Category Archives: We need a new religion - Page 2

Unintended consequences

Atheism is a funny doctrine. They tend to be first rate mathematicians, but what they do is basically denying the law of cause and effect. Using logic that honestly I can’t understand, they reach the conclusion that you need no first cause for the world to exist. So there is effect without cause. For the same token they must have thought there is cause without effect. Read more »

On words and history

I am a linguist by training, so I have this bias for etymology. The word reactionary, which is what the Jacobins called the pious rebels of the Vendeé, just didn’t sound right. Still after careful thought, it seems clear to me that the intellectual descendants of the Vendeé farmers are what today we called traditionalists, and it’s mostly secular dissenters of liberalism which call ourselves reactionary. If you think about it, we are using an old word for what is a very new movement.

Read more »

How Left and Right both suck

I used to call myself a reactionary, but lately I’m developing a hate for the word. Let’s say I’m evolving. I not longer think we should go back to the past. The modern world sucks alright, but the past sucked in his own way. Let me explain.

Let’s talk about myths.

Conservatives have this myth.

Read more »

Radiotherapy

I’ll be travelling in Japan during this month. Japan that marvellous country without low IQ slaves migrants doing work that the natives won’t do.

I’ll be quite busy these days, but I’ll comment about some funny news I just saw.

Read more »

We need a new religion, 2

One of the best rightist blogs around there is Lawrence Auster’s View from the Right. Auster himself while having occasionally very brilliant insights, is no scholar, but the sheer force of his personality, or his chutzpah if I may put it that way, attract all kind of brilliant people. Today an outstanding post there, where a commenter of his says:

Read more »

We need a new religion

Schopenhauer used to write that Judaism is not a religion, but a tribal cult, because it lacked any teachings about the afterlife. What kind of religion is that who doesn’t tell you what’s happening after you die? Isn’t the afterlife THE big question of existence? The ultimate enforcer of morality is the threat of everlasting hell after all.

Well now that you think of it, isn’t modern liberalism kinda jewish too? In that it has obnoxious moral codes, a pretty dense theology, but no teachings about the afterlife. Which makes it all pretty stupid. Why should I care about anything if, as Keynes said, long term we are all dead? Who cares about doing good things? About caring for posterity?

This sort of nihilism is often pointed out by those Christian rightists as the origin of all evil. On the other way the only thing Christianity has for it these days is that it has hell. Religion can coherently enforce morality. Liberalism can’t. Therefore we should go back to Christianity. Well I don’t know about that.

But the lack of faith in an afterlife really does poison everything. As any fairly philosophical person has surely noticed, given enough time all intelligent discussions end up talking about God. Because all morality has to ultimately be based on some ultimate authority. Reading today Steve Sailer’s, he has a post with summarizes perfectly the great divide between left and right. Who are we? The point being that liberal theology states that all humans are equal, therefore nations are illegitimate, and national discrimination verbotten. Aren’t we all the same? Then why can’t I live in your house. Ok.

Of course the obvious reduction ad absurdum is valid: if I can’t discriminate for my countrymen, why can I discriminate for my own family? Aren’t we all the same? Why should I raise my kids then? Then in the comments some clueless libertard comes out with this gem: “Maybe American workers not being able to reproduce and afford families is bad for them now, but it will be good for American in the long run and for all citizens as well”. i.e. the allegiance is not for our families, or our nation, but for ‘America’. May we all disappear from the gene pool if the future America ends up stronger.

Of course all rightists may and do strongly protest: what the fuck is the point of America if our posterity is not part of it?

Well what if it is? What is the rationale for defending our posterity if there’s no afterlife? Why should I care for my potential kids, grandkids and other posterity if I’m not certain of meeting them in some other place later? Roissy would argue: what is the point of kids? They suck the fun out of life.

There’s this modern trend of Darwinist rightists trying to answer this question with biology: we are programmed to reproduce our genes. But how is that a moral imperative? You can’t deduce an ought from an is, right?  The programming certainly isn’t very good when developed countries are objectively amusing themselves to extinction.

This nihilist zeitgeist is what makes current level of debts possible. Of course we are fucking our posterity’s future, forcing them to pay our current consumption. Who cares though? Long term we are all dead.

To the point: any intelligent political discussion will necessarily end up with this question: Why should we care for the future? Modern liberalism can’t answer this question. They know it, so they don’t even ask it. Which makes any discussion inherently stupid. And if intellectual debate is stupid by design, questions can’t get answered. Things can’t get done. We are doomed.

We need a new religion.