ despite the fact that ‘making it safe for jews’ means destroying the manners, ethics, morals, laws, institutions, and traditions, and even metaphysical assumptions that make (Unique) western high trust civilization possible. (Westerners specialize in complex high cost commons and high trust.)

They use the profits and comforts of surviving upon the host to produce propaganda that covers their actions, or undermines the host society. The most obvious example being Christianity and Marxism, (a) revolt against the Western Aristocracy in the ancient world, and (b) revolt against the Western Aristocracy in the modern world:The restatement of reformed judaism (christianity) from supernatural to marxist pseudoscientific:‘

Yahweh = Dialectical Materialism
The Messiah = Marx
The Elect = The Proletariat
The Church = The Communist Party
The Second Coming = The Revolution
Hell = Punishment of the Capitalists
The Millennium = The Communist Commonwealth’
– by Bertrand Russell

And:

The restatement of The Roman Conquest of Judea and the Diaspora as the Holocaust. The restatement of Mesopotamian slavery and liberation as the Conquest and Diaspora.

Yet it seems to never occur to Jewish thought leadership that the reason they lost their territory, were enslaved, lost it again, and have continuously been persecuted and nearly exterminated everywhere except the west, is that (a) they don’t pay for the commons, particularly the commons of defense, and (b) a world safe for jews is a world of immorality that repeats the failures of the jews as both landed and unlanded people. You cannot specialize in immorality (predation, and parasitism) upon a people who practice Reciprocity and Productivity (material production) without them retaliating. This is why the Ukrainians did what they did to the jews as soon as the Germans invaded. What the Russians have done to the Jews in the later soviet and post soviet era, what the Germans did to the jews in the second world war, and the ongoing antisemitism everywhere in the west.

It’s not an accident or some form of psychologism that causes people to regulate, exit, or persecute the Jews throughout history, but the difference between Jewish propaganda, teaching, and preaching, and the economic means by which they persist by parasitic and predatory relations upon a people. The jews have used superior verbal intelligence to create Pilpul (Justification), and Critique (Ridicule, Gossip, Shaming , Straw manning), which are two very elaborate sophisms (the equivalent of how Socrates undermined Athenian culture with criticism without solutions that would be somehow better, and how Plato used idealism rather than realism to propose totalitarianism – which the Jews copied in argument and the church referred to as an institution. Meanwhile, it was Aristotle and the Stoics that made alexander, the empire, reason, Roman law and gave us the path to modern science. )They have used Pilpul and Critique to advance the pseudosciences: Boasian anthropology, Marxist economics, Freudian Psychology, Cantorian Sets (you won’t understand that one), Misesian Economics, The Frankfurt School’s Critique (anti-westernism), Rothbardian Ethics, Lewontin Genetics, and Gould’s Evolutionary Theories. They are also responsible for the transformation of our government from a republic to a democracy, the primary influence in the ‘65 Immigration Act by which they hoped (succeeded) to undermine our rule of law by immigrating underclasses that would support socialist policies. And the foundations they support have actively pursued cases that forced judicial discretion thereby bypassing the constitutional process of amendment. In other words, the Jews produced theology (pseudo wisdom literature), pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, as Propaganda, and distributed it by oral tradition, written tradition, printing, and now, media.

We are in an era, where, because of mass media, being articulate, and quickly articulate, is at a premium – more so than at any time in history – not because information is scarce, but because it is overwhelming. And this benefits the jewish people disproportionately. In other words, we are in an era where Propaganda distributed by entertainment, media, and academy is the MOST effective in history. And the Jewish people have specialized in propaganda (gossip) by pilpul (positive) critique (negative), and whatever technological means of distribution is available.

In other words, while it’s not intentional, the Jews use the Group Evolutionary Strategy Of Women (defenselessness, Submissiveness) to obtain the benefits of women (Tolerance) while relying on the techniques of women (gossip, rallying, shaming, ridicule, propagandizing), to undermine the population (Dominant Males) it’s norms, traditions, and institutions, while they obtain the Benefits of Women (attempting to force the tribe to pay for them and their offspring), without offering the benefits of women (care taking, and reproduction.) Notice that this technique and Feminism are identical.Sophism, Victimhood, Undermining, begging for tolerance, and then incremental understanding of the current genetic, morphological, reproductive, developmental, endocrine, and psychometric information, is that the Ashkenazi Jews have used selective reproduction favoring feminine verbal traits and memory traits in males (reading, memory, recitation, argument), to transfer female verbal traits to the male – at the cost of doubling (or more) the rates of homosexuality.If this is correct, this explains the ‘Conspiracy of Common Interest’ among Jews, who simply intuit, as do females, their group evolutionary strategy – and repeat it everywhere they go.More research is coming out. But once you are aware of the difference between male and female cognition, male and female methods of argument, male and female means of aggression, the general verbal superiority of females, and the moral intuition of females (devotion instead of loyalty), it becomes rather obvious that the jews have specialized both culturally and genetically in ‘weaponizing’ the female reproductive strategy.
ie: they aren’t conspiring any more than women are. They’re just like the rest of us – following their intuitions. But they have a competitive advantage because they have achieved (albeit at cost) Early Modern Levels of european IQ (we have lost parity with the Jews through underclass reproduction). And cannot match them in verbal acuity without even higher IQ’s.This analysis of traits is an illustration of how much we can learn from the genetic differences and consequential expressions between the three elite groups: East Asians, Northern Europeans, and Ashkenazi jews. Important: Evolutionary excellences of groups can only be expressed as norms, institutions, and achievements when the lower classes are reduced. The principal reason for the success of the elite peoples is their elimination of the drag of the underclasses so that competitive excellence can be expressed. Ergo it is not as important to evolve high intelligence as it is to express existing traits and facets by the removal of negative traits and facets. This is counter-intuitive, but it is the means by which we domesticated plants and animals.

There are a few of us who study this technique: the weaponization of the female strategy. I am probably in the top handful because I specialize in western ethics (reciprocity, natural law, human rights) and legal, economic, cultural, and genetic history. And Jewish ethics and group competitive strategy are the polar opposite of the Western – and the vast contrast helps us understand each. But it has become very clear over the past few centuries that for the Russians and Germans in particular, and for westerners in general, our ‘years together’ are, as always, of benefit to Jews but vast harm to the host civilizations.

Truth is truth and truth is painful. Westerners have the burden of colonialism, but as a consequence have dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, and disease in both the ancient world and the modern. Jews have the burden of undermining every host civilization throughout history and having to pay the cost for it, and then creating propaganda under the pretense that they were persecuted without reason.

However, the test of a culture is purely empirical: despite being the most literate people in Europe, until integrated into western empiricism (Aristotelianism), the Jews contributed nothing to mankind for two thousand years, other than Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, by which ALL the great civilizations of the ancient world were destroyed by the underclasses, and by which they are destroying western civilization at present. Small contributions that are not unique do not compensate for the destruction they have caused everywhere they have gone. 1B dead by Abrahamic religions, and 100M dead so far by Communism and Leftism worldwide: Abrahamism created the Abrahamic Dark Ages.

So we can all be cursed for our mistakes in history, but a failure to acknowledge them and to reform in the face of them is evidence of malice.

The reasons are, always and everywhere, political, economic, and moral – and obvious. You just have to get past the propaganda and into the actions people take, which are left as records in law, the economy, and publications.

Transparency: For reasons I didn’t undestand at the time, I worked exclusively for Jewish organizations in my early career, and later investigated and successfully participated in the prosecution of three Jewish businesses for Racketeering, Churning, Fraud – and failed to take the time to prosecute a fourth. As a consequence, collected accounts of the means by which Jewish ethics justify criminality by principally by moral hazard – a form of fraud by which we bait people in disadvantageous or opportunistic circumstances to take risks they should not in order to obtain legal access to their assets without reciprocal productivity. So I have been working on this problem for decades.

 

Record of Unproductivity, Record of Parasitism

( … )

The Jewish Century:

Marxism-Socialism, Libertarianism, Postmodernism, Feminism, Neo-Conservatism, and the Facilitating in our Invasion by Islam.

The Counter-Revolution Against Anglo Legal-Empiricism, and German Rational-Science
Utopian Promise upon Achieving Monopoly Consensus + Straw Man + Pilpul and Critique:

Rousseau (Feminine Subjective) + Schopenhauer, Hegel et al (Conflationists) + Kant (Masculine Analytic)
-vs-
Marx, Cantor, Freud, Adorno (Working and Underclasses)
-vs-
Mises, Friedman, Rand, Rothbard, (Middle Classes)
-vs-
Foucault, Derrida, Rorty (Priestly-Feminine Upper Middle)
-vs-
Friedan, Firestone, Dworkin (Feminists)
-vs-
Strauss-Neocons (Political/Military-Masculine – Upper)

Indictment:
Marx (econ/history), Boas (Anthro/Soc.), Freud(Psych), Cantor (math platonism), Frankfurt (Norms,Traditions,Habits,Institutions), the French Postmodernists (Reason Itself) sought to use the ancient techniques of overloading (lying) by pseudoscience (marx et al) and sophism (Derrida, Foucault, Rorty, Heidegger) to construct a disinformation campaign with Critique: poisoning the well with a straw man criticism) in order to perpetuate a fraud(theft) by attacking Poincare, Maxwell,Darwin,Menger, Spencer, Nietzsche, and the Eugenicists who were seeking to restate the successful group evolutionary strategy of western civilization (transcendence: by adaptive velocity ) using Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, Jury and Tort Law, and Markets (empirical evidence of reciprocity) in everything including association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, polities, and defense(war), in scientific terms (The One Language of Truthful Speech, under the One Law of Reciprocity).

The gradual attack on Aristocratic Civilization from the bottom up.

Recidivism Under Previous Crimes 
Compare to the sequence:  Judaism > Christianity > Islam. It’s the same Technique, Same False Promise, Same Catastrophic Consequences

Undermining Knowledge with Sophism, Pseudoscience Innumeracy, Denial, and Lying

Boaz (vs Darwin)

Freud (vs Nietzche and Spenser)

Marx (vs Menger)

Cantor  (vs Poincare)

Einstein (Vs Hilbert)

Keynes (vs Hayek)

Adorno

Derrida

Rothbard

(neocons)

 

The Opiate of the Envious

1. Marxism (Boasianism, Marxism, Freudianism, Frankfurt School) consists of a **pseudoscientific** revolt against aristocratic European civilization’s sovereignty, reason, markets, and meritocracy, and is merely a restatement of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic **supernatural** REVOLT against the great aristocratic civilizations of the ancient world – this time with a false promise of prosperity in search for power, just as in the ancient world, a false promise of life after death or paradise in search for power.

2. Postmodernism is a **pseudo-rational** restatement of the Marxist (Boasian, Marxist, Freudian, Frankfurt School) REVOLT against reason markets, meritocracy and eugenics that result from that merit. This time abandoning both the supernatural, the pseudoscientific, and merely engaging in gossip, rallying, shaming, ridicule, disapproval, in the pursuit of power to resist meritocracy (eugenics)

3. So whether Semitic Abrahamic **Supernatural** Religion, Marxist **pseudoscientific** reformation of abrahamic religion, or Postmodern pseudo-rational justification is used, the same argumentative **sophisms **of **justificationary Pilpul**, and **critical Critique **are used to circumvent reason, appeal to intuition.

4. Why? We are, because of our genetics, and the intuitions that result from our genetics, of differing interpersonal, social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value. This market value is generally categorized as ‘class’. We do, because of genetics, physically possess physical brain and physical chemical intuitions that reflect our class and our genders. And just as the female reproductive strategy (herds) evolved to persist her genes regardless of the merit of her offspring, and men evolved to persist their genes (packs) by the merit of himself and his male kin, classes evolved to express either the feminine dysgenic or male eugenic group strategies. Our differences in moral intuitions are the result of these axis: gender cognitive bias, and class cognitive bias, and the degree of group neoteny that evolved in our relative geographies.

5. So to some degree just as religion is an opiate of the lower classes, philosophy provides an opiate of the middle classes, and pseudoscience the upper middle classes – the upper classes need no opiate other than the rewards of their market position (desirability). Why? we want hope or promise of raising our interpersonal, social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value. Because after all – that is what drives reproduction, and what drives all our behavior.

6. The underclasses are not oppressed. They are just six times as bad for the polity as every good person is good for it. Markets cannot lie. They contain lottery effects. And the lottery effect provides us with the incentives (hope) just as religion, philosophy, and pseudoscience provide us with hope. Hope that we will obtain the benefits of being of higher market value than we are. In other words: status rules us.

7. The duration of a Democracy is determined by the time it takes to redistribute, and spend down a windfall, from war, conquest, technical innovation, or accident of nature. We are rapidly running out of the industrial (petroleum) windfall, just as Athens ran out of it’s silver mine.

8. A mixed economy ruled by an authoritarian, an oligarchy, or a ‘party’ – differing only in scale – is the only survivable, with fascism necessary in war, and the luxury of social democracy possible under windfalls.

 

 

 

 

The Psychology, Biology and Genetics of Leftism
by Rosenborg Predmetsky

Cultural Marxists are all structural and no agency ( “all talk and no walk”). I find it very telling that the advocates of structuralism and post-structuralism tended to be utterly degenerate and depraved idiots — the most obvious examples are Michel Foucault and Jacques Lacan.

Those of us with Agency simply cannot imagine the amount of time those with Feminine Cognition (lacking agency) think about inequality or status or being left behind. We just can’t imagine the obsession that they find in every moment. Their frame, constantly reinforced by some sort of rejection or other signal, or interpretation of some event as ‘being left out, or left behind, or less, or not rewarded for their contributions.’

They can’t imagine how we can be so rational (they assume we have their psychological problems) but we can’t imagine how obsessed they are with their inability to obtain from others what they could obtain from parents by childish display.

Both purely r-selected and also totally obsessed with the idea that humans in general lack agency and that human subjectivity is nothing but a function of some antecedent (linguistic or social) structure. They are projecting their own constitutional, biological lack of agency onto humanity at large. When a post-structuralist says “humans lack agency,” I say “speak for yourself, hypo-frontal-cortical wojack!”

I see cultural Marxists as high openness to experience with its attendant divergent thinking + dopaminergic sensation seeking + Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS, intense negative effect), and so they are driven by their passions like a kite in a hurricane, lacking anything like authentic agency, and they just project their own pathology onto the rest of humanity.

Sensation seeking + intense negative affect + high verbal IQ = quasi-bonobo degenerate reader of Derrida / Foucault. Hyper-feminine, articulate but garrulous, schizophrenia-spectrum, borderline personality with unstable sense of self (which they project onto others), borderline psychotic, highly diffuse and chaotic thought patterns, histrionic, a desire to be seen and desired rather than a desire to create and/or conquer through brilliance or authentic power wrought of discipline.

Conquest of our People

This attempt to steal a continent that we conquered…

Imean, I don’t mind if people want to form their own little socialist (authoritarian parasitic and dysgenic) or democratic socialist (consensual parasitic and dysgenic) countries – I just won’t let them continue to extract from me and mine. And this attempt to steal a continent that we conquered, by means of conquest by immigration is just not going to happen.

THE WEST: “Agency, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, Truth, Duty, and Markets in Everything: association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and war.”

 

Crimes of Conspiracy of Common Interest, and Intent

Conspirators in the Media

( use same voice as threat to state – first person)

Conspirators in the Academy

Conspirators in the State

 

 

 

Catalog of Lies

Foundation of the Lies

( … Darwin, Female Strategy. Undermining. Inability to produce a polity. )

The Oppression Myth

 

 

Nature Nurture – Settled

 

Gender Differences – Settled

 

 

Agency  – Settled

EMOTIONS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON BIASES AND AGENCY

1 – Emotions reflect changes in the states of property-in-toto.
2 – We use reason (a skill we can improve through practice in deflationary comparisons ) to compare properties, relations, consequences, and valuations.
3 – We use free association to define properties, relations, consequences, and valuations.
4 – Our efforts at free association are impossible not to bias, because our experience accumulates in both interest and intensity in response to our biases.
5 – So it is more correct to say that it is very difficult to learn to think sufficiently deflationarily that our emotions do not influence our reasoning.
6 – to say that many of our emotions – those that I understand – occur in the reptilian and mamalian brains, and that our cognitive biases occur most often in the human parts of the brain and that the more primitive they are the more difficult they are (often) to circumvent, but the easier they are to understand. Many cognitive biases are difficult to be aware of in the first place, and are more subtle.

Therefore, in broad terms, the less skill you have, the less will you have, the more solipsistic you are the harder it is to escape the emotions that result from your biases.

The more skill you have the more will you have the more autistic you are the easier it is to escape the emotions that result from your biases.

AGENCY AND AESTHETICS

—“Enlighten the intellect, volition will follow. Aesthetics seem to be the means of aligning one’s passions and emotions to reason.”—Rafael LaVerde

Remove sources of lack of fitness, lack of character (virtue), lack of resources, sources of normative and institutional resistance, sources of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit – all the impediments to Agency – and Agency will result. Then selecting a philosophy – a means of decidability – by which one can obtain one’s ends, and an aesthetic that values one’s passions in accordance with that philosophy.

AGENCY AND GRAMMAR

From the series:

math/logic > science > philosophy > religion

We can construct the series:

physical > mental > emotional,

And the series:

logic > description > fiction,

And the series:

associable > reasonable > calculable > computable.

And we can use them to calculate the series:

lack of agency > potential agency > demonstrated agency

Therefore;

The weak-of-will want religion, to defend against others’ wills;
The able-of-will want philosophy, to advocate their will and;
The strong-of-will want science, to put their will to work;
And The strongest-of-will want Law: because Law is the means by which the strong impose their will. The only question is whether their will advances the sovereign and reciprocal, producing transcendence – or not.

Because we all want what our Agency demands.

Responsibility – Settled

People ARE 100% responsible for their success and failures TO REACH THEIR FULL POTENTIAL in the market for competency.

1) Any attempt to reach more than their relative ability to reach their full potential must be obtained by stealing from others who are more competent, and causing harm to the polity because of it.

2) pareto rule MUST exist: 10% do 50% of the value, 10% of that 10% do 50% of the value, and 10% of that 10% do 50% of the value and so on. Meaning that most people below a certain threshold, are a relative dead weight on society and mankind.

3) The difference is that conservatives desire and enjoy hierarchy and are not troubled by ‘fulfilling their duty of their position” while liberals think of almost nothing else than that others are superior to them in position, and are so because of competency.

4) Where competency means genes, ability, personality, morals, ethics, values, manners, habits, speech, appearance.

5) Classes exist. At every seven points we vary in vocational ability, and at every 15 points social ability, and at ever4 30 points we are nearly different species, with the commonality of language producing the illusion of compatibility.

6) We are, all of us, and must be, rewarded for the returns we provide to others when they cooperate with us.

7) And the results of that competition is a lottery with only so many pareto-efficient winners. Who, if they make good choices, can create an intergenerational family that persists their status – something that requires selective mating to prevent regression to the collective mean.

 

Equality – Settled

The Last Word on Equality

We are no different from any other domesticated animal. We control domesticated animal’s reproduction and evolve them for cooperation with us (use by us). We control human animal’s reproduction and evolve them for cooperation or not.

The difference between groups is mostly sexual dimorphism, sexual maturity, and size of the underclass in relation to the upper middle class. In other words, our upper middle and upper classes do not differ because they converge on neoteny, dimorphism, intelligence and temperament and are less dependent upon peers for knowledge and decisions. Our working and lower classes diverge in lower neoteny, biased dimorphism, lower intelligence and less civil temperament.

Like anna karinnena’s families, and like the range of domesticated animals, to produce a ‘human’ requires many genetic things to go right, and if any one of them goes wrong then we are less human and more animal. As such we have domesticated one another and ourselves over millennia of demand for increasingly complex forms of cooperation.

We consider humans to be defined by communication using language, but this is just a complex form of signaling. instead, the definition of human vs animal is AGENCY.

Equality does not exist. Even when we claim it’s a necessity under dispute resolution in the law of torts, it is our property that is treated equally – not us. As such it is the equality of our property that exists under rule of law.
Everything else is both dishonest, pseudoscientific, and dysgenic. And advocacy of dysgenia is just a means of warfare and conquest on a longer time line.

We are either producing agency (humans) or reducing agency (animals).

 

Superiority And Inferiority Are Purely Empirical Measures

Inferiority and superiority are simply a measurement of Agency. They’re purely empirical assessments. Either one possesses agency of the self, the group, the environment, the universe, or one does not. The inferior cannot compete. The superior can. This competition whether internal interpersonal political environmental or physical is the only empirical test of superiority and inferiority. Evolution and entropy never stop. They are ceaseless. The superior evolves, adapts, increases its agency, and the inferior does not, and dies, and evolution and entropy continue their battle. This is not an opinion or a value statement, it is a description of every single process in the universe.

Economic Oppression – Settled

—“Elites developed the industrial revolution, not peasants in the field or sitting around the table at dinner time. Like always elites create innovations and the masses follow along. They weren’t tricked into it, anymore than the elites were tricked into inventing things. It’s natural. The idea that there is some kind of intrinsic abuse of workers by the elites assumes “generational agency” on both parts to get to where we are that doesn’t exist….off the top of my head.”—Mike Harvey

Poverty – Settled

YOUR POVERTY AND YOUR LACK OF AGENCY

You’re poor because you lack Agency sure. But you know, even if we remove obstructive institutions, and even if we create institutions to invest in overcoming your initial circumstance, we are still stuck with the fact that we cannot change YOU, and that YOU can lack Agency for your own informational, intellectual, emotional, or physical reasons. We know for certain that you cannot tell if you are able or not. We don’t like to choose whether you are able or not – we can err. All we can do is invest in eliminating impediments so that you can DEMONSTRATE whether you possess agency and ability – or not.

Anyone who tells you more money will matter is simply lying to you. You’re poor because you lack Agency, because you or your parents or your ancestors have lacked intellectual, emotional, or physical ABILITY as well as informational (ignorance) or institutional impediment.

Suffering – Settled

Life is only suffering for those with no (low and developing) agency. It’s the only frame that motivates them to face it (life; the suffering). One must have (develop) the capacity for heroism to withstand tragedy as a plausible noble outcome.

The world “just happens” to those that lack real consciousness. Thus they can’t perceive the responsibility they must bear.

Dysgenic Reproduction – Settled

1 – Dysgenic reproduction (regression to mean) is almost impossible to reverse in modernity.
2 – Current rates of IQ decline even in china on the order of .5 per decade. Loss of total demographic advantage in 100 years. Western rates higher.
3 – The optimum human median IQ appears to be 105+15=120, meaning 2/3 of the population between 105 and 135. This produces near-zero resistance to education, training, and re-adaptation – while preserving some clerical and craftsmen labor. And it produces very low visible crime.
4 – We can roughly measure the value of one point of IQ by GDP.

Integration Settled – Failed

( … )

Heterogeneity Settled – Diversity is a Bad.

Homogenous cultures use people for entertainment and are pro-social. Heterogeneous cultures become insular and rely on family career, and now consumption for entertainment. People are slowly going mad by living in well-decorated boxes, with fake television and social media friends, with fake careers, and are entirely alone. Consumption is not a substitute for family, friends, and civil society.

Ethnocentrism Settled – Ethnocentrism is the Optimum.

1 – Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy if for no other reason than trust and reciprocal investment and insurance without sacrifice to kin selection. There is no competitor to it, whatsoever. People are more gregarious to their own, and more redistributive, with less fear of political competition, because all competition is internal and by class or faction rather than tribe. The problem has traditionally been that many ethic groups were not able to concentrate sufficient capital to create self-governance, or had to be captured to prevent capture by others, or were of sufficient hazard to neighbors they were ruled. (The exception is people lower on the ladder who look for allies against their betters, and to have ‘someone below them’ which appears very important to humans.)

2 – Ethnocentrism eliminates race and tribe conflict in the suppression of expansion of underclasses through soft eugenics (paying the unproductive not to have children). There is no value in internal competitors. none.

Compatibility – Settled: Separation

We were speciating into regional human groups when we discovered farming. We were forced to compromise with each other during farming. Farming is over and we are now wealthy enough to pursue our genetic biases (interests, strategies) and so we must separate between masculine (suburban and rural hunters) and feminine (urban gatherers) and there is no reason not to.

We are simply able to afford specialization.

It’s time to return to speciation and stop fighting our instincts as different animals returning to speciation now that the agrarian era is over.

---

 

Uniqueness of Europeans

“Europeans must stop making this mistake: we must stop thinking, wishing, or hoping that other groups (including our own women) are like us – they are not. We are outliers.”

This mistake has plunged us into long dark ages before. Let’s not do it again. Let’s learn this lesson once and for all.

We Are Unique.

WE ARE THE CONTINUATION OF THE EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONAL ARC

1. The Western Indo Europeans were fighting submission to nature in every aspect of the social order: nature(technology), family, polity, and religion. They invented the Agency of Man. The application of mastery of metallurgy, the horse, the wheel and war to all aspects of human experience.
2. Aristotle was fighting ignorance in all the disciplines – including religion, custom, and politics. He invented Empiricism: the transfer of testimony in a court of peers to all aspects of human experience.
3. Galileo was fighting supernaturalism and denial in the physical sciences: physics, chemistry, biology. He was the principal advocate of Science: The restoration of testimony using mathematics in court a court of peers to all aspects of life.
4. Darwin was fighting supernaturalism in the biological sciences. He was the principal advocate of realism and naturalism in biology: the restoration of naturalism in biological and social sciences.
5. Proletarians are fighting pseudoscience and sophism and denial in the human sciences: language, psychology, sociology, politics, and group strategy: The completion of social science: The application of testimony using the measurement of reciprocity.

What’s Next? We will only save ourselves, and mankind from another dark age if we do not make the mistakes of the Greeks and the Romans, and the monarchists – optimism that other men, are equal in ability and interest to european men.

 

---

 

Race – Settled

My position on the friction between the races is that democracy and multiculturalism cause conflict between them. And that nationalism, aristocracy, paternalism, and local separatism improve everyone.

My position on the cause of the meaningful differences between the races is the degree of suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses over long periods of time.

My means of criticizing other groups is whether their group evolutionary strategy is objectively more or less moral than some others.

My demand for changes is not to place it upon others, but to change our weaknesses so that we are no longer subject to the damage of the less moral, yet can reap the benefits of the more moral.

I am very fond of my non-kin friends. I want to help them raise themselves and their families, as all aristocracy should assist other aristocracies in raising themselves and their families.

So I don’t really want to lose those friends because you choose to criticize other successful reproductive strategies, rather than to criticize and repair your (our) own failed reproductive strategies.

I don’t do racism. I might agree or disagree with you on some criticism or other. But my goal is the evolution of man. I prefer every tribe evolve together, not that any tribe be subsumed by another. I want to see a world of many tribes – of many extended aristocratic families, raising their extended families. I do not seek to dominate others, only to preserve my tribe and to advance it and mankind’s tribes in the long journey to becoming gods

Racism, Racist

Racism, as I understand it, refers to four behaviors:

1) the process of treating an individual by the properties of his class (race) rather than waiting to ascertain the properties that he himself demonstrates. In other words, stereotyping. Unfortunately, stereotypes are the most accurate measurement in the social sciences. So this is difficult to counteract outside of commercial interactions.

2) the process of criticizing a class (race) for the costs that they impose on your class (race) rather than taking actions that prevent a class (race) from imposing costs upon your class (race).

3) the process of denying that there are differences in aggregate class (race) abilities, biases, preferences, and behaviors.

4) the process of conducting genocidal, political, economic, and kinship warfare by denying that there are differences in aggregate class (race) abilities, biases, preferences, and behaviors.

Racism cannot refer to any of these four behaviors:

1) Observing, deciding, speaking, and promoting, that there are differences in aggregate class (race) abilities, biases, preferences, and behaviors.

2) Observing, deciding, speaking, and promoting, that people (like all creatures) favor their class (kin, tribe, race) group for the simple reason that except as outliers, it is in their status, social, reproductive, economic, and political interests to do so.

3) Observing, deciding, speaking, and promoting, that people vote in democracies heavily by race, gender, and class, thereby competing by EQUAL political vote rather than by unequal economic, intellectual, or military means.

4) Observing, deciding, speaking, and promoting, that people conduct informational and political warfare instead of economic and violent warfare, by the denial of differences in abilities, biases, preferences, behaviors, intentions, and goals.

That’s simply empirical science. And arguing against it is simply lying.

Why Race?

The Correct Answer:

1. The evolutionary necessity of the social dominance hierarchy.
2. The primacy of status in that dominance hierarchy above all other values. Our loss aversion to status is our highest sensitivity to the loss of access to mates. Any creature that cannot compete in its dominance hierarchy will see its pool driven to extinction.
3. The primacy and necessity of kin selection (any kin group that does not will be driven to extinction.)

Because race, subrace, tribe, and class are meaningful and successful means of identifying kin, and the vast majority of us associate with, work with, vote with, reproduce with, kin, and the outliers (15%) are at the extremes where their sexual market value is vastly lower, or vastly higher than the mean of their kin group. And it’s good for each to do so. Diversity (Miscegenation) is extremely bad for genes except on the margins (low sexual and social market value). Because they cannot easily be corrected through ingroup selection.

All accusations of racism are just forms of gossip and shaming in order to obscure the pursuit of political power without earning it through market means. Disapproval, shaming, gossiping, rallying, protesting, and propagandism are means by which the inadequate attempt to reduce the superior sexual, social, economic, and political market value of their superiors. It’s the industrialization through media of politics of pubescent girls, employed by infantile minds unable to ascend into the responsibilities of adulthood.

Give up on equality. It’s an evolutionary dead end. Make the best of what you have to work with. We are wealthier than at any point in history, but each of us is less important than we ever have been in history. This lowers our risk but provides us near-zero status rewards that are under our control other than consumption signals.

Which is why people are driven to consumption.

And it is why the poorer you are the more driven to consumption you are.

Which is why the Buddha and the Stoics taught what they did.

That all human groups act in the interests of their kin.  That people vote racially.  They work in racial groups. They live in racial groups. They mate and marry in racial groups.  They speak in racial groups.

All racial groups convey status because some groups are more desirable than others.  That all those capable of escaping the lower classes of their racial groups rationally want to join in the white culture so that they can have a better life, and that as such they want to limit racial discrimination.  And that white middle and lower classes want to preserve their privileges by preserving the status of their elites from competition.

That race, religion, culture, tribe, gender are a part of life because they are meaningful differences because people act to their advantage at all times, and race, religion, culture, tribe, and gender convey different advantages.

Causes of Racial Conflict

Proximity. That’s the answer. That’s the only answer that matters.  That said, let’s work through the issue.

All that happens in mixed-race cultures, is that castes replace races. I can’t find anywhere any attempt has worked and hasn’t resulted in the total collapse of civilization. When you increase the size of the polity you get classes. Sorry.

That’s how it is for the simple reason that some people are more genetically desirable in every way than other peoples, and that’s what social class means: reproductive, associative, cooperative, economically cooperative, politically cooperative, militarily cooperative desirability.

Each of us has a social market value and that social market value is what we call our class. We have higher sexual and social market value within-group than across groups except at the extremes. The desirability of different subraces is well documented and is determined by ratio-proportionality and degree of neoteny.

The only way to avoid the problem is to** segregate within states, or separate into separate states.**

The science is quite simple:

1 – Races and Subraces have different sized underclasses and different distributions around the mean in the personality traits that are genetically determined and largely immutable: a) intelligence, b) industriousness, and in rates of sexual development and depths of sexual development, and the retention of those features that illustrate retention of childhood features. (we have been domesticated just like other animals. We are no different. Some groups are more domesticated (lower testosterone, lower impulsivity, lower and slower sexual development, and therefore greater agency (self-discipline of our emotions and impulses).

2 – Because of these differences, we need to produce VERY different commons (manners, ethics, morals, norms, traditions, laws, institutions, education and training in the intuitionistic [what we call religion], in physical training, and in skills training, and in occupational training.) The median (average) (66% majority) determines the demand for formal and informal institutions (listed below).

3 – Proximity Creates Animosity because of the different status signals in and across groups, and the different rates of development both genetically, informatively, and culturally. Groups that are happy with their condition separately become hostile in proximity, and more hostile in cohabitation, and more hostile in political competition.

People think and speak with an awareness of race because people act aware of race.

1. People vote as racial blocks. And therefore firm political competition for status and rent-seeking.
2. People associate in racial blocks.
3. People work in racial blocks.
4. People reside in racial blocks.
5. Vast differences in reproductive desirability between races.  And people mate in racial blocks except at the margins.
6. Vast differences in the eugenic elimination of the evil 80s underclasses between racial blocks.
7. Vast differences in criminality between the racial blocks.
8. Significant differences in the abilities of racial groups because of the failure to suppress reproduction in the lower classes.

We are different. People are rational. They act rationally. Humans practice kin selection.  They must.  Or those that do practice kin selection will replace them.

Cooperation between families and tribes is only beneficial if each perceives a benefit. Otherwise, instead of arguing against racism one is merely practicing war by a substitute of religion, rather than war by religion or war by violence.

This is true everywhere on earth.

4 – Because of these differences, we need very different political orders – from the very liberal northern European high trust, to the very disciplined as we see in religious regions, to the nearly military needed in others.

Trying to eliminate races always and everywhere produces a race to the bottom. Creating many small nation-states that are little more than corporations that serve the needs of their kin group and that kin group’s distribution will produce a** race to the top**.

There is a very good reason why Europe evolved faster than the rest of the world combined in both the ancient and modern worlds: small homogeneous states. Monopolies are always bad. They are even worse in federations and empires.

For a set of reasons:
1) Mating selection is determined by both genetic markers (physical properties) and status signals (social properties).
2) There are differences in desirability between the races due to different morphological attributes, despite the near-universal human preference for a set of attributes.
3) There are different DISTRIBUTIONS of certain talents across the races. (linguistic intelligence, and spatial intelligence in particular.) This difference in distributions causes the development of different norms and preferences within groups, which in turn alters the complex signals we both observe and send.
4) Because of this economy of signaling, Status Signals ‘within group’ are lower cost than status signals ‘across groups’. (Partly because we have just have higher familiarity within the group). Each of us is more likely to get more positive, and fewer negative status signals within-group than across groups. And those signals are richer and more complex.
5) These signals affect our relationships and the trust that can develop in them.  Where that trust is necessary for relaxed interaction, goal determination, task coordination, and risk-taking.
6) In the working and lower classes, external racial groups usually will work for less money or will displace them in their earning capacity and therefore also deprive them of status signals.  Racism is a means of forming political solidarity themselves, as well as with their elites, for the purpose of preserving their advantage – or gaining their advantage.
7) In the middle and upper-middle classes, racism is a vehicle for maintaining political power (law) and social power (norms) and assets (their own accumulated status signals) for themselves and their groups.

This set of facts is demonstrated by our demonstrated universal preference to work (largely) and live (largely) with people who share our same ethnicity and social class. The data illustrates that preference over and over again.  In simple terms, we are ‘judged’ more easily, and therefore included more easily among those with whom we share physical, intuitive, conceptual, and habitual similarities. However, at the extremes, the very successful and prosperous tend to form a worldwide-class and the lower classes seek mates more opportunistically, and there are social signaling benefits to certain racial groups (a mating between a below average white woman and an above-average black man may increase the social standing and quality of mates of both. So the racial norm is a majority-middle preference.

While there is a noticeable rise in the inbreeding going on between Asians and whites,  women still seem to demonstrate an extraordinary preference for men within their race (men are less discriminating) of upwards of 80%.  But this preference is a middle-class statistic obtained from dating sites. And it becomes very hard to make the same statements about the lower classes outside of what’s stated in the census (about 15% intermarriage).  The reason is that some races are

Differences in Sexual, Social, Economic, Political, Market Value Of Races to One Another

1) The distribution of physical desirability for mating, the demonstrated behaviors of impulsivity and time preference, aggression, and demonstrated intelligence vary between individuals. (true)
2) The social classes are organized by these distributions due to reproductive desirability, status utility, and cooperative (economic) utility. (true)
3) The races demonstrate different relative distributions of these classes. (true)
4) Racial groups demonstrate kin selection in mating, neighborhoods, friendship, social organizations, and business organizations. (true).
5) The norms demonstrated by racial groups reflect behavior at the mean (true). This means lower trust, less intelligent groups must compete against norms in groups with higher trust and higher intelligent groups. (true). It also means that the group that holds dominant political power, and biases toward their norms, determines the economic velocity of the entire polity (true).
6) Racial groups demonstrate kin selection in voting (true).
7) INABILITY to use the state for rents and privileges limits political competition and conflict, whereas the ABILITY to use the state for rents and privileges increases political competition and conflict. (true)
8) Economic Wealth reduces dependence upon kin for mutual insurance under kin selection. (true). Economic stress increases dependence upon kin for mutual insurance via kin selection. (true)
9) The difference between economic, political, social, reproductive and status success of one race or another is due to the distribution of superior talents versus inferior liabilities of the members of those races – plus normative factors, the most important of which is in-group trust, and the second is the degree of the suppression of free riding. (true)
10) As such the only reason for racism is the rates of reproduction between the classes. And the only possible means of achieving equality in any and all cases is to suppress the reproduction of the lower classes of the races whose distribution is bottom weighted.
11) It is non-rational to treat unknown individuals who are visually indistinguishable by other than the properties of their peer groups. (true) (which is what people do). One cannot both demand rational action, defend Praxeology, and deny this statement.
12) Equality is achievable and desirable in just four generations. But it is upward reproductive redistribution that must march downward economic redistribution for equality to be possible. If China can do this so can the rest of the world.

Otherwise, it is non-rational for people with higher reproductive desirability, lower impulsivity, lower aggression, and higher intelligence to tolerate political competition from those who are less desirable and in the net, parasitic, just as it is politically preferable to compete via parasitism if one is less desirable at the bottom.

Human beings are not unique and precious snowflakes. It is only that disregard for life is a moral hazard. The fact that mothers MUST believe their dysgenic offspring are precious is an evolutionary convenience, not a demonstrable fact.

The purpose of science is quite often to force us to acknowledge uncomfortable truths. Equality is not a problem of belief (lying), but one of fact (truth).

Try not to lie.  It hurts mankind.

Just Tell the Truth – Disgusting

—“The Leftist tendency is to conflate the Rightist Disgust response to various things as phobias. In other words, the Left confuses Disgust for Fear.”—

The right is just too well mannered to say:

“Actually it’s because we find your/their ____________ behavior disgusting and revolting because it is a genetic defect, and harmful to the tribe.”

I mean. Why can’t we just say that?

“You know, We don’t like dogs dragging their anuses on the carpet, or ___________ doing ________.” 

Genetic defects are disgusting to us. And you’re advocating for genetic defects that are disgusting.

(We have a purity instinct. They don’t. Hence women’s fascination with the discussion of children’s bodily fluids and excrements.)

Higher Disgust Sensitivity

Conservatives(empiricists) have a higher level of disgust sensitivity. Conservatives are the population’s means of detecting and purging harm – the white blood cells of the social order and polity. Progressives (consumptivists) have low sensitivity to disgust, but high demand for consumption, novelty, experience, and fear of being ‘left behind’.

That does not mean that our disgust sensitivity is always right. It means that we must test whether than harm actually exists by tests of reciprocity.

—”There is a distinction between endocrinological & neurological conservatives, driven mostly by disgust, which tend to be within a SD left of the mean, and market driven (agency) conservatives who recognize cost on longer time-horizons & are able to organize a body law which facilitates the cooperation & trust, necessary for the functioning of enterprise. The former group are right for the wrong reasons & the latter group are right as a matter of agency & incentive.”—Ferdinand Pizarro

We Can’t We Just Tell the Left the Truth?

1) Our civilization has succeeded because it’s been eugenic in every era – right up until the industrial revolution.

2) We find you disgusting.
3) and it’s because you’re unfit.
4) and you are unfit because you lack agency.
5) and you lack agency because you’re still undomesticated.
6) and as undomesticated still an animal.
7) and it isn’t any more complicated than that.

8) We cannot cooperate with you on equal terms any more than we can cooperate with any other animal – you lack the agency.
9) We don’t grant barn animals equality which is why we don’t grant you equality. And we don’t want barn animals in our homes, business, or our commons.
10) This is what we mean when we want to separate from you.

Because you’re disgusting.

Conflicts over Class

Whether Classism vs Racism? (GSRRM) : The Solution Is Markets.

Classes vs Races  European Iranic Semitic Indic E-Asian SE-Asian
Out of Sight 
Upper
Lower Upper
Upper Middle
Middle
Lower Middle
Upper lower
Lower
Low
Out of Sight

Horizontal Compatibility and Common Interest of Classes at expense of power distance
Vertical Compatibility and Common Interest of Races and Nations for Power distance

Neither is a problem. Both are un-circumventable evolutionary, reproductive, social, economic, and political realities and necessities. Humans organize that is our principal ability, and our intelligence evolved only for the purpose of increasing the complexity of our cooperation – even across gender, family, clan, classes, tribes, nations(in the genetic sense), subraces, and races.

The classes demonstrate different genetic, social, economic, and political abilities. Unfortunately, everyone at the bottom quartile is six times as costly as everyone at the top two quartiles can compensate for.( the third quartile appears to be neutral or at least a tolerable loss.

Those tribes, nations, subraces, and races unable to limit the reproduction of their underclasses (as have Europeans and East Asians through manorialism or extraordinary prosecution), or have expelled their underclasses (Ashkenazis) or have been able to concentrate sufficient capital to drag people out of permanent Malthusian (population) and dysgenic(distribution) poverty.

Those tribes, nations, subraces, and races unable to limit the reproduction of their underclasses, and who have not engaged in martial, juridical, or economic (manorialism), have ended up as the Levant, India, Southeast Asia, and now South America, with underclasses so large that they cannot be organized into a voluntary organization of production capable of producing marketable goods.

Present Problems

Worse, in the current era, as the low hanging fruit of petrochemical energy, mechanical technology, and now computational utility has been captured, likewise, labor has evaporated as a market good, mechanical capital has dramatically depreciated as market good, and at present calculation labor (what we call clerical and white-collar work) is depreciating as a market good. And without markets to provide information to us, we cannot cooperate at scale. And there are few if any multipliers on service provision.

All technology can be implemented quickly and easily and the marginal competitive advantage between groups eliminated.

So as the world continues to adopt the inventions of western civilization – not the least of which is Aristotelian (scientific) reasoning, and the Anglo (Germanic) natural law of torts, and the Italian(Templar) method of banking, the relative standard of living of peoples will decline, because the only competitive advantage a population has, is genetic.

The primary competitive advantage that does not produce regression into Malthusian and dysgenic poverty is genes. And the difference in one standard deviation is so profound it is the HIGHEST POSSIBLE RETURN for any group – as well as for all mankind.

The data is in. The 20th century experiment with social economic and political pseudoscience is over. We misspent that capital on reversing at least 1300 years of improving human genetic, cultural, and institutional capital.

There are three known magic bullets. A battery with the energy density of gasoline. The reduction of the size of the underclass through one child policies for the underclasses, and the development of artificial general intelligence that means he with the most capital and the lowest population wins.

The individual human is quickly approaching not only Malthusian and genetic equilibrium but political, economic, social, damage. We outran the productivity of nature and resorted to farming. We outran the productivity of farming and turned to industry.

We outran the productivity of industry and turned to information. There is nowhere to go beyond information, and as such the only gains are to be obtained from the reduction of negative human capital.

Via-negativa in all things at scale. Once you maximize returns on any set of operations, the only improvement possible is to remove costs and defects.

More is not better. Fewer people with more is better than more people with less.

That’s unavoidable.

 

Our Choices

Races are a good thing. Subraces are a good thing. Tribes are a good thing. Clans are a good thing. Families are a good thing.

You can choose between kin-group-states or Corporate-States. You can choose between small very different states or large homogeneous states. You can choose between collapse under political monopoly or rapid progress under political diversity. Because in the spectrum from dictatorship to anglo rule of law you must possess an increasingly optimum demographic as you move from dictatorship to liberty.

The only value of scale is military conquest.

The value of homogeneity is psychological, not real.

The effect of diversity in a polity that has access to political power is always the same: collapse.

The best countries to live in have small homogeneous populations with very small underclasses, high median intelligence, and well-developed neoteny, without hostile competitors on their borders.

The only reason your one is behind another, or any other race, is the difference between rates of reproduction of the classes. Just as my race is behind or ahead of other races because of our suppression or lack of suppression of birth rates at the bottom. That’s it.

So fix it. Because until you do, racism will persist – and should. Because any other behavior is illogical. It is not the color of your skin or the shape of your nose, but the percentage of your population in the bottom half of mankind.

Human life isn’t universally sacred. It’s just that anyone who demonstrates a disregard for human life is a potential risk and threat to the rest of us. But just because disregard for life is dangerous doesn’t mean you’re worthy of redistribution – or even the consumption of oxygen. You’re merely a moral hazard for the rest of us.

If you or your offspring can’t find a way to participate in production without externalizing your costs, then you aren’t a precious snowflake. You’re a moral hazard, and a drain on both humanity and the planet. And the source of the demand for a political class that exploits productive people to fund the dysgenic and unproductive.

You cannot deny this argument without in turn demonstrating your racial bias.

So control reproduction. A woman has no intrinsic right to bear a child, and a man no intrinsic right to spawn one.

That is the only way we get to equality. Equality in fact, not in lie.

And I agree: equality is a moral ambition. But not by dragging others down, but by evolving everyone to greater heights.

 

Feminism

Pandora’s Box – Gender Differences

WHY DO WOMEN UNDERMINE THE CIVILIZATION and CULTURE, the INSTITUTIONS, and MALES?

—“…what kind of evolutionary pressure would create a desire to undermine the ingroup. All the plausible explanations I’ve seen had to do with abusing female impulses that have evolved for entirely different purposes….”—

Females undermine the concentration of power in alphas in order to preserve some control over their reproductive choice and access to resources and male-provisioned resources, including defense. ie: females can barter attention, effort, care, and sex if they have control of the attention economy. Which is why females are so conscious (and gay men evidencing it) of attention and approval and agreeableness.

So just as females operate on a status and attention economy, they fight within that economy: disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, moralizing, undermining, and reputation destruction.
And decreasing the number of females is not necessarily in their disinterest – so literally killing off other females increases remaining female market value, so that his the strategy females pursue: that of Hens.

Undermining the males (‘sh-t testing’) is useful both at the level of insuring the ‘fitness’ of males in defending them, preserving their ability to choose, assisting them in outing ‘cheaters’ (which women are terrible at, and men excel at), maximizing cost of (returns on) their attention, care, and sex.

The only problem here is that women still sexually select for males as if we are under those conditions of hunter gatherers. And this explains the attraction of women to more primitive (less domesticated) groups of males with lower agency despite that the female condition is dependent upon those of us with higher agency, innovation, and adaptivity.

Hence the necessity of more domesticated (higher agency) males of defending the ingroup females from conquest or even exposure to, lower agency, higher aggression, males. (FWIW:Delayed marriage provides women with greater reproductive certainty, and therefore greater sortition, and greater formation of genetic castes, and therefore greater speciation – hence white people.)

Males conversely, operate on the physical equivalent of the warfare economy, and so losses of males weakens the pack, and dilution of the ingroup male genes weakens male reproductive (evolutionary) persistence, as well as reverses domestication (evolution of agency).

THE PROBLEM OF FEMALE AGENCY

The female of our species, or more correctly, the female mind in our species, is extremely susceptible to individual psychosis and solipsism, and even more so, herd panic, trend and consensus; and verbalizing those behaviors by drama, outburst, disapproval, shaming, ridicule, rallying, gossiping, and reputation destruction that never ceases.

This is the reason why women’s testimony has been discounted throughout history; why the cancer of Abrahamism was spread through women; why women defected against their men and their civilization yet again, to feminism-postmodernism; and why there are continuous calls for “women must be heard”; and then, not surprisingly, counter-to-all-evidence that “women must be believed”. The female lacks the degree of male agency because she is more dependent upon the panic of the herd than the hunting of the pack.

It is rather obvious that once given the franchise under the presumption of agency, that women took out their anger on the church in europe, and on men in america. It’s rather obvious that as much as marxism was designed to appeal to and rally men at the bottom, that feminism and postmodernism were designed to appeal to and rally women as was Christianity. It is rather obvious that women’s urge to nest and preen are more easily manipulated by advertising marketing and media.

But Truth is Truth. The feminine mind lacks agency regardless of the sex of its bearer. And we cannot both preserve our civilization which is the originator of truth, reason, science, and all that comes from it by once again submitting to the herd of the female in this modern era as we did in the ancient.

“Herd Panic”, and “herd consensus”, as well as the series solipsism, psychosis, and disapproval, shaming, ridicule, outburst, rallying gossiping and reputation destruction as a means of obscuring the truth due to lack of agency and fear of falling out of sync with the herd, must become part of our conscious vocabulary and argument such that we bring the distinction between lack of agency, falsehood and fear, versus agency, truth and reason.

Lacking agency means you are not yet human and therefore not worthy of or capable of reciprocity any more than is a child – but require parenting.

It is truth that in modernity we have greater prosperity and as such greater ability to absorb the damage of the feminine mind than in the past. But that reservoir is not limitless.

That same prosperity however does leave us a choice: we can oppress one another, or we can revolt and separate, and develop feminine (failing) dysgenic orders and return to the animals and another dark age, or masculine competitive eugenic orders, that will continue our transcendence.

It’s time to choose which of those consequences we will pursue.

 

Just Use The Word: Infantilization

Just state the obvious, that the female mind of reproductive necessity biases heavily to that which she can control: infantilism. And this is why women take such great fascination with babies, and prefer their children are born with properties that make them pliable and their ‘friends’ rather successful competitors. Because women must be strong and possess agency to raise those who are strong and with agency. And women who are weak an lack agency wish children who they can control despite their weakness and agency.

Abrahamism, Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism: they advocate infantilism. Because their followers have infantile minds. And I suspect that like everything else, that’s because in 80% of cases they have infantile brains.

And that during the great transformation, buddha came close, but only Epicurious, Zeno and Aristotle got it right. Meaning, living in correspondence with reality without submitting to it, by making the mind as strong as the body, ether by Achilles/Alexander(aristocracy), Zeno/Aurelius (Middle class), or Epicurious (Working Class), but never by abandoning reality to a fictionalism (underclass).

These are adulthoods. Agency. Whether for the powerful, the influential (middle class), or the valuable (Working Class). And just as we can train people in reading, writing, math, accounting, and physics – we can train people in stoicism, epicureanism, and heroism. But that is counter to the infantile: because all of them require agency, and the infantile is still an undomesticated animal, neither genetically able, nor sufficiently trained, to be included in that label of sentience and agency we call ‘Human’.

The infantile is equal to the animal.

 

Female Mental Illness

 

The degree of demonstrated feminism is determined by four factors: (a) declining sexual market value and (b) declining agency. (c) degree of disagreeableness, (d) the demand for virtue-signaling in the virtue signaling marketplace.

 

Developmental Defects

Nature Nurture

 

Free Speech

intentionally defective product