IF CHRISTIANITY IS DEAD, WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM Christianity as we know it is dead. The rituals are not unique nor terribly effective compared to the alterative major religions. The myths and lessons are suitable to those living at subsistence levels. The priesthoods are populated by those who can console us from the forces of nature, but not those who can educate, advise, lead, and decide, and as such,, form both a local head of community of common interest, and counter to the state. But the philosophy is exceptional as it seems to create trust, ‘openness’, encourage salvation through action, creates commercial prosperity everywhere it goes. This combination of interpersonal optimism and the Aryan predilection for markets, and stoic natural law is nearly as effective as our greco-roman civilization. So assuming the word ‘philosophy‘ means ‘method of decision making’, then of the spectrum of Religion, Political philosophy, Ethical Philosophy, Personal Philosophy, Law, and Science, I would state that transcendence, sovereignty, natural law, male stoicism/female epicureanism, the common empirical law, and Testimonialism are probably the optimum combination for those who wish to LEAD humanity, rather than to be led by others, by some some other strategy.
Theme: Religion
-
If Christianity is Dead, We Still Have a Problem. But At Least We Know Most of the Answer
But natural law is skeptical, and incomplete without christian optimism. In other words, christian optimism tells us that if enough of us invest in trust, and tolerate minor losses, we will produce it, and produce outsized gains. The problem we face, is we need a binding narrative, and we need better binding rituals and we need better local teachers, advisors, leaders. To create the mythos we must distill it from our many authors into our own ‘bible’. Because we learn from loose general principle, to more specific general rule, to more precise rules of science. And without the binding narrative it appears to be very difficult to bind general literary rules and precise rules of science into a portfolio of decisions across the entire possible spectrum in which we must make decisions in modernity. I have been struggling with this problem for two years now and while I have my ups and downs, the problem remains the same: without an effort equal to the council of nicea, or the first american constitutional convention, or a frankfurt school, it will be difficult to produce a ‘bible’ of western civilization – a ‘book’ that beyond which no man nor state may tread. It is necessary to restore teaching, advising, and leadership, and community. But also as a means of defense against the semitic technologies of deception that arose from the innovation of abrahamic deceit. And a ritual that is costly so that men defend the law in that book against all attacks. -
Let Me Help You: Religions vs Laws
Let me help you. 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. I am trying to find a way to talk about the fact that we have never had a conflationary system of thought (monotheism) in the west, and have always had separation of church (peasantry) and state (nobility) and burgher/freeman (commerce). And that the church (religion), the burgher (philosophy), and the state (law) all competed with their own narratives. The problem is the BINDING narrative. If christianity fails as teh binding narrative, how do we replace that binding narrative, yet preserve christianity for the underclasses (the weak) who need it? Germanicized christianity, even latinized christianity, differs from byzantine christianity, differs from judaism, differs from islamism, differs from egyptian and prior eras’ shamanism. Germanized christianity always possessed ALL models of thought, from the aristocratic and martial law, to the philosophy, to the religion of the poor. But we used each in its place. And christianity did serve as the majority doctrine since the vast majority of people were poor and ignorant. When that is true, it’s easy for the martial/legal, and the philosophhical/commercial to ‘go along’ with the civic binding narrative and rituals. The question is, now that the majority are not poor and ignorant, what is the binding narrative under which we can still make use of science, law, philosophy and christianity? I mean. christianity is fucking ridiculous. Church isn’t. Myth, Festival, Ritual, Discipline aren’t. They’re necessary. The content of jesus’ philosophy is trivial. The magical shit is nonsense. nothing but jewish and syrian and byzantine lies. the natural law that the church inherited from the romans and the stoics, and the science that the modern era inherited from the greeks and the engineering from romans is all there for us to use. History is there for us to use. By any measure we have ‘discovered’ that we, and less so the chinese, are ‘right’ and that everyone else is not only wrong but catastrophically and degeneratively wrong. So, how do we modernize the church, retain jesus’s (valuable teaching) but achieve in the modern world what Aquinas achieved in the ancient? how do we modernize the teachings of jesus, and the ancient lessons of babylonians so that they are compatible with the ancient lessons of the european peoples in greek, roman, germanic form?
-
Let Me Help You: Religions vs Laws
Let me help you. 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. I am trying to find a way to talk about the fact that we have never had a conflationary system of thought (monotheism) in the west, and have always had separation of church (peasantry) and state (nobility) and burgher/freeman (commerce). And that the church (religion), the burgher (philosophy), and the state (law) all competed with their own narratives. The problem is the BINDING narrative. If christianity fails as teh binding narrative, how do we replace that binding narrative, yet preserve christianity for the underclasses (the weak) who need it? Germanicized christianity, even latinized christianity, differs from byzantine christianity, differs from judaism, differs from islamism, differs from egyptian and prior eras’ shamanism. Germanized christianity always possessed ALL models of thought, from the aristocratic and martial law, to the philosophy, to the religion of the poor. But we used each in its place. And christianity did serve as the majority doctrine since the vast majority of people were poor and ignorant. When that is true, it’s easy for the martial/legal, and the philosophhical/commercial to ‘go along’ with the civic binding narrative and rituals. The question is, now that the majority are not poor and ignorant, what is the binding narrative under which we can still make use of science, law, philosophy and christianity? I mean. christianity is fucking ridiculous. Church isn’t. Myth, Festival, Ritual, Discipline aren’t. They’re necessary. The content of jesus’ philosophy is trivial. The magical shit is nonsense. nothing but jewish and syrian and byzantine lies. the natural law that the church inherited from the romans and the stoics, and the science that the modern era inherited from the greeks and the engineering from romans is all there for us to use. History is there for us to use. By any measure we have ‘discovered’ that we, and less so the chinese, are ‘right’ and that everyone else is not only wrong but catastrophically and degeneratively wrong. So, how do we modernize the church, retain jesus’s (valuable teaching) but achieve in the modern world what Aquinas achieved in the ancient? how do we modernize the teachings of jesus, and the ancient lessons of babylonians so that they are compatible with the ancient lessons of the european peoples in greek, roman, germanic form?
-
On The Future of the Western Polytheistic Social Order
ON THE FUTURE OF THE WESTERN “POLYTHEISTIC” SOCIAL ORDER I am trying to find a way to talk about the fact that we have never had a conflationary system of thought (monotheism) in the west, and have always had separation of church (peasantry) and state (nobility) and burgher/freeman (commerce). And taht the church (religion), the burgher (philosophy), and the state (law) all competed with their own narratives. The problem is the BINDING narrative. If christianity fails as teh binding narrative, how do we replace that binding narrative, yet preserve christianity for the underclasses (the weak) who need it? Germanicized christianity, even latinized christianity, differs from byzantine christianity, differs from judaism, differs from islamism, differs from egyptian and prior eras’ shamanism. Germanized christianity always possessed ALL models of thought, from the aristocratic and martial law, to the philosophy, to the religion of the poor. But we used each in its place. And christianity did serve as the majority doctrine since the vast majority of people were poor and ignorant. When that is true, it’s easy for the martial/legal, and the philosophical/commercial to ‘go along’ with the civic bingding narrative and rituals. The question is, now that the majority are not poor and ignorant, what is the binding narrative under which we can still make use of science, law, philosophy and christianity? I mean. christianity is fucking ridiculous. Church isn’t. Myth, Festival, Ritual, Discipline aren’t. They’re necessary. The content of jesus’ philosophy is trivial. The magical shit is nonsense. nothing but jewish and syrian and byzantine lies. the natural law that the church inherited from the romans and the stoics, and the science that the modern era inherited from the greeks and the engineering from romans is all there for us to use. History is there for us to use. By any measure we have ‘discovered’ that we, and less so the chinese, are ‘right’ and that everyone else is not only wrong but catastrophically and degeneratively wrong. So, how do we modernize the church, retain jesus’s (valuable teaching) but achieve in the modern world what Acquinas achieved in the ancient? how do we modernize the teachings of jesus, and the ancient lessons of babylonians so that they are compatible with the ancient lessons of the european peoples in greek, roman, germanic form? How do I start with sovereignty, agency, natural law, markets in everything and the transcendence of man of our ancestors, and include jesus’ advice that if we increase the size of our kin, but our understanding that there is a limit of our kin to those who are in fact our genetic kin, that we will be buying options on future cooperation that together make us more competitively powerful than all alternatives? There is only one ‘story’ of such a thing. IT IS THE STORY OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION FROM THE YAMNA TO TODAY, and the lionization of all those who demonstrated their continuance of it, and the demonization of all those who impeded or harmed it. And the semites and iranians (byzantines) seem to have done been those who impeded it.
-
On The Future of the Western Polytheistic Social Order
ON THE FUTURE OF THE WESTERN “POLYTHEISTIC” SOCIAL ORDER I am trying to find a way to talk about the fact that we have never had a conflationary system of thought (monotheism) in the west, and have always had separation of church (peasantry) and state (nobility) and burgher/freeman (commerce). And taht the church (religion), the burgher (philosophy), and the state (law) all competed with their own narratives. The problem is the BINDING narrative. If christianity fails as teh binding narrative, how do we replace that binding narrative, yet preserve christianity for the underclasses (the weak) who need it? Germanicized christianity, even latinized christianity, differs from byzantine christianity, differs from judaism, differs from islamism, differs from egyptian and prior eras’ shamanism. Germanized christianity always possessed ALL models of thought, from the aristocratic and martial law, to the philosophy, to the religion of the poor. But we used each in its place. And christianity did serve as the majority doctrine since the vast majority of people were poor and ignorant. When that is true, it’s easy for the martial/legal, and the philosophical/commercial to ‘go along’ with the civic bingding narrative and rituals. The question is, now that the majority are not poor and ignorant, what is the binding narrative under which we can still make use of science, law, philosophy and christianity? I mean. christianity is fucking ridiculous. Church isn’t. Myth, Festival, Ritual, Discipline aren’t. They’re necessary. The content of jesus’ philosophy is trivial. The magical shit is nonsense. nothing but jewish and syrian and byzantine lies. the natural law that the church inherited from the romans and the stoics, and the science that the modern era inherited from the greeks and the engineering from romans is all there for us to use. History is there for us to use. By any measure we have ‘discovered’ that we, and less so the chinese, are ‘right’ and that everyone else is not only wrong but catastrophically and degeneratively wrong. So, how do we modernize the church, retain jesus’s (valuable teaching) but achieve in the modern world what Acquinas achieved in the ancient? how do we modernize the teachings of jesus, and the ancient lessons of babylonians so that they are compatible with the ancient lessons of the european peoples in greek, roman, germanic form? How do I start with sovereignty, agency, natural law, markets in everything and the transcendence of man of our ancestors, and include jesus’ advice that if we increase the size of our kin, but our understanding that there is a limit of our kin to those who are in fact our genetic kin, that we will be buying options on future cooperation that together make us more competitively powerful than all alternatives? There is only one ‘story’ of such a thing. IT IS THE STORY OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION FROM THE YAMNA TO TODAY, and the lionization of all those who demonstrated their continuance of it, and the demonization of all those who impeded or harmed it. And the semites and iranians (byzantines) seem to have done been those who impeded it.
-
On the Interpretation of Art, Literature, and Myth
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ART, LITERATURE AND MYTH. (My formal training is in art criticism, and my first philosophical work was on aesthetics – and I can criticize all art from all cultures at every single period in human history in detail that is so painful you can’t imagine. If you think I’m annoyingly precise about economics, law, and logic do you think I am less so about Aesthetics? To say one cannot obtain value from something, or one can obtain value from something, is very different from saying that all values one obtains are good, or that objectively better art and literature objectively contain better collections of objects, relations, and values. And that is to say that the consumption of inferior art, literature, and myth, represents a loss of opportunity to consume superior art, literature, and myth, and therefore superior objects, relations, and values.Chinese art demonstrates a hatred of man and the human form. Japanese are attempts to circumvent the effeminacy of asian forms. All thier costuming is an attempt to make excuses for their lack and depth of masculine maturity. I mean their is a reason we use half naked super warriors and they use giant robot armor, or dolled-up clothing to make themselves look more substantive. Compare it to German art where everyone has a bloody wound in him, or greek, roman, and european art that lionize the human form, the human mind, and human achievements. The fact that we no longer produce a Howard (who was gay), a Heinlein, Johnny Quest or the first year of Star Trek, or even very good science fiction, is in fact because of the Jewish censorship in hollywood. Sure. (Whether Intentional or cultural or genetic). We still seem to be able to get away with horror although the jewish cultural mafia is working against that also. But the answer is what it is. I do not err. I am not ignorant. And I consider all but the certain portions of Akira and GITM unwatchable. ) -
On the Interpretation of Art, Literature, and Myth
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ART, LITERATURE AND MYTH. (My formal training is in art criticism, and my first philosophical work was on aesthetics – and I can criticize all art from all cultures at every single period in human history in detail that is so painful you can’t imagine. If you think I’m annoyingly precise about economics, law, and logic do you think I am less so about Aesthetics? To say one cannot obtain value from something, or one can obtain value from something, is very different from saying that all values one obtains are good, or that objectively better art and literature objectively contain better collections of objects, relations, and values. And that is to say that the consumption of inferior art, literature, and myth, represents a loss of opportunity to consume superior art, literature, and myth, and therefore superior objects, relations, and values.Chinese art demonstrates a hatred of man and the human form. Japanese are attempts to circumvent the effeminacy of asian forms. All thier costuming is an attempt to make excuses for their lack and depth of masculine maturity. I mean their is a reason we use half naked super warriors and they use giant robot armor, or dolled-up clothing to make themselves look more substantive. Compare it to German art where everyone has a bloody wound in him, or greek, roman, and european art that lionize the human form, the human mind, and human achievements. The fact that we no longer produce a Howard (who was gay), a Heinlein, Johnny Quest or the first year of Star Trek, or even very good science fiction, is in fact because of the Jewish censorship in hollywood. Sure. (Whether Intentional or cultural or genetic). We still seem to be able to get away with horror although the jewish cultural mafia is working against that also. But the answer is what it is. I do not err. I am not ignorant. And I consider all but the certain portions of Akira and GITM unwatchable. ) -
Grow Up. There Is Only One Truthful Language
YEAH. GROW UP. THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTHFUL LANGUAGE. Yeah, I understand that religion and occult, and psychologism, and this kind of literary version of ‘numerology’ is helpful to some people but it’s all nonsense. All words are excuses. People act according to costs, assets, opportunities, and incentives. Whatever words they make up to make excuses for choosing among them is just more Egyptian/babylonian/semitic/hindu drivel.If you can’t say it from the chinese philosophers, you can’t say it reasonably. If you can’t say it from the western philosophers and lawyers you can’t say it rationally, and If you can’t say it from the western scientists you can’t say it truthfully. The ‘middle earth’ f-ckers have been a cancer on humanity forever. They still are. The cancer survives. It survives in fictionalism in its occult, religious, psychological, pseudo-rational, and pseudo-scientific forms. All conflation may provide meaning at the cost of deception and the manufacture of further ignorance. Deflation is more costly but provides truth and it is with truth we defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, distance, and sarcity. -
Grow Up. There Is Only One Truthful Language
YEAH. GROW UP. THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTHFUL LANGUAGE. Yeah, I understand that religion and occult, and psychologism, and this kind of literary version of ‘numerology’ is helpful to some people but it’s all nonsense. All words are excuses. People act according to costs, assets, opportunities, and incentives. Whatever words they make up to make excuses for choosing among them is just more Egyptian/babylonian/semitic/hindu drivel.If you can’t say it from the chinese philosophers, you can’t say it reasonably. If you can’t say it from the western philosophers and lawyers you can’t say it rationally, and If you can’t say it from the western scientists you can’t say it truthfully. The ‘middle earth’ f-ckers have been a cancer on humanity forever. They still are. The cancer survives. It survives in fictionalism in its occult, religious, psychological, pseudo-rational, and pseudo-scientific forms. All conflation may provide meaning at the cost of deception and the manufacture of further ignorance. Deflation is more costly but provides truth and it is with truth we defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, distance, and sarcity. -
Religion Via-Negativa
RELIGION VIA NEGATIVA So, when you say ‘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 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. Curt Doolittle