Bloody Shovel 3

We will drown and nobody shall save us


We need a new religion. We sorely need one. And we will likely get one. But we might not like how it turns out.

In 200 AD, the Roman Empire was the largest, richest and most powerful empire on Earth. Roman civilization extended from Britain to Mesopotamia. Vast trade networks allowed for large and advanced industries that provided a very high standard of living, far above anything in the past. Rome was so great it seemed it would last forever.

Then a couple of substandard emperors, a military setback and a mutiny suddenly saw the Empire fracture into 3 parts, hundreds of thousands of barbarians entering the borders, plundering and murdering as they pleased. It took 50 whole years until Aurelian rebuilt the army, expelled the barbarians, and reunified the realm. But it was never the same. Too many people had died. Cities now had to build high walls to defend themselves, trade routes had been destroyed, the whole administrative apparatus had to be rebuilt from scratch.

All that was taken care of, especially by Docletian, who was very much interested in how to run a government. But still, as much as Roman emperors reformed the army and the administration, the virtue of the empire, the real power of Rome, the roman people, that was over. Any Roman of learning knew that. And they all wanted to do something to get it back. To fix Rome, to bring it back to its golden era. Romans used to be virtuous, strong, hard-working, just men. Not anymore. The Romans of the late empire were a fickle bunch, interested in frivolous sex, in sodomy, in spectator sports. We have almost no literary works from the late Empire; the Romans appeared to be uninterested in learning. Nor they cared to breed and form families. The whole society was a wreck.

The few virtuous Romans who noticed that must have wanted to fix this desperately, to use the power of the state to bring the Romans back to their virtuous, frugal and wise past, when men fought for their country, cared to learn about the mysteries of human existence, and took care of their wives and children. But none of those efforts worked.

What happened? A weird cult from the obscure province of Judaea, where people worshipped some countryside carpenter son of an old man with a teenager, who apparently got pregnant without having sex. Then the man started to preach about loving your enemies, rescued whores from stoning, made wine from water, told the poor that after death they'd lord over the rich; and other absurd stuff. The guy was justly executed by the Roman governor as an agitator but his followers believe he then came back to life and ascended to heaven with his mother.

The cult grew by preaching to women, to the poor, to slaves, to all manner of disaffected people. They formed local communities where they read this weird compendium of miracles of this Jewish lord of them. The Roman authorities killed some of them ever now and then but the guys appeared to like it! They called the dead "martyrs", and some of them appeared to actively seek martyrdom, as they believe it would pay off with privileges after dead. Bunch of provincial weirdos. Even weirder than the Jews they splintered from. That the Empire has declined to such an extent has much to do with this and other weird sects who are fooling the commoners, and even some women of good families! Scandalous.

No offense intended, early Christianity was in many ways a superior lifestyle compared to mainstream Roman life, which had plenty of weird stuff in it. But to any good old Roman patrician, the growth of Christianity, Manicheism and other assorted sects must have looked incredibly weird and threatening. As much as the Empire needed reform, nobody desired this kind of reform. To replace the classics of Greece and Rome with the made up history of some desert goat herders, to give rights to women and slaves, to encourage death and meekness instead of the classical warrior ethos going back for millennia. This is madness.Rome has to wake up. We can't let this happen.

But it happened. Rome never woke up. Classical civilization kept on with its decline, and eventually Constantine, a pragmatic man who just wanted a stable empire that obeyed his commands, made Christianity into the state religion. It replaced Roman civilization, little by little. Half the Empire died on the process, by the way. The invaders became Christians too, but never Romans.

The Romans of its golden age often said that the secret of Roman success was its religio, by which they mean their piousness, how their discipline was so tight they followed the old religious practices of paganism to the letter, no matter how useless they might have seemed. Worried Romans of the late empire must have thought all the time that Rome needed its religion back. They never got it back. They got a new religion. A pretty horrible one, for anyone who appreciated old Classical civilization. But a religion they got, and it wasn't that bad. Most of the Western empire still speaks Latin to this day. The Eastern half even kept calling himself the Roman Empire for a thousand years.

You might have noticed the parallels with our situation. We want to go back to the old days when Europeans were virtuous, frugal and strong. That's not going to work. It never works. I say we need a new religion. I say we'll get a new religion, because nature abhors a vacuum, and a vacuum is what we have right now. But the new religion we end up getting may not be nothing we like. It might very well something horrifying, something which denies all the values we hold dear. But as horrifying as it may be, it may end up winning.

Christianity had to be horrifying for a Roman patrician. But the Christians had children. They had stable families. They didn't do infanticide, did less drugs, less drinking, less sodomy, less idle watching chariot races or gladiator matches. The messianic wannabe Jews were a bunch of meek underclass pussies who hadn't read their Homer. But they won. And by winning, they destroyed Roman civilization. But they also tamed the Germans, and so a new hybrid civilization was born in Europe. It was poor, dark, brutish and nasty compared to the golden days of the Pax Romanica.

But at least the Roman peoples physically survived, and eventually developed a new civilization which was the most advance the world has ever seen. If Diocletian, Julian and the good old Romans had succeeded in crushing Christianity, pagan Romans would have probably continued in their hedonist ways, choosing drink and fun over reproducing; eventually the Huns would have come and destroyed the whole Empire, reducing half the land to pasture and physically replacing the Roman people. Even if by some miracle, the Roman empire had succeeded in integrating the Germans and the Huns into Romanitas, and they all started killing their infants while they devoted themselves to sodomy and gladiatorial matches; in a couple of decades some other northern tribe would have raced to the border and kill them all. It happened in China all the time.

You have probably guessed where I'm going. I won't repeat myself. Europe now is in decline and all Europeans of good faith are trying to find a solution. We are being invaded by Islam, and nobody likes it. But the problem we have is not Islam. Is not Islamism. As bad as it is; which is horrible indeed. But ideas come and go. What doesn't come and go is the people. The gene pool. The problem we have is not Islam, it's foreigners. Arabs, South Asians, Africans, etc.. Most happen to be Muslim, many are not. The problem is not their ideas, as bad as they are. The problem is HBD. They're dumb. They're impulsive. They have different genes, going back tens of thousands of years.

Even if we could fix their culture, their family structure, the clannishness; which we can't. It still wouldn't matter. You could convert them all to Lefebvrism tomorrow and they would still destroy European civilization, and physically replace European people, who are busy watching football, binge drinking and wasting their youth studying socialist history.

But you can't say that. One can't object to the immigration of foreigners into Europe and North America on genetic grounds. I can't object to Arabs being dumb; because there's plenty of Europeans who are just as dumb, and they don't appreciate that we discuss population policy in terms of intelligence or other personality traits. Any rational, utilitarian discussion of population policy is a complete dead end because there is no workable Schelling point for proposing eugenics in a democratic society. It benefits no one. For one, we don't know that much about the genetics of behavior. Second, meritocracy is an excellent Schelling point. It's completely fallacious, but it works. The elite can justify their privilege because they have earned it, they have "merit", not just genetic luck. And the dumb can consolate themselves that there's nothing physically wrong with them; it's just tough luck, which could change any day. All human societies, every single one, believe that human behavior and performance depends on proper education. Of course they do.

And so we are left without sellable arguments against the invasion of Europe by fertile foreigners with a set of innate traits which make modern civilization impossible. We are left without arguments against Europe developing the demographic profile of Sudan, which implies the living standards of Sudan. So if we can't use this argument, what can we do? We can adopt a new religion. It doesn't matter which. As long as it ensures the physical reproduction of European peoples. As of now, Islam is a fix, if a bad fix. I hope we find a different one.

I have a reputation as a gloomy pessimist, but there's a different way of looking at this. Think of this post as a way of prodding you into action. We better come up with something damn fast, because there are only two alternatives. White Islam, or the physical disappearance of the European peoples.


Leave a Reply
  • I think you may be undervaluing the structural differences between religions. There are no iron laws, but it's tricky to enforce a civilization building rule against a written law contradicting it. Islam really doesn't even make an effort to restrict bandit lifestyles; polygamy and the diminished primacy of agriculture give cover to disorganized violence. I'm no expert, but Islamic history is a bit more prehistoric in tenor than Christian history (or even what I know of eastern history). Seeing as how much of the Ottoman blood was Greek, but how much more pillaging, raping, and ethnic cleansing the Ottomans partook of makes me somewhat anxious regarding an Islamic future. I know I'm biased, but a restoration to something like Karaite Judaism might be a better fit for the West. At least it keeps half the Christian Bible without being vulnerable to a "meekness" status spiral.

    • I'm not saying it would be nice. I'm admitting it's likely to be disastrous. But so was Christianity for Rome. What we would like, what we think is preferrable has no relation to what is likely to happen given present trends.

      Incidentally the Ottomans did no cleansing. It was the beyliks between the Seljuq and the Ottomans who cleansed Anatolia of Christianity. The Ottomans run an organized empire and were more interested in tax collection than in messing with the local populations.

      I wrote about this before:

      • Great reply. I'm being mauled by a toddler, so I may have missed something, but I think this confirms the issue. As usual, I don't disagree with you, but am trying to add something potentially useful to the discussion.

        Christianity (and the Judaism it sprang from) has a strong mimetic tie to agriculture, which requires barbarian allies to adopt a settled lifestyle. Practically, this is the difference between the Scotch-Irish and the Chechens (the former had an incentive to become settled, the latter are running around the ME cutting off heads). Islam never asked anything of its barbarians, but to direct their barbarism away from the Caliph.

        The shit storm in the Muslim world right now is a flaw in their religion. Christianity ate Rome, but had a solid run as its successor. Islam's flaws are mimetic time bombs; if the west is going to exist as a civilization it better avoid Islam, or pass through it quickly.

      • "What we would like, what we think is preferable has no relation to what is likely to happen given present trends." This thought was depressingly precise.

  • Specifically how is Islam a fix?

    I don't find it particularly credible that large numbers of whites would start proclaiming that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet; nor do I find it credible that if they did, it would counteract the problem of foreigners physically present; nor do I find it credible that if both these were resolved, a white Islam would be able to maintain a civilization. To start with, Islam holds that there is no such thing as cause and effect; that all things are the will of omnipotent and omniscient Allah and happen only because he wills it. You can't derive rationality and the experimental method from that.

    If I was going to make any predictions, I'd point more in the direction of a Warhammer 40K style worldview, with the God-Emperor of Mankind being prophesied to show up one day once we build ourselves up to be worthy of him, and Chaos being an absolute and never-negotiable threat to every human soul. It's a worldview that isn't incompatible with Christianity, and does appeal to self-described leftists (probably because they can tell themselves it's just appreciation of good fiction).

    But I'm a nerd.

      • So do Africans. They worship trees and rocks and spirits that steal their penises. I wouldn't recommend that as a path for anybody though.

        • OK, imagine there's two options. 1. Either Europeans start worshipping trees and rocks, panicking at penis-snatching spirits, eating albinos and engaging in polygamous dry sex. 2.Or Europeans die out and Europe fills with Africans who worship trees and rock, panic at penis-snatching spirits, eat albinos and engage in polygamous dry sex.

          Pick your choice.

          • But I'm not remotely convinced that those are the only two options, which is the assumption you're making.

            • Well I don't really think Europeans are going to start eating albinos any time soon; but I'm not seeing much of an alternative either.

          • The problem with the first choice is that the reason Africans are Africans and Europeans are Europeans is that Africans evolved to fill the niche of "person living in an albino eating, polygamous dry sex, penis-snatching aware culture" and that Europeans will simply be an alternative genotype that evolved the same maximally advantageous phenotype for living in that culture:


            Africans evolved under conditions where there is a very large random element to which children survive to adulthood (because of the much higher disease burden) so they have all sorts of evolutionary adaptations that allow them to maximize reproductive success under those conditions - low parental investment, emphasis on selection for traits for short term mating success. Other adaptations are because women can raise children on their own and to the lekking style mating that results,

            Europeans have accidentally recreated those circumstances and evolution is relentless. The only major difference is that instead of there being a high random chance for childhood death there's a low random chance for childhood death - risk that can be mitigated by parental investment.

            If you want to talk pessimism, maybe the death of the religion followed the change in evolutionary pressures rather than leading it. Roman religion was suited to evolutionary success in expanding Rome where martial prowess overall lead to reproductive success and when the empire as a whole was at peace, Roman religion declined. Pauline Christianity (see Jim's writings for how it differs from modern Christianity) waxed in power because it was a good solution to female misbehavior in a settled society.

            If I had to guess I'd tentatively guess that Mormonism solves the reproductive problems of white people and becomes the next major religion. The authorities don't like it? The Roman authorities didn't much like Christianity either.

          • The differences are much smaller than you think.

            Europeans normally did basically worship trees and rocks. The whole continent is dotted with sights that have been sacred for millenniums. They also practiced magic and were afraid of spirits and sometimes sacrificed people.

            Perfectly modern Christians practice magic via prayer and are afraid of evil spirits as well.

            Where they differ is in human sacrifice, in essence they venerate a single one, that of the Messiah and no longer need these things,.

            What they lost being rooted though, in time and in place and people and custom, and what sites they venerate are in far away deserts, a climate they are not native too and ill adapted too

            What they'd have to have the advantages of the Africans are rooted clans This is something the leader of the West have been trying to snuff out for tens of centuries.

            Its about power and land of course, it always is.

            It won't take much to revert to older models and with them a desire to kill non conformists and foreigners,

            That said modernity makes this harder and frankly scarier, and your future society might resemble something more akin to Dune with great clans vying for power.

            As it is these huge continent sized empires like the EU and the US are the source of the problem, multicultural societies have to be held together with force and while a 100% White society is workable compared to one with Africans or Muslims, its still a mistake.

            Homogeneity means smaller societies with less economic liberalism and strong social custom.

      • Aye, Arabs and Africans have high birth rates -- but how much of this is because they are Muslim, and how much of it is because they are impulsive, dumb, and don't know how to control themselves? Impulse control may be the key factor.

        Sub-Saharan Africans -- Christians, Muslims, and rock-worshipers alike -- all exhibit high fertility. From what I've seen, which I believe to be true, the fertility differences between religions in Sub-Saharan Africa are not hugely significant, as all are well above replacement levels.

        I think it's possible that fertility in a hypothetical Muslim Europe may not be much higher than it is right now in secular Europe. It could be that every high-IQ society with access to Internet porn and television is not going to reproduce at replacement levels, regardless of religion.

        As you've put it yourself, the problem is HBD. So what reason is there to assume that Muslim Finns are going to behave like Muslim Pakistanis? could well be that you're putting the cart before the horse.

        I think that war seems more likely than acquiescence to Islam, besides.

        Of course, the West needs religion and religio anyway. It appears to be almost impossible to maintain a cohesive culture without one or the other. Right now, things are not looking good for the West's cultural and aesthetic traditions. (The Catholic Church, ancient defender of European cultural traditions, is barely recognizable these days. To say that it's not doing its job would be altogether too mild an accusation.)

        • "As you’ve put it yourself, the problem is HBD. So what reason is there to assume that Muslim Finns are going to behave like Muslim Pakistanis? "

          The other side of that coin is:

          What reason is there to assume that the evolutionary pressures of Islamic culture don't turn Finns into, if not Pakistanis exactly then something more like Pakistanis than current day Finns?

            • The questions remains: What makes you think that Islam is the reason those Pakistanis bother to have children? It could simply be that they are Pakistani -- impulsive and brutish by nature. This is a rather extreme example of brutish impulsivity, but it's not atypical. Finns, being Finns, should be expected to behave very differently from Pakistanis... Even if the Finns all convert to Islam overnight.

              That aside, the Quran itself has little to say on the subject of childbirth, and even appears to implicitly allow for birth control and abortion. (At least as per this book.) On the whole, where these matters are concerned, it appears to be inherently less stringent than the Catholic Church, and could even be made to somehow fit a modern European lifestyle.

              ...I agree that the problem is HBD. I don't think that the solution is Islam.

              • To the extent that all Islamic societies have higher fertility than all Christian societies, well there's something about Islam that to some degree, even if small, is more conducive to having children than Christianity.

                An obvious reason is that Islam gives little status to women. We'll all agree that part of the fertility crisis in civilized nations is caused by women having unprecedentedly high status. That's something that Islam, as currently practiced in most of the world, prevents from happening, at least to some degree. And the fashionable ISIS-like branches of these days are even more extreme in their promotion of the manly warrior ethos.

                Then again, Islam may very well not gaining the upper hand. Progressives may succeed on creating Feminist Islam and converting all Muslims into SJWs who believe Muhammad commanded that transexual culture be taught in madrassas. But if that is the case, what awaits us is eventual replacement by Africans who worship trees and rocks, panic over penis-snatchers and eat albinos to cure the common cold.

              • > To the extent that all Islamic societies have higher fertility than all Christian societies, well there’s something about Islam that to some degree, even if small, is more conducive to having children than Christianity. Does not follow, because Islamic countries are too different from Western (post-)Christian countries. African and poor South American Christians multiply all right, Iran and Wahhabi Gulf states don't.

            • UAE is above replacement, Kuwait is above replacement. Qatar and Bahrain aren't, but those are tiny. Iran isn't above replacement but it took a huge government campaign to get women to abort and use contraception. That cat is out of the bag, of course. But the Muslims in Europe aren't educated Iranians.

              • All Gulf states are comparably tiny. Saudi Arabia isn't tiny, TFR only slightly above replacement at 2.26. Israel does better.

      • Do they, though? Not in Iran or Wahhabi Gulf states. Heavily Muslim Lebanon is under replacement, and Libya is barely above. As for Europe, I thought it's fairly well established that second and third generation immigrant fertility is at best (?) only a few tenths higher or even indistinguishable from natives' of comparable SES. It's the recent imports, who tend to be (a) numerous, (b) young and (c) unspoiled by plenty, who are responsible for the bulk of Muslim babies.

    • I should probably have been reading this discussion before going at this topic in the comments to the newest post. Anyway:

      What's causing sub-replacement fertility? The most important factor seems to be having an advanced economy. Sure, you can have sub-replacement fertility without it, but no advanced economy has sustainable demographics. Other possible factors all succumb as soon as countries move towards a more educated, urbanized, economically productive population. Islam won't save you: While Europe is worrying about Turkey, ethnic Turks are heading below replacement and are worrying about the poorer and still fertile Kurds. The changes are to fast and too widespread for it to be some direct genetic effect. Traditional values evaporate everywhere as soon as economies reach vaguely Eastern European levels.

      So the problem is modern economies letting women be all uppity, right? Well, sure: A woman will generally avoid staying home all her life and having a bunch of kids with a guy her parents picked if she can avoid it. Now, I know some people here might disagree, but I think this is something you have to deal with if you want to have a modern economy. Once they have a choice, women won't be browbeaten into staying home and having kids for the sake of the nation. Advanced economies with a poor female labour participation rate don't generally have higher fertility; they're just as likely to be doing abysmally.

      But people seem to have more kids when it's doable to combine it with the socially expected level of economic progress and affluence. They need to not be working their asses off, they need economic security, they need places to live where the kids can have their own room, they need to believe the future is going to be OK. A lot of people (particularily women) want children, but they're not going to have them if it means big personal sacrifices, like not having a career or living in cramped conditions. Nor are they going to have kids if they think it will be hard to provide for them later.

      Is this the whole story, or even enough? Of course not, but it's at least a vaguely practical suggestion.

  • Islam isn't new to Europeans. On the contrary, we've had a taste and found it wanting time and again. Islam is not growing in Europe through some miraculous organic fashion, but through the deliberate measures of collaborationist governments. It's bogus and contrived. Islam is not even a proper religion! More of a political or military doctrine, and as a vehicle for Arab supremacy. As the European Resistance grows and we experience the first skirmishes of the inevitable European civil war or race war, we will see various European alternatives develop and take hold. These alternatives will be decidedly non-liberal. Some will originate in Eastern Europe and Russia.

  • Any European who wants to help in our struggle for survival is looking for a Schelling point which might work. Any old religion requires people to breed. Otherwise the religion wouldn't have survived long enough to become an old religion. So in principle any old religion might work as a Schelling point.

    Traditional Christianity might be a useful Schelling point. The problem is modern Europeans don't believe in God anymore. That makes Christianity a hard sell. At first glance, it would also make Islam a hard sell. Modern Europeans don't believe in any god. Religious faith won't cause many conversions.

    Still Islam is a Schelling point. It rejects progressivism and the present state of our culture entirely. I also get the impression that it is less about belief than other religions. Pretending and following its numerous religious laws should suffice. These religious laws are enforced (by as much force as neccessary) and you get the community you signed up for. This community will include women having children. To put it bluntly: The traditional Christian would want his woman to be Christian. The Muslim might nor care what she believes and be content with her submission to the laws of Islam.

    As far as I understand, conversion to Islam does not require belief, it requires submission to a set of immutable laws. That might be appealing even to an atheist.

  • Islam yes, but not e.g Mormonism? A religion that literally kills your literal brain cells (when pregnant women fast on Ramadan) and metaphorically kills your metaphorical brain cells (self explanatory) is the alternative to weird but functional cults? How so? Islam isn't the new Christianity. Islam is the new Communism: "the old world shall be destroyed" sings the Internationale; while ISIS is literally destroying all the antiquities, all of history, in the ME - and Wahhabism will do just that in Europe. There can be no revival under Islam, only post-Islam, if that; Islam doesn't preserve traditions and peoples, but erases them, replaces them with itself.

    You want genetic continuation? Where is the genetic continuation of all those Whites who joined Islam? Like the Arabs before them, Islamic Whites marry dark-skinned non-Whites, or at best marry their cousins. Genetic continuation!

    Seriously, Spandrell?

    • I'm not saying I like it. But they're here, they breed, and the government likes them. They have the conditions to spread. Mormonism doesn't.

      As of present Europeans are not having children. If Islam gets them breeding it's the best alternative. Of course if they all marry Arabs that is a problem, but I don't see why they would if enough numbers convert.

      • >I’m not saying I like it. But they’re here, they breed, and the government likes them.

        The governments of the EU like them.

        Other governments are less keen.

        And even within the EU, dissidents are noting that Poland and Hungary are standing as bulwarks against Islam.

        The governments that like Islam may change their views abruptly. (Do the bureaucrats really LIKE Islam, or are they just being politically correct in the hopes of having a job tomorrow?)

        • Did I mention I live in Japan?

          I don't think the motivation of the EU elite matters. The fact is they are aiding the spread of Islam, for whatever reason. Maybe some Roman bureaucrats weren't actually fulfilling their quotas of feeding Christians to the lion pit, which allowed for Christianity to grow. Whatever the reason, eventually they won.

          • There might be a second option, one that is slightly better than Islam - banning contraception and abortion. Don't laugh; it worked pretty well in Romania, just check the birthrates prior to 1989:


            In 1966, Dear Leader Nicolae Ceaușescu banned abortions. The result? The fertility rate spiked from 1,90 in 1966 to 3,68 the following year. Only one year of below-replacement fertility from that point on until the 1989 Revolution. The question then becomes, how to ditch democracy and install a friendly neighborhood Dear Leader able to implement such bans.

            • During communism, even condoms were hard to find in Romania, there were some produced locally and semi-officially, but they were, ahem, infamously unreliable. Probably by design.

            • The 1967 spike is quite something.

              Still, if you want to ban contraception completely today you need to run a very very tight ship.

              • And you'd better make sure you keep power or you are going to face the same outcome Nicolae Ceaușescu did.

                What killed him in my opinion was in part orphans from his program , he could make people have children but he couldn't make anyone rear them. Romanian orphanages were notoriously bad and Romania poor.

                A telling 22 years later, boom.

                That said his plan is just a more severe version of the same things I suggested back here


                restrict abortion , restrict divorce, restrict birth control restrict women, in the work force make unwed motherhood painful and you will have a birth increase among married couples.

                The trouble with those is getting power

                This is not just a logistics issue as some think, but one of a far too high unwillingness to take power. I am not criticizing passivism as a strategy mind you, its my current one as well, nice and legal however long term, the goal has to be "power for the right" just as the left wanted.

                A huge chunk of the Right either just likes to bitch and moan (like much of NrX) or like the rebel right so wrapped in "muh constitution" that they couldn't undo what the Left did.

                The right might be worthy of power and the Cathedral unworthy but damn they are good at getting power and using it.

                • That's the thing. My working of definition of leftism is "whatever ideas psychopaths with power lust come up to fool the populace into supporting them". Leftists desire power by definition. The right, conversely, by definition does not desire power, as a personality trait.

              • Your notions on what constitutes the personality traits and politics of Leftism seem off to me. The reason I think for your conflating "lack of interest in power" with Right systems is the pernicious influence of the Enlightenment

                I'd suggest instead is Right is tradition, honor, continuance and hierarchy

                and Leftism is , novelty , utilitarianism , change, egalitarianism,

                Power is just a tool to get the ideological traits you want and while a lust for power corrupts, wanting it, needing isn't inherently wrong. The Right in the current system fears power and its crippling us. I've studied extreme Right regimes and the worst of them are far better than any Leftist one by far.

                And note the NDSAP is not a Right wing regime in case anyone asks, its a hybrid. The reason it does not qualify is the States insistence in destroying tradition.

                Obviously modern society is in the thrall of Leftism . The question than for reactionaries is can we get western civilization back to our way without a collapse?

                I can't answer that since the Right isn't really interested in that as yet, other than the Rebel "Muh Constitution" Right in the US and a few Nationalists in Europe. The latter are doing well, they were cheated out of power in Austria just yesterday but by such a small margin I suspect they'll be back, if necessary as ultra nationalists by force.

                Now I know some folks will note that our traditions were badly damaged by the Left if not destroyed, true but strangely irrelevant . Traditions don't have to start organic they can be imposed and with time will become organic. Its especially easy with bits of older, still extant traditions being used.

                In any case public adherence is what's required not actual devotion.

                The trick though is getting power without being subsumed by lust for it. That is the real trick, get back power, make it happen .

                Truth is being fash is not easy but I suspect being fash is exactly what you need and if you are cunning and clever enough about it, you can not only build the civic order you want but create a milieu in which holiness spirals are directed your way. That reinforce your civic order a whole lot.

                As a funny example, the Elvira Mistress of the Dark movie, the townies of Falwell Massachusetts are about to burn Elvira for witchcraft, aka being a disruptive dyscivic influence , well that and actual witchcraft on the population boith counts of which she is guilty

                As the crowd gathers for the festive occasion, The "lesser villain" of the piece Chasity Pariah quips "we should have one of these every year"

                The funny thing is though, she was quite correct on all counts. Elvira was a disruptive influence and a witch and in the end she actually left town for Vegas where she belonged leaving the town mostly intact.

                The witch trail allowed some needed holiness signaling as well and while Elvira didn't need to burned she also needed to move on which she did.

                Another example I'm overly fond of , the V. movie and graphic novel . The bad guy faction in that film "Northfire" so long as they reduced the paranoia, cruelty and reflexive censorship levels down from 11 were actually pretty able stewards.

                Plenty of young people, enough for a mob problem little hunger, plenty of pubs, good civic order, religion , clean pensionnaires homes , right wing agit prop TV (Saxon) patriotism and they even trusted civilians with firearms unlike the current UK and the child of ex political prisoners and former juvenile inmate (Evie, the heroine in this case) with a government job.

                The anti American propaganda is also telling , lack of any civic order and perpetual war When I watched the film again it struck me that the US briefly portrayed in the setting is probably exactly what you'd get with Leftism and Neo Cons .

                Dial back the absurdities and corruption to say 8 than to 7 , reign in the secret police a bit and you'd have a model fash society. It would be much much better than the current UK for most residents in any case.

  • These links from Nassim Taleb are relevant:

  • Well, your claim here is that religion is over and above power. It isn't. Look at what happened to Christianity. It was power which promoted heresy, and it was power which made aspects of christianity inapplicable via law.

    • Christianity grew for centuries even though the Roman state didn't like them and threw them to the lion pit to feed the animals at regular intervals.

      • The Prophet Musk doesn't need an army to march on DC when they are in awe of His Technomiracles and pray to the Holy Machinery. People all over the place including the Alt-Right are bending the knee to this new TechnoFaith. Alt-Right Paul Kersey of SBPDL often tells the story of the Evil Diabolical Blacks who interfered with the Sacred Apollo Moon Missions. High Manderins of The Cathedral heap praise upon Saint Jobs and Prophet Musk for their Miraculous Machines.

        That's the new religion.

        If you asked a Roman what Rome's new state religion would be... He would've answered "Mithraism," the popular faith in the Roman Army that chooses Emperors.

  • ''and ascended to heaven with his mother.''

    Where is the evidence the early Christian believed that? Other than unfounded made up story it is not found in Scripture.

  • Does your article today build upon or relate to your article of Jan. 29, 2012, "On Mystics"? Then, you implied that your ontology was at least partly Kantian. That was years ago.

    (Do HTML links work in these comments? Let's try:

    It's too bad that Kant, the grand old man, cannot read and comment on your article today. We'd want to get him and Plato in here, and let them have it out.

  • Pierre Teilhard de Chardin created it, half a century ago. Read his books. Unfortunately the Vatican wasn't interested.

    As to encouraging Whites to make children, that's a whole other matter. I think the problem here is essentially economic and technological not religious. You used to make kids to work your land and feed you in old age or to strengthen your private army if you were a lord. Now what is the reason?

    • I've wrote plenty about that, an of course I agree we have a problem with incentives. But Muslims seem to have fewer problems with that. They're all firmly above replacement. Even Iran is at 1.8 after decades of state promotion of abortion and small families.

      The prophet doesn't need to be alive to worship him. St. Paul never met Jesus.

      • Muslim fertility has decline quite a bit on the West as has Mexicans. Also both of these groups have shorter term time preferences and lower IQ's than Whites which is probably a big contributor.

  • Social Darwinism can be the new religion. It naturally follows from scientific rationalism and empiricism. It is consistent with science and it can help to justify a continued existence for Europeans based upon a prescriptions of those policies that are adaptive for European peoples. Guess what, ethnocentrism, patriarchy, anti-SJWism is adaptive for European peoples.

    • you say Social Darwinism, I say NatSoc, others say other fashy things.

      (1) the children already believe in NatSoc. They don't believe in souls, they believe in genes, they don't believe in feminism, they don't know they believe in families yet, they don't believe in globalism, they don't know they believe in nationalism.

      (2) Islam is big on the whole polygyny thing. Whites don't do polygyny, and if Whites start doing polygyny and keep it up for a thousand years, they won't be Whites any more. Whites became Whites, in appearance and in behavior, due to monogamy.

      (3) those old Roman gods did all kinds of embarrassing stuff. In the Holy Family, Joseph might be a cuck; Mohammed was a pedophile by European standards. Romans had superstitions and disprovable stuff like they were supposed to be physically present in locations that it was possibly to physically determine that they weren't. Catholics have a carefully developed theology and world view that avoids things that sound silly, while in Islam you bow down and pray to a physical box in Mecca.

      (4) how exactly do you expect the second or third generation of White muzzies to behave differently than the children of Christians do now, if the future muzzies don't control the Internet in a way that the Christians, in a stroke of luck for us, didn't? Islam is far more similar to Christianity than Christianity was to Roman paganism.

      (5) Revilo Oliver says that Rome stopped being Roman long before the Fall of Rome. See America's Decline, or,

      • >They don’t believe in souls, they believe in genes, they don’t believe in feminism, they don’t know they believe in families yet, they don’t believe in globalism, they don’t know they believe in nationalism.

        I haven't met any young people who believe in genes, aside from a few medical students.

        I *have* met *many* young people who *strongly* believe in feminism.

        Also, there is another major cultural trend in white countries - many whites like marijuana, a habit which is less popular in East Asia.

        Marijuana and religion are compatible in India. The whites may turn pot-smoking and pot-brownie-eating into a religion, at least in jurisdictions where pot is legal. Marijuana is not exactly incompatible with raising children, but it is probably not the sort of religion that most alt-right folks hope to see.

        • Hah. A widespread cult of fertile white potheads surrounded by Muslims sounds like the kind of weird cults that survived Islam in the Middle East, like the Yazidis. Strange remnants of a great civilization.

      • I prefer the terms Social Darwinism or even just Biology or Science or Adaptivism to NatSoc or Fascism as there is still a lot of negative associations/schemas attached to National Socialism and Fascism. Plus it avoids attachment to Nazi occultism/mythology which isn't very scientific.

    • That's basically what Hitler tried to do, but by failing at war he discredited social-darwinism. In the simple minds of most people, loserdom discredits everything about you.

      Lucien Rebatet (a famous collaborator with the Nazis in WW2) said it best: "war was a dangerous gamble, and an unnecessary one, Germany would have reached its rightful place on top of the world sooner or later."

      Because of this mistake, the developed world is probably going to perish, fulfilling Céline's prophecy : "the white man died in Stalingrad". Personally I have found only the prospect of a technological singularity to alleviate my depression.

        • Actually he said: "« La chute de Stalingrad c’est la fin de l’Europe. Il y a eu un cataclysme. L’épicentre c’était Stalingrad. Là on peut dire que c’était fini et bien fini, la civilisation des Blancs. " Interview avec Claude Sarraute, Le Monde, juin 1960

          • It's the usual basic-bitch narrative of WW2 which puts the turning point at Stalingrad. Less basic, still bitches, put the turning point at Kursk. In actual fact the war was lost after Hitler failed to take Moscow and Leningrad in September 1941 thanks to completely unnecessary delays.

            • Celine wasn't a military expert. He was a committed Nazi collaborator, apparently very sincere. He must have bought the Nazi propaganda that everything was going smoothly until it became obvious that it wasn't, and that turning point was Stalingrad.

            • I read in one of David Irving's books, maybe the book on Goering, that the failure at Stalingrad was Goering's fault. Goering promised Hitler so many tons of supplies delivered by the Luftwaffe. Goering knew at the time he could not possibly do what he said but he promised anyways. This is most likely the reason Hitler demanded no retreat. By they time Hitler found the truth it was too late. If the Germans would have been able to retreat in order they could have possibly changed the war.

      • And I say, try, try again. The world is ripe for it. Hitler lost because both America and Russia allied against him. A new Hitler would find the present geopolitical circumstances far more propitious.

        • The truly interesting thing about Hitler is that he has become entirely a myth. The specifics and truth of the historical man simply don't matter any more; all he is, is a symbol: the symbol of being hated by the Cathedral, of military (over-)assertiveness, and of white ethnically based nationalism.

          Give it another hundred years, it would not remotely surprise me to see Hitlerism being a new religion playing the same role Christianity did for Rome.

      • “the white man died in Stalingrad”

        He got a temporary reprieve, more like. The west has been down this path before; France hit sub-replacement fertility in 1935. Other western countries were on similar trajectories (secular stagnation was originally a '30s concept, declining birth rates was one of the hypothetical drivers). Post WW2, fertility shot to above replacement for three decades everywhere in the west. There is always the possibility that fixing things now will require social upheaval and destruction on the scale of what worked last time.

  • The Hindus of India are in a similar situation. They managed to resist violent Islam for a millenium, but they seem to have no defenses against Evangelical Christianity. India has gone from 2% christian in 2004 to 8% today. A 4X increase in a little more than a decade. Most Hindus like the Romans are dumb and apathetic. The tactics followed by the Christians in India are startlingly similar to what was followed in Rome and with similar success. But a few intelligent Hindus know how the intelligent Romans felt. And like the ancient Romans, there is no going back for the Hindus. They are finished. But they can't bring themselves to accept it.

    • That's interesting. I thought Christianity in India was a Northeast hill-tribe thing. I had no idea it's growing in the Hindu heartland.

      • You are not wrong at all. In fact Christian missionaries did focus initially on the North-eastern Hill tribes. Kudos on your knowledge of Indian history. Now those areas are about 80% Christian and persecution of the Hindus/Pagans has begun there. A northeastern state has a group asking for secession along religious lines. Look up "Nagalim for Christ". They are basically asking for secession of a province called Nagaland over religion.

        By 2004, the work in the North-eastern states was done and now the missionaries have moved into the southern coastal regions. They have not yet moved into the Hindu-heartland in a big way. The big thrust is now in the coast. This is similar to the encirclement strategy used by the EIC. Once the coast is done, they next move will be the heartland. Their organizational ability is truly Awesome. The Hindus in the turn are barely comatose.

        My own opinion is that the Hindus have about as much of a chance as the ancient Romans or the Ancient Greeks.

      • Not mega knowledgeble about India but Christianity may be kept in check in India due to its natural avenue of growth, dalits don't recieve affirmative action if they convert unlike tribals.

        • The Christian War machine is way ahead of you on this one mate. Not for nothing is Christianity the most numerous religion in the world. Gasp in awed wonder as I describe to you the Christian strategy to counter this Feeble Hindu/Dalit affirmative action business

          1. A couple decades ago you could tell if someone was Christian by their name. Converted christians had names like John, Jack, Isiah, Isaac, James etc. Not anymore. Now the Evangelicals are asking the converts to keep their original Hindu names. They are not changing even the surnames. On Govt. records, these converts are Hindus and if they are dalits, they avail of all the affirmative action. They are also registered at their local diocese of Church, but the Indian government does not know that. It is for this reason that official statistics show the Indian Christian population at 2% ( A figure from 1970-2004 which is absurd to anyone who has boots on the ground in India and has seen the changes in the last decade) while it is closer to 8% in reality

          2. The Evangelicals have also infiltrated the Civil service and government. Dalit communities who refuse to convert to Christianity are taken out of the list of communities deemed backward. This means they can no longer avail affirmative action. Thus if they converted, they would be able to receive affirmative action.

          3. The NGOs have been funding agitations, demonstrations and protests across the country to get rid of caste based affirmative action and go for affirmative action based on financial situation. Google "Hardik Patel" and "Jat agitation in haryana" to get more info.

          4. The Christians are also offering an alternate path to power for people of relative more affluent communities. An example is the now deceased Chief minister of Andhra called Rajashekhar Reddy who was a christian and under his watch, the province went from 2% christian to 20% in a very short period of time

          It is not that ancient Romans or ancient Greeks were feckless that they were displaced by Christianity. It is a testament to the Sheer Brilliance and organizational capability of the War and propaganda machinery of the Christians that such a highly intelligent and civilized people such as the Greeks and Romans lost their culture to Christianity. The modern day Hindus are simply not the equals of the Ancient Romans or Greeks when it comes to either intelligence or Virtue. Impossible for them to survive where their more illustrious pagan cousins failed.

          • This is all very interesting, thanks. I wonder if China is aware of this. They have their own issues with Christian agitation.

            • I'm not sure if the Chinese communist party is aware of the history of Christianity in India or Japan, but I think the Chinese Communist party is aware of what Christianity can do. One indication seems to be that they are now tolerating CPC members being Buddhists. They are allowing people to follow Tibetan Buddhism openly. They are probably looking at Buddhism as a counterweight to Christianity which seems to be enjoying the spiritual vaccuum that the CPC created in China. Here is the BBC's take on the issue

              And finally, there is the Taiping Rebellion which was at least partly inspired by the Christian Beliefs of the instigator. BTW, you should do a post about that. I would love to read your interpretation of the events and also your ability to tie events with ideas and the bigger picture. You have a gift for historical story telling.

              • Thanks, that's very kind of you.

                The Taiping rebellion is indeed interesting, although it's Christian influence wasn't really that big. If you wanna know how Christianity almost wrecked China, the Boxer rebellion is a better topic. That started as a revolt of rural Chinese against the encroaching of Christianity, in a process that sounds very similar to what you wrote about India today.

                If the (upcoming) first book sells well I may be able to do some serious research and write some content on the late Qing, the Taipings and all that.

              • There are some telling comments in this link you sent me

                1. "Many human rights lawyers in China are Christians, and many dissidents have said they are influenced by the idea that rights are God-given." Here we have the NYT pretending not to understand that this is exactly why the CPC is against Christianity

                2. "But documents reviewed by The New York Times show that provincial officials were worried that churches had begun to dominate the region’s skyline." The NYT will of course not tell us proles which documents those were. Just trust them.

                3. "The pastor was later arrested on charges of “divulging state secrets.”" It becomes apparent that the Chinese CPC is so crude in it's propaganda as to be laughable. They are miles away from the sophistication of western autocracies where everything is a crime and the government enforces the laws selectively. Compared to the American Elites, Chinese Elites are country bumpkins or Village idiots. They are positively bucolic in their lack of sophistication. Hahahaha!

                4. The NYT which usually spares no effort in subtly denigrating Christianity in the west suddenly subtly quasi-evangelical when it comes to Christianity in China

  • Alternatively, let's become nomads. We're already being forced into it by our elites anyway, so let's just drop the fifteen different apartments and two different crushing mortgages. We can herd reindeer in the marginal lands of southern Alaska and Manitoba until the southern regimes collapse far enough they can't keep us and our extended family clans from driving our herds where we want and pillaging the towns along the way.

    Except the nomadic life isn't in our genes; it's in theirs. Just like Islam.


      I know of many who would gladly move north to help this cutie and her reindeer.

  • There is a second possibility. We might get the technology to fix the gene problem. This could go in several ways that would solve the problem. One would be patching Euros to want children. Another would be patching NAMs to have high intelligence and perhaps (if necessary) more European-like personality. Then they'd like our civilization and be able to maintain it.

  • I like the idea of reincarnation amongst my kindred. It is the only afterlife that has any appeal to me all the others sound boring, maybe a sojourn in Valhalla which sounds like a respawning video game. It strengthens the connection I feel with my ancestors, and the long term future of my descendants. According to Caesar the Druids thought likewise.

    So any chances of ethnocentric pagan revival.

  • The counter to high fertility is moderate fertility skill at arms & a willingness to use that skill.

    It's basically going to come down to Islam vs National Socialism vs the remnants of Progressivism fighting over the ruins.

    • What the "New Religion" analysis misses is that Progressivism is a religion... and the most successful one, at least among whites, because it got all the other religions to admit they are based on faith, while it lied and claimed it was based on science.

      The new religion will probably also lie and claim to is based on science. It might even be partially based on science, at least where science and progressivism conflict.

      • This. I was going to write a comment to this effect, but I'll just endorse yours.

        PS: science is based on faith, too. No need to lie about it.

        • When have I ever missed that progressivism is a religion too? I don't see what's so special about science. It's all hearsay by prestigious people.

          • > When have I ever missed that progressivism is a religion too? Not missed, no. The point is that there is already a new religion, very successful at conversion if not reproduction, and moreover as it purports to speak for and to the downtrodden it does resemble the Roman-early Christian situation somewhat. It's a weird and bad new religion, but you wrote above that we probably won't like it, and we don't. One might even say that an appreciation of this point forms a part of the terms of reference for the new religion. > I don’t see what’s so special about science. I made a few stabs at it. Actually it is a really good question! > It’s all hearsay by prestigious people. I think this is a rather sophomoric argument, so I hope you'll excuse me if I reply in the same vein. At one level, everything else is too. Does China exist? I haven't been there, for me it's all hearsay by prestigious people. For all I know, the cheap stuff could be coming from Pacific Islanders who have finally persuaded their ancestors to send down the cargo and are pasting on these labels with weird squiggly pictures to maintain cover. I used to be in this position regarding Japan, too — all the books and stuff could have been so many fairy tales, like the bright and kind Soviet Union that existed only in Soviet children's books. But then I went and saw that Japan does exist and is much as advertised, and now I have firm foundations for judgement in the simplest matters regarding Japan, like the fact that it exists and is more than a collection of rocks with some humans on them. It's similar with science; take physics for example. If you are a layman (a telling common usage, by the way) it's all hearsay by prestigious people. You receive the covenant, as it were, in a good physics theory lab course. Then your position becomes more comparable to the position of a Puritan who has to consult theologians on the fine points that he has not the time, ability, knowledge or inclination to work out himself, but is firm in the faith because he's had his conversion experience — and what's more, whereas (according to McKenna's book I'm reading now) Puritans were intermittently consumed by doubts whether their conversion experience was genuine, since it is all "within", a proper physics "conversion" is a much more hands-on and/or rational affair that has much less space for doubts.

            • >It’s a weird and bad new religion, but you wrote above that we probably won’t like it, and we don’t. My argument was not necessarily "we need a new religion to replace Christianity." It's just as well "we need a new religion to replace Progressivism." Which is dying, physically if not memetically, so there's a vacuum there waiting to be filled.

              > Does China exist? I actually had some troll friends in Middle School play that with me. "You think you know so many things, but Japan doesn't really exist. The newspapers made it up, my grandpa told me, he knows about that." Now that I think of it it's pretty funny, but I hated that kid's guts.

              Skepticism is indeed kinda sophomoric, and I'm not a skeptic. But at the end of the day, Orwell (and Hume, and Wittgenstein, and Dennett, etc.) had it right. Apply a boot to a face long enough and you can change minds. That you have firm foundations for your judgments on the reality of Japan depends on you living in a place where O'Brien will not put his boot on your face for arguing the existence of Japan. Or your friends ostracizing you for doing so.

              Of course the existence of O'Briens or friends who ostracize you for being an empiricist is not random; there are patterns to the kind of knowledge that a society is likely to admit, and the proved record of modern science to produce useful and profitable gadgets has made the scientific method very prestigious.

              But to the extent that the same method produces things that are not useful and profitable, but rather hateful and distasteful, such as Darwinian theory and HBD, you do get ostracized by your friends for accepting that knowledge, and soon enough you will get O'Brien's foot on your head.

              • That's where Dick's reality principle comes in (see below). A society can use its power to create a reality distortion field in the minds of its members, but its continued existence will eventually demand a recognition of reality or it will be destroyed. There is no necessity in the choice to continue existing; like an individual, a society may well choose to go down in a blaze of fαggοtry rather than abandon its faith.

              • > My argument was not necessarily “we need a new religion to replace Christianity.” It’s just as well “we need a new religion to replace Progressivism.” Which is dying, physically if not memetically, so there’s a vacuum there waiting to be filled.

                Come on now Spandrell, you are contradicting yourself. In the very post above you made the point that human genes reproduce physically, but human religions do not. Or do you think progressivism is special and is the only religion in history which needs to keep its original ethnic group alive in order to continue to exist? I don't think so. If Finns can become muslims then Pakis can become progressives. And progressivism will beat any religion, even Islam, because it is the most intolerant of them all.

              • "If Finns can become muslims then Pakis can become progressives."

                We don't know if Pakis can become progressives or not. But we do know that in the United States, average blacks never did.

                Progressivism caters to certain cognitive characteristics which are not equally present in all populations.

                For whites, progressivism entails cucking and cucking very hard. But for blacks, progressivism entails fighting for resources on behalf of their ethnic group. IE: Acting normal, although rationalizing using a progressive vocabulary.

                It remains to be seen whether or not progressivism will get the lower IQ races to cuck, or whether they'll act normal after we're gone, with progressivism just contributing some lingering terms in the vocabulary.

              • That was supposed to say "average Pakis", obv elites can become fully progressive.

      • This brings up an interesting point as to how a religion gains prominence.

        Pace Spandrell, a religion's claim to converts is partially based on the truthiness of its doctrines. A religion that has a 'higher' (more believable or immediate) claim to truth is liable to win over one that doesn't.

        Christianity triumphed over Greco-Roman paganism because it's an epiphanic religion with grounding in real history. Where paganism can only point to myths and tradition, Christianity can point to real events and concrete claims about, "This is what God said in the hearing of real men."

        Progressivism triumphed over Christianity because it's an empirical religion. Partially this triumph is because Christianity is old enough that its founders are by many adherents considered more legendary than real (thus robbing it of some of the immediacy of its claims), but also because where Christianity relies on revealed truths handed down from God, progressivism relies on truths that are self-evident to reason and accessible via immediate derivation to its adherents.

        I'm not attempting to describe the reality of either Christianity or progressivism, but rather the claims of their respective propagandas. Nor am I claiming this is a complete analysis of the reasons for their relative successes and failures. However, it seems to me part of the puzzle. Even granting the idea that beliefs are largely shaped by social pressures, some beliefs have a lower transmission threshold than others.

        • Let's grant that. Revelation is superior to Tradition; (empirical) Science is superior to Revelation. What is superior to Science?

          Or let's do it another way. Revelation won over Tradition when it became obvious that the guardians of Tradition didn't know what they were doing, were acting by inertia and corrupting the old traditions for personal gain. Besides, the old traditions were increasingly transparently false. A god can't make children with a cow. And nobody has seen a god either. So groups that claimed to have direct access through scripture to the word of God had the epistemic advantage . Then Science won over Revelation because it became obvious that the guardians of Revelation didn't know what they were preaching, were acting by inertia, corrupting the meaning of scripture for personal gain. Besides, the scriptures were increasingly transparently false. The world isn't 6,000 years old. There are no miracles. So groups that claimed to have direct access through scientific experiments to the Laws of the Universe had the epistemic advantage.

          Then X won over Science because it became obvious that the guardians of Science don't know what they are doing, they are writing bogus papers by inertia, corrupting the scientific method for personal gain, getting grants and cozy political jobs. Besides, official science is increasingly transparently false. The human brain is not a blank slate. There is no global warming. So groups that claim to have actual understanding of Evolutionary Processes have the epistemic advantage.

          • If you ask me, Science has a few iterations of catharsis to go yet, just as Revelation went through a few iterations of which Reformation was only one. The troubles with science are not in themselves scientific; I am not aware of anything that would cause one to doubt the principle of sufficient reason of becoming, as scientific results had caused people to doubt the simple stories of revelation (I remember vaguely that there were attempts to free revelation of empirical elements, but my impression is that the resulting constructions were too abstract to feel really compelling).

          • To add: science is a refinement of common sense. It uses some clarified or emphasized principles which correspond to our common-sense intuitions, and I think the most important of these for science has been the principle of sufficient reason (of becoming). Now the groups that want to have epistemic advantage must emphasize in addition the Philip K. Dick's reality principle. It didn't use to be necessary, because facts relevant to scientific matters used to be much more obvious.

            • The modern notion of "common sense" is post scientific. In Japan 常識 means knowledge of social norms, not of the laws of physics. To say the truth when it hurts someone with high status is 非常識

              • Oh come on. Japanese social common sense is different from ours, but that fire burns, water is wet, things remain where put unless someone interferes and that you can try things to see if they work is 常識 too, and has been common sense long before science.

                • I really don't know if the word 常識 was used for that kind of stuff. I also know that plenty of weird superstition was hold to be as obvious as gravity, and that certainly hasn't been streamlined by science. Although there's the example of Alan Turing pronouncing how science had showed that telepathy works.

          • The physical iPhone in people's hands created by Saint Steve Jobs is a tangible thing... Unlike the Theory of Evolution where its detractors and most of its supporters have no idea what it is (otherwise I F@$&% Love Science would be a hardcore supporter of HBD).

        • > ... but also because where Christianity relies on revealed truths handed down from God, progressivism relies on truths that are self-evident to reason and accessible via immediate derivation to its adherents.

          There is truth in this statement, but let us not overlook Christianity's early, very substantial grounding in Platonic metaphysics. Especially Catholic and eastern Orthodox Christianity.

          I suspect that a chief cause of Christianity's decline in Europe is that Europe's intellectual elite no longer studies Aristotle and Aquinas enough to grasp Thomistic apologia. To the Thomist, the rise of Pentacostalism (which I like, respect and, in some ways, even admire; but nevertheless) appears to represent a fairly obvious symptom of this failure and decline. Probably an unstable symptom.

      • You can hold the New Religion in your hands... Behold the miracle of fingerprint reading sensors for your new Samsung Galaxy S!

  • This is very similar to the quandary placed in front of the reader in Michel Houellebecqs' novel "Submission". Houellebecq posed the question of whether France and the West in general has the will to resist the temptation of submitting to Islam. I think we do, and I will fight until my last breath before I see the West subsumed in the vile dar-al-Islam.

  • Someone brought up hypothetical Islamic Finns. Why not look at look at a real life case of a European ethnicity split by religion? I figure Serbs and Bozniaks ought to be a decent example since they are sort of like Flemish and Dutch, diverging in their memeplex but sharing a similar gene pool and language. Looked up the fertility rate for Bosnia and it's one of the lowest on the planet, even lower than Serbia which is also abysmally low. I feel like I'm necroing this after there's already been tons of educated, intelligent commenters, but I will try to apply an Occam's chainsaw: Seems like education and economic forces reign supreme. All people are mercenary creatures. Everyone has as many children as they can when they need more free help in the farm fields and the youngest sticking around is their only hope for a 401k plan. You want more kids in a eugenic system? Get in power, then stay in power while giving abundant incentives to the people you want to breed while figuring out the logistical support and training for their issue ahead of time. Someone pointed out that Ceausescu's policies were successful. He("the Danube of thought") took things too far on another extreme. We should have enough information, though, to arrive at a golden mean to get the results we want.

  • Oh yeah, I was intrigued by this line of thought because I've also written in this vein:

  • If you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place -Murray Rothbard

  • It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.

  • 9 pingbacks