Goddamned

That’s roughly Gregory Hood’s title, for an article making the case for a return to paganism. As his point of departure, Hood examines, unflinchingly, the indications of an Occidental desire for enslavement or destruction by Islam. “It’s a kind of ethical exhaustion — liberal Whites are weary of the moral responsibility of existence and survival.” (The diagnosis seems hideously plausible to me.)

Islam is Nature’s solution. Like the Architect from The Matrix Reloaded, it is Nature’s way of saying that “There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept.” It is stultifying, depressing, and tyrannical. It is an enemy of real culture, with the most militant variations smashing the tombs and shrines not only of other religious traditions, but of their own. Modern Wahhabism is funded by Western decadence, enabled by Western weakness, in many ways a product of Western postmodernism and self-hatred. […] And lest what I say be misunderstood, it is obviously, laughably, and comically false. It is sustained by the protective cordon it has created around criticism. Yet believing that a pedophiliac illiterate transcribed the literal word of God still makes more sense than believing all men are created equal. Islam’s refusal to allow critical analysis of itself is a sign of strength, not weakness.

Islam is the first term in Hood’s tetralemma. It’s the executioners blade for a civilization that has lost all cosmic purchase upon existence. A disgusting way to die, begged for by the broken, in the end (which is already) — because at least it’s a way to die.

The remaining three terms entertained by Hood are the “god of our grandfathers, the White Christ upon whose image the West was built” which “is dying”, faithless liberalism (including modern Christianity), and paganism. Among these options, he declares, “The Old Gods are my own choice.”

Much of this analysis — down to its grimmest conclusions — is highly compelling, even when abstracted from the flow of Hood’s vigorous prose. The proposed remedy, however, is by far its weakest component.

To make a choice among Gods, is that not the final expression of liberalism, and therefore of degenerated Christianity? If we have learnt anything from the manifold failures of multiculturalism, it is that religious freedom is downstream of religion. ‘Freedom of conscience’ lies at the furthest remove from a genuinely secular conception, if any such thing is even possible. If it now seems imaginable to shop for different gods, it is because of the way a distinctive religious tradition has worked out. If political considerations seem to occupy a position of meta-religious authority, the descent has been deeper still. Choice is internal to religion, even if the decayed image of religion serves to obscure this fundamental fact. Contemporary Occidental paganism remains dissident Christianity. There is no decision that could alter that.

As Hood himself states: The very fact that I frame this identity as a “choice” is itself proof of decadence — a vibrant metaphysics simply is and has nothing to do with a rational actor listing pros and cons. Ironically, those who profess the Old Gods are weakened because what they profess is so obviously new and a product of innovation and modernity. Few would even call it a real faith that actually expresses literal belief in personalized divinities. […] The new pagan cults that preach fanaticism and virility owe too much to reason and deconstruction.

A God that is not the very principle of destiny is no God at all. Are we, then, destined to rediscover the Old North European Gods? The impossibility of answering such a question with confident affirmation says everything necessary about it. The Old Gods manifestly failed against the challenge of the new One. There is no reason at all to suspect that this outcome has been rescinded by the subsequent calamities befalling the new faith.

Religions are providential. They are units of fate. The claims they make far exceed rational controversy or personal decision, in the abyss of their decadence no less than at the apex of their flourishing. If Christian Modernity is a process of escalating nihilism, as Nietzsche conceived it to be, it is nevertheless a road without turn-offs, that can only be followed to the end.

ADDED: Second long (italicized) quote has been grafted in, thanks to Irving (in comments below), who pointed out its clearly indispensable relevance to the topic. Just in case it is not already obvious, the Hood essay is a superbly crafted masterpiece — its quality only enhanced by its supple self-ironization. It deserves to be a landmark reference whenever this question re-arises, as it will continually do.

November 19, 2014admin 79 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , ,

79 Responses to this entry

  • Irving Says:

    Is it not the case, though, that Hood recognizes this, that “To make a choice among Gods, is that not the final expression of liberalism, and therefore of degenerated Christianity?, when he writes, “The very fact that I frame this identity as a “choice” is itself proof of decadence–a vibrant metaphysics simply is and has nothing to do with a rational actor listing pros and cons. Ironically, those who profess the Old Gods are weakened because what they profess is so obviously new and a product of innovation and modernity. Few would even call it a real faith that actually expresses literal belief in personalized divinities.”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Yes. I have to graft that in. Thanks.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 3:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    Islam is occidental, it is the distilled essence of occidental obstinacy.

    [Reply]

    R. Reply:

    Is it not rather a distillate of narcissism ? Te only thing more narcissistic than claiming to be God’s messenger is claiming to be God himself.

    And Allah, like the God of the old testament is a monumental, jealous and capricious asshole.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Islam being “occidental” or “Western” is due to cultural geography. If you wish to deepen “obstinacy” into psychological theories of narcissism, that could be productive, but it doesn’t alter geographic emergence.
    Apotheosis, in it itself, is not necessarily narcissistic at all: it all depends on the kind of god that is produced.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 3:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • First Bayes Says:

    “If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you” – future generations will misattribute Genghis Khan’s quote to ISIS or Al Qaeda.

    Regarding your analysis, the only God that fits would be the Singularity, as preached by Kurzweil et al. Deus ex machina and all.. If not that, then NRX must try and synthesize a God out of thin air, since all the rest that have gone before us have failed us so badly. Cthulu is just an intellectually slothful default

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    To “synthesize a God out of thin air” is an ultimately absurd temptation to be determinedly resisted.

    [Reply]

    First Bayes Reply:

    It will be done by the progs soon enough. The only thing NRx can do is get there first and have a say in how it comes about.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    There is no God.

    There is only Gnon.

    God is dead.

    Gnon killed him.

    Wen Shuang Reply:

    I don’t get what you think NRX is, then. There is “regard Gnon”. That’s all you can do. It’s not a creative act.

    It seems to me that Hood’s model doesn’t take Catholic Orthodoxy seriously enough, though. Perhaps what’s dying is the reformation.

    @Hurlock, I don’t see how your post makes sense. Conceptually and pragmatically, the whole point of Gnon is epoche.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Why?
    When God is dead but you recognize the utility of tradition built around religion, ceremony, and literal belief wouldn’t that make sense? The masses need to worship something, they’re incapable of not worshiping anything, so shouldn’t we have a seat at the table to at least deprive the populists of a powerful weapon.

    [Reply]

    John Reply:

    I think what admin is getting at is that gods are born, not made. A god is not devised by a group of intellectuals moping around some internet backwater, it is birthed from the subconscious and delivered through the prophet.

    Any attempt to contrive a new god based on our conception of what a god should be, lacking the heft of the subconscious, would be impotent. You’d be better off taking a mega-dose of LSD and seeing what shows up.

    [Reply]

    Butch Leghon Reply:

    Spot on, John.

    R. Reply:

    Is it not obscurantism, claiming that the subconscious is impossible to be exploited in a rational manner?

    Alrenous Reply:

    I exploit my subconscious in a rational manner. The question has been settled empirically.

    Actually it’s more like being friends with it, but close enough. We exploit each other.

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    I would say that it is possible to exploit the subconscious in a rational manner, but that one has to distinguish between being “rational” and having adequate analysis tools. Designing a good religion is going to require a great deal of trial and error.

    “In God we trust. All others, show me your test data.” — aerospace engineer’s saying

    “Everyone believes a test except the test engineer. No one believes an analysis except the analyst.”
    — Pedro Chou

    A short homily on “Epistemology for Engineers”:
    http://home.earthlink.net/~peter.a.taylor/ccg-notes.htm#epistemology

    R. Reply:

    So you claim it’s impossible to intelligently design a catchy religion?

    One has to be deluded to start a successful one?

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 3:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    Like Irving above, we should probably recognize that Hood himself is at least somewhat aware of these problems.

    Now, I realize that there was, at one time, a silly academic cult of Marshall McLuhan, and I don’t want to resurrect that — but his whole point about how people get their information, and how that affects their thinking, seems kind of salient. When pagans looked at the ocean, they didn’t go through a difficult thought process where they would see the ocean as the byproduct of a god called Poseidon, with whom maybe one guy identified because he had vague and abstract “watery” qualities or whatever. They would look at the ocean and say, “Oh, that’s Poseidon.” There wasn’t a long string of logical antecedents that they would go through to make such a conclusion. I think that this sort of thinking can only occur with a group of people who haven’t discovered the technology of writing — it only works when every sense-perception you have is immediate and direct, not filtered through a series of analytical screens in your brain that you developed from reading things.

    When guys like Plotinus showed up, they had no choice but to gravitate toward a strained form of monotheism, and they invented very complex ways of demonstrating that all of the pagan Gods represent mere components of the overarching Monad. To throw away these sorts of notions and try really, really, really hard to find some “Old Gods” and then only identify with one or two strikes me as a vain thought exercise which wouldn’t produce much of anything too valuable (that is, if one were to take it seriously — and I don’t really think anyone does).

    [Reply]

    Wen Shuang Reply:

    Excellent point and I think I agree. It’s not just McLuhan- Jack Goody posits just this type of causal mechanism.

    I suspect you are correct also re: vain exercise. Hood’s call would likely result in a pagan version of Krsna Consciousness in terms of productivity.

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    Yes, I’m definitely thinking along the lines of Goody, Eric Havelock, Walter Ong, etc. I just figured McLuhan was the most recognizable name.

    Not that I agree with their hardcore technological determinism, but that school of thought definitely helps one make sense of philosophical/religious history.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 4:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Says:

    I think some sort of techno-capitalist machine super-intelligent AI god is far more likely than a return to paganism.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The credibility level certainly seems higher.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 4:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    Stupid men construct stupid gods.

    “Ah, I cast indeed my net into their sea, and meant to catch good fish; but always I did draw up the head of some ancient god.” Nietzsche, as quoted by Robert Shecley, in DIMENSION OF MIRACLES, 1968

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    What is NRx’s obsession with Gnon and AI?

    In simple terms, could it be the expression of pseudo-intellectuals (who consider subjugation to another human as beneath them, yet are “clearly too intelligent” to believe in a “flying-spaghetti monster”) desperate attempt to create “deus ex machina” (with data, lots of lots of precious data) and allow themselves to finally get back on their knees with a good conscience?

    All the more comical when admin finds “the indications of an Occidental desire for enslavement or destruction by Islam” “hideously plausible.”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Getting down on your knees before Gnon is entirely pointless to all concerned. Or maybe you think it’s worth begging Natural Selection to stop being so mean?

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Intentional misreading?

    Simplified sentence with the missed apostrophe…

    Could it be the expression of pseudo-intellectuals’ desperate attempt to create “deus ex machina” and allow themselves to finally get back on their knees with a good conscience?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If a misreading, I can assure you it’s entirely unintentional. You seem to be equating the recognition of something bigger than ourselves with getting “down on our knees”. That strikes me as ludicrous. Are you down on your knees before the scale of the universe? Just because we’re pitiably stupid apes, doesn’t mean we have to get pointlessly abject about it.

    Gnon means begging is useless. Might as well throw away the knee-pads for good.

    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 4:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    I endorse this post 100%.

    It’s basically identifying an is-ought problem. What you believe is not the same as what you ought to believe.

    I personally believe that a revitalized Christianity would be good for the West, but that’s downstream of my faith in the Lord God of Hosts.

    The end result of this line of investigation is Spengler’s Second Religiosity. When all your alternatives are exhausted, you return to the original faith, because, well, there it is.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 5:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    NRx seems to always want to become a non-theistic religion (or philosophy, if you prefer) of self-cultivation, so why not just let it happen? No new revelations are coming, since only the mad speak to God nowadays. The Catholic Church appears to be uninterested in saving Western civilisation. The only thing Westerner’s now accept as unquestionably immutable are the forces of Nature, so the key is to extend those forces to the human realm. The model of self-cultivation is the only alternative to revelation when it comes to founding a new tradition. Moreover, self-cultivation is obviously a choice and religions of self-cultivation are generally the result of people setting off on a self-conscious path of self-cultivation and then founding a school of thought. Clearly the conditions are right for Westerner’s to develop a non-theistic religion of self-cultivation.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Scientism — Yes … exactly … I agree with this. Buddhism is essentially, at its core, just such a self-conscious path of self-cultivation. That’s why it has been gaining traction in the west. There is an interesting book floating around, “A Course in Miracles” which was written about 45 years ago and is a merger of Christianity and Buddhism. It has spawned a wide follower network of people who try to put its tenets into play. I was just at a week-long retreat based around this and it was very inspiring. The other attendees represented all four main psychological types: NTs, NFs, SPs and SJs.

    Gnon himself is pro-spirituality in some sense, and spirituality has always been merged with Telos to one degree or another. I don’t see why that same combo isn’t available to modern man. We just don’t try hard enough to make it happen because computers etc are fun distractions. But the old path of meditation plus communal prayer and discussion is still open to those who choose them.

    [Reply]

    John Reply:

    > “But the old path of meditation plus communal prayer and discussion is still open to those who choose them.”

    ‘Those who chose them’ being the operative phrase. The path of self cultivation has always been for the elite. You see this in Buddhist and Taoist traditions, with adepts practicing cultivation, and petty gods and rituals created for the peasantry, who do not cultivate. In most Buddhist countries meditation is known as “something monks do” and the average lay person can hardly fathom why westerners are so interested in it.

    I’m a big proponent of self cultivation and truly hope it continues catching on in the West, but it will never be for the masses. Ideally though, it could produce of new class spiritual elites. The second aspect needed is the peasant oriented religion that conditions them to follow the lead of the elites.

    That brings us to another issue though, which is that, if you’ve been to any western Buddhist center, it is incredibly clear that they are the leftest of the left. So you have those who are inclined toward cultivation being recruited and indoctrinated by the left from day one.

    [Reply]

    scientism Reply:

    I think Confucianism offers a good model. First of all, performing ritual is included in self-cultivation, so there’s an uninterrupted continuum between elite and mass practice (whereas Buddhism sees ritual as vulgar). Secondly, meritocracy and the examination system encouraged self-cultivation at all levels, since it was the main means of gaining status in society (I also think this is the best way to maintain a state religion; require competence in it for state positions, rather than persecute other religions). Of course, this was possible because self-cultivation was oriented towards learning, rather than meditation. Classical Confucianism was also explicitly anti-egaliatarian.

    Kgaard Reply:

    John … Yes these are sound criticisms. I was thinking myself that this whole self-cultivation thing only works for those for whom it is of interest. For everyone else (80%+) there is single mommyhood (for women), lots of porn and video games (for men) and despair, thuggery and Ritalin (for kids).

    Western civ really can’t survive in its current form without a top-down patriarchal religion. That’s the only thing that keeps hot, fertile women tucked inside marriage. (Well, let’s say 25-40% of said women have the self-discipline to stay inside marriage. The point still stands — decay is the order of the day.)

    Ansible Reply:

    Buddhism is great at telling you what to let go of, very very bad at telling you what to hold onto. Notice that a virile, patriarchal Christianity conquered the world, whereas there is no such thing as a virile, patriarchal Buddhism. If not for whitey’s pathological altruism…

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    A thousand years from now, they will be saying Christianity burnt itself out while Buddhism endured.

    Neither material power nor material survival are good tests of a religion’s virtue.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Measuring a religion’s virtue. Others might measure it’s utility.

    I wonder what the split looks like between those who see religion as an end unto itself and those that see it purely as a means to an end. Probably has a lot to do with how much overlap exists between people’s personal philosophy and spirituality. Mine don’t overlap much since I regard spiritual truth as entirely unknowable short of direct revelation (the moment of my apostasy) so I stopped seeking it out.

    I don’t see the difference between mental and spiritual fulfillment, it seems like ordinary self actualization, sometimes with the added bonus of reassurance about the unknown. Or am I just confusing myself since I’m a materialist and spirituality is the domain of dualism. I feel like I’m overlooking something.

    John Reply:

    ”A thousand years from now, they will be saying Christianity burnt itself out while Buddhism endured.”

    2000 years and still going.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    The times are right for it. This was about the stage when elite Romans started going for Stoicism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 5:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • ofaodhagain Says:

    A religion—or preferably a Weltanschauung—is a blueprint for how to live. What’s now called Paganism was forged via Darwinian forces over the course of a hundred millennia.

    Christians make the same mistake that Marxists and Existentialists make, that you can throw away thousands of years of wisdom with no consequences.

    One fatal conceit that many thinkers on this side of neo-Reaction make is to worship the God of Infinite Progress. But governments around the world are weak, unstable, and imploding. The United States and the European Union are held together with duck tape, drones, and cancerous waves of paper and digital money. When they fall, we’ll be struggling to feed ourselves in the ensuing Malthusian catastrophe.

    You can call her many names—reality, Gnon, the norns, Brahman. But anyone who fails to worship at the altar of Mother Nature is a fool. She’s a cold-hearted bitch.

    [Reply]

    Porphy's Attorney Reply:

    The thing is that paganism was “thrown away” by the pagans themselves, inevitably, once it became widespread that no one really believed in its gods/cosmology. No one took it seriously, even as “accumulated wisdom” – and certainly not modern neo-pagans who really do not know or care much about the actual details of the “thousands of years of [pagan] wisdom [or whatever], since they actually do not take the actual details of the paganist mythos seriously either, except instrumentally.

    They claim (perhaps correctly) that postmodern Christianity at least as it has unfolded has left both a spiritual void and led to civilizational degeneration – but they somehow think paganism was innocent of that, without questioning why it had become a spiritual void that degenerating, leaving an openening for faiths that did have conviction in their theologies, at least at the time the displacement took place.

    At their best they’re pale-imitation postmodern Julians trying to revive a paganism that, like him, they do not really believe is real, and thus they will be exactly as successful. Or probably less so since they’re even more distant from even the remnants of the forms they’re trying to artificially create (he was trying to artificially sustain forms that were already empty of much content or sincere belief among the clerisy of those pagan faiths).

    It’s as dessicated as any secularized ecumenical postmillenialism; it is no alternative to modernity, it just is a misguided instrumental-utility/rationality dead-end.

    [Reply]

    Porphy's Attorney Reply:

    P.S. “Gnon” though a useful heuristic for god or nature’s god is NOT EQUAL to paganism or even neopaganism.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Quite.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 5:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Says:

    The un-noted trouble here is that Christianity is a cosmological ratchet. It is even an ontological and epistemological ratchet. Even the Jews, who didn’t believe, had their religion changed in reaction to it, and so were shaped by it. Islam is a heresy of Nestorian Christianity (itself a heresy.) Modern Hinduism is influenced by many centuries of Christianity. Shinto is mixed with zen Buddhism, itself mixed with Hinduism. We may discover later on more occult influences of it, everywhere.

    I understand why Nietzsche and many atheists hate God so much. As David put it, “If I make my bed in hell, there you will be.”

    The descent into nihilism is not strange – it is a Great Apostasy. It must needs happen.

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    Yep, it’s in the script. Some years ago I had a conversation with an Israeli rabbi, a follower of Avraham Yitzchak Kook, who argued that the Church’s institutional corruption and cultural marginalisation proved that the Christians lacked the mandate of heaven. Jewish cultural dominance (which he described in terms any anti-semite would recognise) showed that God was on the side of the rabbinites. He seemed nonplussed when I pointed out that the eclipse of Christianity has always been essential to Christianity’s understanding of history.

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    There’s something to the Progressive aversion to literal Theocracies and Paul’s description of the Man of sin being a SPECIFIC and CLEAR god-priest-king. It’s like there really is only one script, with a huge swath of wiggle room for implementation.

    Of course the Jews don’t get this. They INTENTIONALLY don’t get Christianity. Their whole modern religion is shaped by this drive. It also seems like the modern neopaganisms are as well.

    Nietzsche seems to come close to overturning it but reading him as an Orthodox Christian is just like, ‘ok, we don’t like Lutheranism either, bro. We had this discussion four centuries earlier.’

    In other words, Nietzsche is just WORSE in terms of being a philosophy wholly shaped by Christianity because it tries to oppose it on EVERY POINT and is therefore exactly like it in shape, but reversed.

    The only thing that saves him is the fact that he doesn’t understand Christian Traditionalism, and so in trying to be a heretic from Christianity, arrives at something closer to a genuine Christian-baptized-pagan base worldview.

    I could go point-by-point through Thus Spake to show how he is simply re-inventing the wheel. Zoroastrianism was already baptized into Christian thought long before he was the twinkling in the eye of his dad.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 6:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    Best comment on the Radix site:

    … why not just convert to Judaism?

    [Reply]

    Hanfeizi Reply:

    Probably the most sensible thing anybody on there said, really. Why not?

    (Honestly, it’s because it’s an ethnic religion- you can start going to a synagogue and go through the conversion process, but you’re never gonna really be a Jew. Otherwise I’d have done it years ago.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 7:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nyan Sandwich Says:

    There is exactly one god, and it is Gnon.

    We don’t need a God, though, we need a living pro-civilization tradition with rituals and rules. These seem to be historically associated with Gods and other esoterica, but let’s be clear which is the important part.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Perhaps your phalanx groups could be encouraged to develop their own local rituals and rules, see what develops. Would even that be too artificial to birth a genuine spirituality?

    I concur John’s sentiment that spirituality for the elite is focused on self cultivation while spirituality for the masses requires a focus of worship.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    “Christianity is essentially a social religion and that to turn it into a solitary religion is indeed to destroy it.” — John Wesley

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    That’s rich. You’re asking for something that’s alive but calling the heart and the lungs esoterica.

    [Reply]

    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    Most living things have hearts and lungs. Acquiring a heart and lungs will not help you create life.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [Lesser Bull]: “That’s rich. You’re asking for something that’s alive but calling the heart and the lungs esoterica.”

    {AK} LOL! Well said!
    You can’t fake these things.
    There’s a quote somewhere, from T.R.V. Murti , that says essentially the same thing as an earlier comment:

    [John Reply:
    November 19th, 2014 at 5:57 pm

    I think what admin is getting at is that gods are born, not made. A god is not devised by a group of intellectuals moping around some internet backwater, it is birthed from the subconscious and delivered through the prophet.

    Any attempt to contrive a new god based on our conception of what a god should be, lacking the heft of the subconscious, would be impotent. You’d be better off taking a mega-dose of LSD and seeing what shows up.]

    You can play the notes of spirit, so to speak, but a good solo requires much more.

    [Kgaard]: “Western civ really can’t survive in its current form without a top-down patriarchal religion. That’s the only thing that keeps hot, fertile women tucked inside marriage. (Well, let’s say 25-40% of said women have the self-discipline to stay inside marriage. The point still stands — decay is the order of the day.)”

    {AK} You’re essentially confirming that Occidental civilisation is a totalitarian regime. If so, that’s rather difficult to valorise & justify. It seems to me that none of the so called Neoreactionaries have the “guts”, as it were, to face the futures that are inexorably on their way. The real challenge is to survive the changes without becoming despicable. I guess that’s rather hard for those who actually do emanate from traditions that have involved themselves in blatant despicability? Fot them, only a ruthless Darwinian narrative can obtain, it dominates their horizons. They secretly expect what they have visited on others.

    “tucked inside marriage”: Where the husband visits prostitutes?
    If you can’t keep to a contract, why bemoan if others don’t?

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Artxell — Hey I’m with you — I’m not really bemoaning the collapse of western civilization, just stating it clinically as a fact. Western civ is based on subjugation of hot fertile women — i.e. keeping them tucked inside marriage, where they most definitely DON’T want to be. When that collapses, the whole western structure collapses, starting at the roots (i.e. kids). It’s clear as day to me.

    Daniel Amneus laid out the whole situation quite well in his book, “The Garbage Generation” which had a huge impact on me a few years ago when I read it. Here it is for free, with what appears to be a helpful video.

    http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

    What is the proper male response to the rise of matriarchy and concomitant collapse of western civ? That’s a good question. I’m still trying to figure it out. I’ve given up railing against it because I have simply encountered SOOOO many data points corroborating the thesis. We are living in the conceptualization of the sexual world laid out in the 2012 book Sex at Dawn.

    One internally consistent program would be to move to a more agricultural society and adjust one’s reality to a structure that can handle a lot of global logistical stress without cracking. I’m thinking here of Central America, for instance, or rural Peru.

    But that’s just one idea. For now I just do what I always do: Crunch stocks, drink Starbucks, watch movies, travel etc etc. It’s not a bad life. I haven’t signed any marriage papers so I’m not personally on the hook for the societal collapse …

    Kgaard Reply:

    I guess I should clarify: I am not ACTING as if I expect western civ to “really” collapse because I don’t really expect it to in the literal sense. As the economy gets more automated it will be possible for things to function even if the masses are at a lower and lower level of sophistication.

    So, what’s really collapsing is western civilization but western culture. The web of cultural practices designed to optimize the life experience and bring joy. That’s the thing one can’t rely on anymore. Things as simple as going to a restaurant become a chore sometimes because one must tolerate music meant for people with IQs of 75.

    So really the challenge is how to unilaterally structure one’s life optimize the joy in one’s existence in the face of the evidence of cultural decay all around. It’s a challenge but not impossible. Here again the notion of organizing into smaller groups comes to mind. One simply must go 100% Evola and get ruthless in sticking to an aristocratic conceptualization of culture, rejecting all that does not meet one’s personal standards.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [Kgaard] “When that collapses, the whole western structure collapses, starting at the roots (i.e. kids). It’s clear as day to me….Daniel Amneus laid out the whole situation quite well in his book, “The Garbage Generation” which had a huge impact on me a few years ago when I read it. Here it is for free, with what appears to be a helpful video.”

    {AK} Thank you for the book & video, Kgaard.
    I’m not so sure that gender politics & sexuality are quite so central an issue in the general developments you are characterising as cultural “decay”. Yes, they are implicated, & one can see things through the prism of their conceptual economy, but isn’t it more valuable to just see these moments as corollaries of the larger movement of technological modernity, as the video suggests. I could agree that
    subsuming all change under the banner of such “technological modernity”does not constitute an automatic justification, but that need not lead to being reactionary.
    For instance, the video cites the aggrochemical (sic) depredations of, I assume, Monsantos, as an example of ecospheric damage, analogising that with the Pill & its social effects. Any kind of intervention is always going to produce effects: & there is always a tendency to camouflage flagrant & criminal stupidity under the
    banner of “progress”: but criminality is not necessarily an argument against all science, it’s an argument against a system that encourages ruthless profiteering over ecological sensitivity. Putting aside the medical side effects of the contraceptive pill (lol), can we consider it to be a boon to socio-sexual life? Certainly, it offers a pleasure without its natural consequences. But the degree to which it is indulged is the degree to which a user exits from an entire culture based on constraints which it exceeds. The question is whether such a user is genuinely capable, psychologically, emotionally, etc., of such an exit? And, likewise, is a
    community of such users so capable? This, it seems, is problematic.

    [Kgaard] “One simply must go 100% Evola and get ruthless in sticking to an aristocratic conceptualization of culture, rejecting all that does not meet one’s personal standards.”

    {AK} Once one does these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khvaIwonxUk

    Then one can do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWFgaAlZNS8

    Kgaard Reply:

    Ha … love those videos! And perhaps not coincidentally music is a central vehicle for Evola-esque cultivation of high aesthetics. The world’s always been a fallen place, eh? We can respond to it in a quality way. The key is recognizing that we, in fact, SHOULD respond to it in a quality way.

    I see your point on sexuality and birth-control perhaps not being central to the overall neoreactionary dynamics now in play. Gotta mull that over. It certainly FEELS like a central driver, in the sense that so many other things stem from breakdown of the nuclear family, which in turn is largely made possible by foolproof birth control and legalized abortion. Though I also agree with your argument that many good times are had thanks to birth control. Which brings me back to the thesis that we’re living out the basic thesis of Sex at Dawn. This all gets circular pretty fast …

    A.B Prosper Reply:

    I don’t think so. Gnon needs myths like progress and prosperity to survive for long. And yeah sure it can get a feast on the apocalypse, its all seed corn.

    The existing faiths though, especially Islam and Christianity are not as mighty as they seem, Christendom is becoming well something most Christians wouldn’t even recognize, slowly but surely something strange and Afro-Latin.

    Islam is well drowning in its own contradictions and the nature of its adherents.

    Now I’m not sure the Old Gods will return but why not.

    One big core idea from Asatru is

    The world is good. Prosperity is good. Life is good, and we should live it with joy and enthusiasm.We are free to shape our lives to the extent allowed by our skill, courage, and might. There is no predestination, no fatalism, no limitations imposed by the will of any external deity.We do not need salvation. All we need is the freedom to face our destiny with courage and honor.

    This is a powerful antidote to the death and despair cult that makes up much of life.

    There is a caveat, Asatru needs someone or maybe someones who are successful to show that it works. Its founder aside, there are too many hippies and losers to make it attractive.

    A few personable, successful public adherents would be enough to tip the scales.

    However that will not be easy, none of the established centers like the competition and the established sects and ways of thinking are opposed. Its an uphill struggle but again, Christianity managed it so maybe and why not.

    [Reply]

    A very quiet American Reply:

    http://hellopoetry.com/poem/91/cliche-came-out-of-its-cage/

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    That core idea is pretty banal and requires some pretty specific social circumstances to make it work. Christianity and Buddhism both work in circumstances of misery and collapse, which is like, most circumstances everywhere, which is why they got big.

    [Reply]

    Hanfeizi Reply:

    “There is a caveat, Asatru needs someone or maybe someones who are successful to show that it works. Its founder aside, there are too many hippies and losers to make it attractive.

    A few personable, successful public adherents would be enough to tip the scales.”

    It’s going to take a lot more than that. Jung said something about so-called non-Christian religions forming in the West in the 20th century- they’re all really just new Protestant sects. Westernized Buddhism, Yoga, Neopaganism, all really amount to this- it all comes down to the idea of religion as a personal choice and affirmation, not a cultural context.

    The cultural context of Asatru is dead, and it isn’t coming back. Fugghedaboutit.

    [Reply]

    A.B Prosper Reply:

    Spot on about the cultural context

    Old Asatru is long gone but Asatru as practiced today is more in line with the current situations. or at least professed to be. It might not be and I’m not terribly sanguine about its prospects. It just tastes odd if that makes sense to you.

    With modifications it might, might work well in time of trouble though 100% agreed the current ideology is a bit , ah hippy derived

    As far as Christianity, its nearly a toxic meme these days, it might come back in some new form but for the optimum health of European derived peoples it may well need to be banished back to the Middle East where it came from. This speaking as a nominal Christian.

    In theory some kind of robust muscular Medieval style Christianity, Orthodox or something paired with some elements of nature worship , Celtic Orthodox maybe ? might work but again the context is lacking. Also possible is large scale growth in LDS. This seems to work well enough, Salt Lake City has extremely high birth rates and stable families mainly do to LDS values. They clearly work at least in some circumstances,

    heck its also possible we may end up like the Fallout game where some pockets of organized religion exist but most religion is just personal holdovers and highly individualistic

    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 8:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Porphy's Attorney Says:

    One of my problems with the argument he makes is the foundationally utilitarian calculus both Outer Right and even emotive neopagan leftists use in embracing paganism: it isn’t because they believe “the old gods” are real. It isn’t because they find Odin or Zeus or “The Goddess” (actually numerous goddesses blended into one neopagan “triple goddess”) theologically compelling, even in the “God of Philosophers” sense (that is: a rationally deduced theology).

    It’s simply means: instrumental rationality. An aspect of modernity personified and expressed as either post-modernity (emotive neopagan leftism) or rejection-of-modernity (Outer Right paganism).

    But I do not think you can get what either set wants out of that foundation. They are still simply replacing one theological nullity (modern mostly secularized ecumenical postmillenialism of the type essentially described by MM) with another spiritual nullity. Say what one wants about the Salafists – whom I abhore and think are incorrect (thus the “Embrace Islam” set of the Outer Right is also incorrect, especially since they are mostly *not* embracing Islam because they believe Mohammed is the real Prophet of a real Allah, but also out of instrumental rational calculations) – at least those Salafists sincerely, fervently BELIEVE their theology (well maybe some of the top leaders do not; – an argument for another time. But there would be other routes to doing what they do, if they too were not sincere. It would have been all too easy to embrace radical programs that would find even more sympathy among the Inner Party intelligenca, for example – as was past practice. They would probably control more dictatorships now, of the Hugo Chavista variety, if all they were doing is looking for an instrumental vehicle to political power).

    (A longer argument is probably needed here to make this case but I haven’t the time: I am literally about to leave for Uni class).

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 8:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Goddamned | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 9:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erik Says:

    Even so, come Lord Jesus.

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    based John the Divine still top oracle, undefeated and never unseated

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 19th, 2014 at 9:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • l0b0t Says:

    I’m surprised no one has mentioned Scientology. Hubbard seems to have left a pretty successful blueprint.

    [Reply]

    Hanfeizi Reply:

    Not as successful as Joseph Smith, and I don’t think David Miscavige has the makings of a Brigham Young. Or the wives and brood.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 20th, 2014 at 3:48 am Reply | Quote
  • Frog Do Says:

    You can tell Hood’s analysis is faulty because his major objection to Catholicism is Francis, as if the church hasn’t had less than ideal leaders in the past. All of this analysis, this apocalypse literature, is extremely present-focused. The millennium is at hand not only for leftists, but for most rightst doomsayers too, which is a useful heuristic for telling the pwned from those who struggle against their inner-pwned-ness. The diagnosis is the same for everyone, I think, read more history, annihilate your useless personal perspective.

    [Reply]

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    It’s not just Francis, it’s actual, existing Catholicism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 20th, 2014 at 5:01 am Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    http://www.quickmeme.com/img/4c/4ca0ca6204310d4ffb95d84bd6c110820885463237690b2de09aa0aa293a9675.jpg

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 20th, 2014 at 10:10 am Reply | Quote
  • bob sykes Says:

    Today, it is impossible to believe in any god. But, if you insist on a pagan, Indo-European religion, then adopt Hinduism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 20th, 2014 at 12:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • JPOutlook Says:

    It’s just dark fantasy. The lower classes have maintained religious identity. It’s only the top-half of The Cathedral that rejects it. With proper co-ordination, the Lord will be instituted within an established church again.

    J.P.O.

    [Reply]

    Hanfeizi Reply:

    The body is alive, but the brain is dead.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 20th, 2014 at 12:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • an inanimate aluminum tube Says:

    Some good critiques against the idea of reviving Germanic paganism.

    There is probably an Evola quote about that (heh).

    ” not to artificially and coercively perpetuate particular forms tied to the past, despite having exhausted their vital possibilities and being out of touch with the times.”

    But what about reviving ancestor [s]worship[/s] veneration in general?

    “In English, the word worship usually refers to the reverent love and devotion accorded a deity or divine being. However in other cultures, this act of worship does not confer any belief that the departed ancestors have become some kind of deity. Rather, the act is a way to respect, honor and look after ancestors in their afterlives as well as seek their guidance for their living descendants.”

    Of course, you can still venerate your ancestors without having any specific belief about the afterlife.

    Sometimes the “pagans” drop hints that their “paganism” is closer to ancestor veneration than to actual belief in deities, but why not be open about it? It’s one step away from live action roleplaying.

    Still, there is the problem that many of our ancestors were horrible Puritans (or whatever). Need to look into how some of these ancestor venerating cultures deal with the [s]evil[/s] dishonored dead.

    But our horrible ancestors can, at the very least, be useful as bogeyman. “Don’t go out in the woods at night or William Wilberforce will get you”.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    That’s a very interesting option.

    Old school Mormonism was pretty much ancestor worship welded on to Christianity. Less so now, though the building blocks for it are still there. Christianity plus ancestor worship sounds like one of the few workable combinations for the West to me. Maybe what’s needed is a revised understanding of the Body of Christ–“the Body of Christ has many lineages.” But you can’t invent a religion, really, you can only believe and practice and embrace and strengthen what’s already there. Mormon NRxers should do their genealogy and observe Pioneer Day. Catholic and Orthodox NRxers should make All Saints Day one of the biggest observances of the year and make it about their own lines; they should pray for the souls of their dead and have masses said for their repose. Protestant NRxers should try to keep a family bible and cultivate as much as possible the intersection of the view of the priesthood of all believers with the idea of a priestly line. Protestantism has a DIY, homemade quality that allows for what are basically family denominations, or family sects within sects. Don’t just be Methodists or Lutherans–be Jones Methodists or Schneider Lutherans. If you are letting your church do all your religious rites for you, you are doing Protestantism wrong. There may be some possibilities coming out of China too–probably not, but you never know. Semi-official Confucianism with widespread unofficial Christianity may lead to an interesting synthesis. As crazy as they were, maybe the Taiping were a missed opportunity.

    But most importantly, have children and raise them. It is the ultimate and the essential and the primary and the principal act of filial piety.

    Don’t despair of the Puritans as ancestors. They were pretty bad-ass. We may regret a lot of what they did, but they won. They were worthy of GNON in their way.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 20th, 2014 at 11:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    “To “synthesize a God out of thin air” is an ultimately absurd temptation to be determinedly resisted.”

    Well done Doctor Land. Well Done.

    Our Old Gods are Christian, Catholic, Orthodox. They’ll quite do. We need to replace the staff, who are only caretakers after all. And they’ve failed as no men have failed in History. Decent men in their positions used to kill themselves well into our Christian era or they marched to the scaffold if that was available.

    It’s only in our modern, post-Christian era that accountability has fallen out of fashion.

    Gentlemen the last 50 years have been fashion, fads of a fallen generation unfit to lead. They’ve been encouraged and abetted in media, Finance and academia in this to the plunder and general ruin to the profit of shall we say a chosen few. <=who aren't the problem, they're just being themselves off the leash.

    Now these men and women are dying anyway, and if it happens faster as consequences of their choices and failures all to the better. New leaders will rise, including of Catholicism. I can quite remember Pope John Paul II going to Poland and the Polish Politburo trembled. Literally their hands were shaking when the met him.

    It’s human to mistake the now for eternal, it’s particularly acute in the present day. We, the now and the present are not the eternal, nor are we the successors. We have work to do, and it’s been analyzed quite enough. No amount of analysis or fabulist planning gets us out of that work.

    We should indeed have children. We shouldn’t leave our mess for them. We quite know what needs doing.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 22nd, 2014 at 7:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • l0b0t Says:

    If I understand it correctly (admittedly my knowledge of the cult of Joe Smith is gleaned from an undergrad perusal of Book Of Mormon, many many viewings of Big Love, and the nice missionary lads who rent a house in my neighborhood), Mormonism builds upon and somewhat alters Abrahamic monotheism. The beauty, to me, of Hubbard’s long-con is that he was being fairly original and creative in his narrative; a modern myth for a modern people.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 23rd, 2014 at 2:16 am Reply | Quote
  • Bill Says:

    My religion is: 1. Respect Gnon; 2. Get right with time.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 23rd, 2014 at 4:22 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment