There are some changes in the general site issues. Firstly, I have a new blog that is quite technical, and low traffic — Darkness Talks. It consists of a series of discussions around the technical issues around writing presentations in HTML5 primarily using struts. I have also played with the fonts, making the front page very simple — using a version of simple black called simple orange.
Secondly, I’ve added Old Life to the blogroll under Kirk — thanks to Will S for the link.
Thirdly, I have been called prescient, which is frankly embarrassing.
I have never been much of a joiner, but it appears that on at least one blogroll I am now part of the “Dark Enlightenment”. Over at Dark Brightness (the name of the blog is older than the term “Dark Enlightenment” but seems curiously appropriate and prescient). It is a good blog and repays study.
Now for some quotage. Firstly, this world functions from a Gnostic position.
Millennials, of course, assume these things as basic. They’ve been bombarded with sophisticated, demographically targeted ads to which, I’m told, they’ve developed an equally sophisticated filter. Indeed, my experience tells me that Millennials have been conditioned to be skeptical about all mass messages, whether ads or lectures. In their world, nothing really counts unless it is delivered personally, in the form of a text message to their phone. I haven’t figured out how to send my lectures in the form a text message and I’m reasonably sure it isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
They’ve been so bombard at the very same time they’ve been told (and apparently persuaded) that the world around them is an arbitrary social construct. They probably know intuitively that food doesn’t just appear in the market but, in their experience, it does. Yet, paradoxically, they some of them are foodies” of some sort. Their practical alienation from nature and their theoretical rejection of the idea of nature—any such thing as nature or fixity or what Ken Myers calls “giveneness”—means that they regard claims about what is “natural” as arbitrary and thinly disguised, illegitimate attempts to wield authority.
These factors and others contribute to a kind of Gnosticism: skepticism about sense experience. The real is the screen and the screen is real, which, paradoxically requires them to believe their eyes. Perhaps we should speak of a selective skepticism. Because their skepticism is incomplete, they are minded to believe that there is secret knowledge “out there” somewhere (e.g., an unwritten apostolic tradition). Some of them seem content to rest on implicit faith, a trust that authorities whom they don’t know have possession of what they themselves do not and probably cannot know. This is part of the attraction of Orthodoxy and Romanism to evangelicals. Epistemic skepticism produces despair and the only way out seems to be blind, implicit faith in the Roman magisterium or in an exotic Orthodox tradition and metropolitan. This is combined with a deep-seated belief in autonomy, which they exercise in choosing which claimant to “apostolic tradition” they are, paradoxically, autonomously choosing going to trust.
Neoreactionaries are young nerdy fellows who go up into the attic and larp about in grandpa’s clothes. They read Carlyle and Evola and Nietzsche and talk about antiegalitarianism and transhumanism and “human biodiversity” (racism). As with grandpa’s clothes, it’s all a poor fit for them because they haven’t done the hard work of understanding the context of their own complaints. Rather, they consume outdated philosophy along with their own cudlike blogs and tweets until what they are eating is indistinguishable from what they are excreting. This is basically how all Internet cultures operate, but moreso for neoreactionaries because when you start name-dropping guys like Evola the crowd really thins out (justifiably).
Why are they into all this esoterica? The modern world scares and disturbs them, they don’t understand it at all, and they have what you could call a lot of “indoor time”. Their neoreactionaryism is a soothing defensive posture, functioning much as a hugbox does for autists–they shut out the difficult chaos of argument and bickering of politics and shut themselves in with the firm authority of misfit philosophers who write in a clear, elegant manner.
I’ve already told you more of substance about them than you’ll get from the media, which treats them as a new exotic flavor of Internet sperg. For the media, it’s just something to read about while you’re waiting for everyone to get back from lunch. Neoreactionaries think this is their breakout moment, but it’s really just the moment when everyone agrees what to label this strange group of nerd.
Well, I think Uldopho misses the point as much as Moldbug does. The modern Cathedral (Yes, Uldopho, I am using the terminology of the Moldy, because it is useful. But we need to look at a different approach, and here is where postmodernism has fallen over. It has fallen into the error of Lysenko: that by some mere act of will you can make things so. You do not need to find the truth, but can live with lies.
And this misses a couple of points. The first is that we have biological limitations. Men cannot have babies. We will all die. Nature often makes things difficult and risky. We cannot divorce ourselves from nature, nor conquer it. Therefore the argument from nature is real and recognizable and valid. Therefore one should consider the traditions of society and reform them circumspectly, for they have a function. In itself, one does not need to be of faith to deal with this: I could make an argument that tradition is merely the result of mimetic evolution (or survival of the fittest memes). This is conservatism, and this cannot be rejected, as the Gnostics and Sophists do, as either the mutterings of those in the Asperger’s spectrum or hurtful (and thus illicit) speech.
Bruce Charlton recognizes that the West’s basic problem is spiritual sickness, not a lack of clear thinking. What we need most is not more theoretical explanations of how the problem originated and developed, although these have their place. No, what the West needs most is repentance from liberalism, or whatever you choose to call the current World System. And therefore the traditionalist is doing his best service for the cause when he calls on men and women to repent of their liberalism, and when he calls on his fellow traditionalists to call for repentance.
Dr. Charlton also recognizes that the call for repentance is not made in isolation. He knows that we must give our fellow man reasons to repent, and a hope to which he can turn.
Pointing these out is what Dr. Charlton is best at, and what he is best at just happens to be what we need most
Now a quick word about Calvinism before the next bit. Calvin would argue that his systematic theology falls naturally out of that of Augustine: the only novelty he brings is a careful examination of each text in his commentary from the Greek and Hebrew. Many would argue this is not the case, and the besetting sin of Calvinists is a false certainty of their salvation. However, I would (and I am reformed) argue that calvinists are not mean, they are humble. It’s around one of those logical conclusions: we are doubly damned — firstly because death entered this world at the fall, and no man can be righteous and secondly because we know we have broken the law more times than we can count. The Calvinist Churchian tends to antinominalism — thinking that since he or she has been saved he can do anything. Which is a clear error.
Though the Reformed faith in reality teaches that nobody can or will believe the gospel apart from the effectual call, Rishmawy accuses Reformed people of thinking the truth of the gospel will be obvious to the unregenerate.. Instead of looking to a supernatural work of God in our minds to know the truth, Rishmahy congratulates himself for
reading a lot of books and doing a lot of hard work before he overcame the vestiges of creationism and dispensationalism and becoming “Reformed”Now he is showing what a great Christian be is by being judgmental and impatient with “insular” folks (thank god he’s not like them) and by being “gracious” toward the lazy people who won’t do the work he did or who simply don’t have the intellectual equipment he had….
Let’s. Who’s the “us”?
First, Rishmahy is defending the five Arminian points as a less consistent and less mature expression of the gospel.
Second, Rishmahy views all evangelicals as Christians who will be more apt to listen to “us” if we agree up-front that we are all Christians. Liberalism is not Christianity, but liberals are Christians.
Third, he sees the Reformed faith as fixated on artificially rigid doctrinal hair- splitting which sacrifices the lives of people on the altar of being right, or values winning an argument about “truth” over showing love.
His conclusion: Roman Catholics and Arminians are true Christians who mean well and are a little confused, but confessional Reformed are mean people who don’t know that God’s grace is best seen when that grace is given to those who either deny grace or are ignorant of grace. Don’t ask and don’t tell and God’s grace will operate apart from knowledge….
Now, what does leave us to do? Well, SSM has her list of things that may help… and these break basically all the assumptions that the modern, effete churchians have.
1. Repeal all affirmative action laws and policies.
Why: Affirmative action sets up fake egalitarianism based on the assumption that, if women are not present in a given field or earning as much money as men, it must be due to discrimination, when in fact it is due to women’s preferences and innate abilities, which are distinctly different from men’s. Promoting less-capable women inhibits men’s ability to earn sufficient income to support a family.
2. Eliminate over-reaching domestic abuse legislation. There should also be no more relying on a woman’s word; rather, there should be clear cut evidence of physical violence (black eye, bruise, cut, burn) before a man is arrested.
Why: Outside of cases of actual physical abuse, women mostly use these laws to rebel against male authority. However, in order for men to protect their families and communities, they need the cooperation and obedience of the women under their protection. Additionally, a man cannot lead a family if he has no authority over that family, including the authority to mete out discipline as needed for the purpose of maintaining an orderly home. Refusing to buy a rebellious wife a new dishwasher is not abuse. Telling your wife to quit being so bitchy is not abuse. Restraining a wife who is trying to hit you is not abuse. Losing your temper and yelling at your wife, though foolish, is also not abuse.
3. Repeal marital rape laws – not because men are just dying to rape women (they aren’t) but because these laws give women the mistaken impression that they have the right to refuse sex with their husbands.
Why: If we want men to have to marry in order to have access to sex – which is necessary if we are going to foster traditional sex roles and enhance family formation – they must have assurance that they will actually get sex after they marry. If a woman wants to live in a man’s house and eat of his bread, she had better be willing to serve him in this way (barring illness of course); if she refuses to give it to him, he should have the option to take what is rightfully his.
4. Make fornication and adultery illegal and punishable offenses.
Why: In order to build a healthy society based on traditional sex roles, we have to lay out a foundation of incentives and disincentives – rewards and punishments. The cheaters have to be punished if you are going to make cheating unattractive enough to keep people from doing it.
5. Remove women from the military, police, and all other first-responder positions.
Why: Protecting the tribe is a male sex role. Not only are women bad at these jobs, but it is demoralizing to men to have to deal with women in this capacity. It also puts an extra burden on the woman’s male colleagues, who will have a natural desire to protect her.
6. Outlaw divorce or make make divorce extremely difficult to obtain, available only in cases of long-term abandonment or severe physical abuse.
Why: Divorce is the destruction of the family. Presently women file for the majority of divorces because they have a financial incentive to do so in the form of alimony and child support, but even if we removed these incentives, divorce would still be the destruction of the family. The entire reason to promote traditional sex roles is to encourage family formation, and anything that leads to family destruction should be seriously curtailed.
7. End all forms of welfare immediately. Kin should take care of kin. Community- and church-based charity will take care of those who are in need of assistance but do not have family to rely on.
Why: Welfare represents resource redistribution primarily from men to women, making men collectively responsible for women over whom they have no authority. This gives women the mistaken belief that they are somehow able to be “independent” of men; the result is that women eschew their natural sex roles.
8. Decriminalize polygyny, by which I mean make it not illegal for men to be legally married to more than one woman.*
Why: This will be beneficial because a wife who is not living up to her traditional feminine duties will soon find herself having to share her husband’s resources with another woman. Most men won’t want the hassle of supporting two wives if they’re getting what they want and need from one wife, so women will have an incentive to provide what their husbands want and need. This would also improve the quality of men, who would have to compete with one another for access to wives.
*[This (probably) violates tenets of the Christian faith, but that is irrelevant since no man will be forced to have more than one wife, only allowed to have more than one wife. Christian men can simply choose to follow their faith on this matter.]
9. Allow for sex segregation in both the public and private spheres. Allow boys and girls to be educated separately and allow all-male and all-female social and work spaces to exist for those who desire them.
Why: It is very difficult for men and women not to have spaces where they interact with other members of their own sex without having to worry about how they are being viewed by the opposite sex. In particular, all-male spaces seem to be important for the development of masculinity. Furthermore, women who spend a great deal of time around men tend to become unfeminine in behavior.
10. Repeal the Nineteenth amendment. Do not permit women to vote at the national or state level; permit land-owning female heads of household to vote at the local level.
Why: Women tend to vote for the redistributionist policies that promote artificial egalitarianism and the abandonment of traditional sex roles.
One of the things I do when other sites go down is copy (acquire, steal) the posts I most like and keep the text. Because what SSM is saying was said by Alte about three years ago, but she added the other part that is needed. We cannot compromise with this world.
If there is one thing the feminists have taught us, it is that you should always “go for broke” if you want to change minds, save souls or…overthrow a dominant ideology. By all means, use a moderate and reasonable tone to promote extreme and radical ideas. Feign academic disinterest if the battle is most precious to you.
Tone aside, you need to be radical and extreme in your actual argument. It is only by claiming a stake outside of the normal “moderate” boundaries that you can pull the center of political gravity in your direction. The extremes determine the center. The further out your claim, the further you can pull the center in your direction. The leftward-extreme has already been set, so we must now pull rightward all the more energetically.
For this reason, I do not actively promote the reform of our present government (although I actively support it), as I do not consider it reformable. The political center is so far to the left that only a full-scale economic collapse will facilitate a true, wide-ranging reform. What traditionalists can do now is to make the unspeakable speakable, to make the immoderate sound moderate, to make the far-right the center-right, by shifting the center and establishing a new extreme.
That is which not sustainable, that which requires the full apparatus of the state to continue, will not. You can keep a lie going for decades — but that will destroy your society: you will either bleed it white by killing to purify your ideology or the money will run out. Or you will be invaded. Or all three. That is the lesson of last century. That road is well signposted.
Do not go down it. Each vote against the progressive project, each time you refuse to support them, or do not comply, or live as you ought not as you are told, is a small act of enlightenment. For this age is dark, and what Uldolpho deigned as spergs are akin to the cybernetic monastory — keeping the truth said, when all want it silenced.
