Moron bites (#9)

Richard Dawkins collides with the Zeitgeist. A comment thread mash-up:

Why does he do it? I don’t get it. … Dawkins doesn’t realize he’s been infected by a mind-virus. … He’s just a petty little shitlord who pretends to have standards and principles, but actually has none. … “Meltdown” doesn’t seem to cover it anymore. … I’m embarrassed to have any of Dawkins books on my shelf now. … Sweet zombie Jesus. … If anyone cared to bother, it would make a fun blog post to compare and contrast the wit & wisdom of Richard Dawkins and James Watson. I don’t know if they ever met, but they have so much in common … Dawkins is now the Trump of atheism … I bought “Ancestors Tale” after I got over the fremdschämen “Dear Muslima” has caused, but Dawkins says something embarassing since then on such a regular basis, that I might not be able to read that book ever. I used to enjoy his science books, but now I cannot get over a bad taste in my mouth whenever I see his name. … I’ve got his books and videos – I think I’ll give them away … So Dawkins now behaves like Marine Le Pen? … When Dawkins was at the height of his fame as an anti-religious campaigner, he was quite unfairly portrayed by many religious commentators as an angry agitator who raged away without showing any real insight into the subject. And now, here we are. … either Richard Dawkins has a layperson’s knowledge of evolution, all the way back when he was publishing scientific papers on the subject, or he never thought critically about the subject because he wanted to believe it. He wanted those sexist results to be true, and had no problems shutting out people who tried to set him straight. … So PZ, think you might remove Richard Dawkins links from the sidebar here? … He’s now siding with actual fascists. Totes rational the man. …

Science!

This was possibly a little triggering:


(You can click your way into a blow-up of the satirical book cover.)

February 1, 2016admin 135 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Lunatics

TAGGED WITH : , , , , ,

135 Responses to this entry

  • pyrrhus Says:

    Poor Dawkins….He thinks he’s still living in a time when people had some brains and could process thoughts outside their own echo chamber….

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Keeping up with the Zeitgeist is hard.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    He’s going the way of every good Jacobin – ending up devoured by the very revolution he helped create!

    [Reply]

    Cristina Reply:

    Exactly!

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    I imagine that the ‘behead everyone’ phase gave a grim satisfaction to many disgusted reactionaries.

    [Reply]

    Cristina Reply:

    Why?

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Because crazy liberal murderers killing each other is the most useful thing they’ve ever done. I feel the same way about Yankees, and the Brits, at least their stupid-white leftist castes, I have absolutely zero sympathies when these morons get blown up by Mullahs. They asked for it, and they deserve it. When they do it to eachother, ala Stalin or Robespierre, so much the better. People who disavow reality suffer far, far too infrequently in modern civilization, sometimes the only cure for stupid is a guillotine.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    @RJM

    I can’t get behind that.

    No matter how many leftists it exterminated (for which we can justly derive satisfaction) the fact that it destroyed even one Lavoisier renders the Terror a net negative. If the extermination of a thousand rats results in the death of one man, the removal of those rats doesn’t arithmetically make up for his death.

    Progressive “post-racial” whites getting assaulted by their vibrant “allies” at Ferguson, however – pass the popcorn.

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    @Grotesque I concur, as I generally take the Nietzschean signaling position that Frederick Barbarossa is the justification for the Holy Roman Empire, rather than the reverse. Modern and Christian politics see the duty to the herd as the glory of the great, but I say the sole purpose of any herd of animals, people or otherwise, is the sort of ubermensch it can produce. This is the main reasy I get Race-y, not because I care about dumb white folks, but because there are like no Bushmen who are worth a damn.

    Posted on February 1st, 2016 at 4:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mariani Says:

    Extending your skepticism to the official ideology is definitely grounds for the RationalWiki types to revoke your membership card. Rationalism, of course, meaning sick burns against the outgroup.

    [Reply]

    Neo Soliar Reply:

    Rational wiki is filth. I got in an edit war on some wikipedia pages, and decided to look at the people I was fighting with. Turns out they were all high ranking editors on rational wiki. I ended up getting most of my edits through by editing one thing, then distracting them with another. They were editing articles about right wing ideology, and economics, and what not.

    [Reply]

    Mariani Reply:

    the RationalWiki userbase is by far the worst case of blue tribe ideologues pretending to be grey

    [Reply]

    Brett Stevens Reply:

    First thing the Left always does: erase history, and put in its place propaganda substitutes.

    haishan Reply:

    As opposed to the rest of the “grey tribe”?

    Some of them have more repulsive politics than others, but they’re all of them deeply blue.

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    @Haishan: Who are you calling Grey Tribe? I mean, it’s hard to imagine Max Stirner or Ragnar Redbeard would fit into the Red Tribe, and they shit in the mouths of Blue Tribe for laughs. I think we’d probably sell Pink Tribe into sexual slavery to Dubai princes.

    Ryan Reply:

    Scott Alexander had a great quote the other day:

    The thesis of “I Can Tolerate Anything But The Outgroup” simplifies to “It is a Gentry-class tradition to sweep aside all prejudices except class prejudice, which must be held with the intensity of all the old prejudices combined.”

    frank Reply:

    The disturbing thing about wikipedia is that it’s actually a pretty decent primer on most subjects, that’s what makes the hostile takeover all the more morbid. It will inevitably and irrevocably turn into filth rationalWiki in at most 10 years following Conquest’s Second Law. I don’t know if by then we will be able to say Wikipedia has been a good thing overall.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    #AAA – the more blatantly ideological La Wik becomes, the less credible will be the pretence that public social media is value-neutral, and then things will really get interesting (I’m thinking of this in the context of the “Facebook and moral universalism” article from previous Chaos Patch.)

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    I’ve been counter-signaling on Wiki since I knew about it. The only thing it was ever good for was the references, and then so you could read all the articles they were arguing with to find out why the original entry was full of shit. I mean, ‘popular information’ is something of a contradiction in terms, any subject when covered in any depth it deserves will be incomprehensible to most and offensive to almost all the rest. Which is why people should learn to read books or just shut up and admit their ignorance.

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    RationalWiki always seemed pointless – Wikipedia is already dominated by Narrative-obsessed leftist sociopaths and snarky, drama-filled posts where they try to create the Singnalarity in editing Pinochete’s entry to make sure no HateFacts crop up. Metapedia is literally more reliable than Wikipedia.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 1st, 2016 at 4:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/

    how ironic. Only ‘free thought’ to opinions they agree with

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    Sure enough.

    A couple of new gems from that comment thread:

    “[…] given the amount of crap his tweets cause him now, I can’t see that I’d call [Dawkins] ‘intelligent’ any more.”

    (Because “intelligence” means voicing only fashionable and inoffensive opinions. “I used to think, now I just read The Economist.”)

    “Does my memory do me a disservice, or didn’t Dawkins already go full white supremacist once? Something about how Nobel prizes were concentrated in Oxford, not Muslim scientists?”

    (So reality is “full white supremacist”?)

    …And for all the moaning and gnashing of teeth, I’m still not entirely sure what they’re so upset about. Was the image that Dawkins retweeted an outright lie? Did it misrepresent the truth? If so, to what degree? The answer to those questions appears to be no, no, and n/a — so why are they getting so wound up? Do they have an irrational fear of unfashionable and potentially offensive opinions? If that’s the case, how on Earth can they call themselves “free thinkers”?

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    “I used to think, now I just read The Economist” Ill take one in xx large black crewneck

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    Their outrage confirms the truth. Sure we could all point to how big the feminist created scandals have been and how deafening the silence in Islam, But here they are given a choice of which to be outraged about and predictably choose dawkins criticism of islam and feminism.

    [Reply]

    John Reply:

    > I’m still not entirely sure what they’re so upset about.

    Dawkins crime is signaling approval of a bit humor that is anti-leftist. That alone is enough trigger the rabid outgrouping on display. This is actually a popular leftist pastime. For example, the SRS subreddit is devoted to thought policing reddit threads in exactly this manner.

    Free and rational thinkers, they are not…

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    At this point I am looking to whatever follows the Cathedral – be it AnCapistan or the Mujahadein – just because I want to see SJWs physically assaulted and ridiculed. Really, these people are parasites and should be treated with at least as much contempt as they have for logic and basic civility, and when Akbar starts beheading them I’ll be happy to camcorder it for him.

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Only in the psychosis of Progressive fanatacism could someone see in Dawkins a ‘white supremacist’, these people are actually damaging the effectiveness of that slur and its kin (Nazi, etc.) by applying it to everyone who prefers Bach to Eazy-E or celebrates Christmas without sucking Kwanzanacht in public.

    [Reply]

    GC Reply:

    Free-From-Thought

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 1st, 2016 at 5:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    All wikis are gamed, especially Wikipedia.

    Interesting how he is playing by rules from another time. It’s almost as if people assume that the society of their youth exists in perpetuity, no matter what we do to it. I think that’s the dividing line between conservatives and the altright too.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    I hear you Brett but to those of us of a certain age we understand that that it does exist as long as we do if not in perpetuity to a certain extent we are not all dead yet so upholding passe values is rally the troops to fight the good fight,also many of those values are true and its always important to uphold truth over lies. But many of us have realized appeals to reason and enlightenment values dont work against marxists who just tell big lies bag amplified by cathedral. but their are those on the sidelines who still value reason I wager most of you youngsters came to the dark side because you were raised to value rationality so we may not only be signalling to other oldtimers about to die but to younger people. I think reason may begin to be much more effective against the left as time goes by because their memes are so much more blatantly absurd and have failed so spectacularly so many times already. Of course peoples ability to reason has commensurately declined we shall see.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 1st, 2016 at 5:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    “The Republic needs neither scientists nor chemists; the course of justice cannot be delayed.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 1st, 2016 at 6:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/richard-dawkins-tweets-qr-code-link-to-neo-nazi-slogan-14-words-2016-2

    UPDATE the Alt Reich apparently included a QRcode in that fake book cover tweet Dawkins retweeted which decodes into the 14 words LOL. funny but probably burned an ally, It will be a while before Dawkins retweets any more hatefactss

    [Reply]

    Puzzle Privateer (@PuzzlePrivateer) Reply:

    Yeah that looks like a mistake “hiding” that message in the QR code.

    However, as a test balloon for getting things out on social media it looks like it wasn’t a bad experiment. With or without the QR code I can’t believe he re-Tweeted it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 1st, 2016 at 6:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • frank Says:

    I still wonder sometimes late at night, when I can’t sleep, whether he’s read “How Dawkins got pwned” or not.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    I’m willing to bet that he has, but similarly I’d love to ask him next time he makes an appearance in my city (not for a while unfortunately).

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 1st, 2016 at 7:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    Richard Dawkins will rise of this in a stronger position than before. There are many people who support him support intellectual freedom and freedom of association, although their voices are silent or drowned out by the left now, they will eventually be heard. The left is so desperate now…all they can do is revoke memberships as a way consecrating their dwindling ideological fiefdoms, pearl clutching. But the rest of the internet, anyone and everyone who supports free speech, is behind Dawkins.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 1st, 2016 at 8:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    Commentator brideofeisenstein: “That settles it. The Selfish Gene and Extended Phenotype are going straight into the fire pit tonight. I can’t believe I ever saw this man as a way to learn about biology.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    more like brideofpwnedbysocialproof

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Einestein was a pro-Cathedral socialist Jew pacifist who is generally overrated, so it’s not that inappropriate a nickname.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 1st, 2016 at 8:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Moron bites (#9) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on February 1st, 2016 at 9:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • TexasCapitalist Says:

    Nickey Continential Philosopher guy:

    Why are you so steadfast against priests as being the most disgusting liars and telling lies that they know are lies, and I guess you think that they’re harmful? How is somebody like Richard Dawkins or Crowley or Nietzsche or any of the other occultists or other people you seem to adore not lying priests who lie and are harmful? Is it because you think they’re inherently more intelligent somehow? Thomas Aquinas was a smart guy and he and other churchmen made Europe the place with the least amount of in-breeding in the world and many other good things

    These are partially rhetorical questions because you’ve seem to indicate that you have instinctive repulsion/disgust against propagandists for the Christian faith. But how are the other propagandists in ideology better? Is it because they chose to call themselves druids or philosophers or whatever instead of priests, and hahah 420 blaze it dude!

    Seriously though, while Nietzsche was a genius it could be argued that instrumentally he’s been bad for the world. People criticize Christianity as some combination of being a lying, weak religion for fools or slaves or a persecution machine stamping out truth or whatever. If that’s so why did it cause so many good things?

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Seriously though, while Nietzsche was a genius it could be argued that instrumentally he’s been bad for the world.

    Care to expand? Or to ask directly, are you implying Nietzsche was causal in the decline of Christianity?

    [Reply]

    Mark Citadel Reply:

    Nietzsche was causal to the decline of Christianity in the academy, but for the general public, he was a marginal figure. Voltaire and Hollywood were far worse. The people prefer spectacle over treatise..

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Nietzsche: “I’m not the Messiah!”

    Or to put the same point differently: blame Truman, not Oppenheimer.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    What?

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    I’m pointing out that Nietzsche is probably the least inappropriate philosopher to blame for the actions of proles that treat him as an oracle/priest and lack the courage to think for themselves (which is precisely what TexasCapitalist is doing here). It’s the height of disingenuousness to claim that Nietzsche, who warned ad infinitum, right up to “Ecce Homo” against the claims of priests and philosophers to be arbiters of truth, to be just another priest. The entire post is essentially a “Tu quoque”/”No U” directed against Nietzsche, who in fact bears no responsibility for how his writings are interpreted by edgy nu-atheists and progressives. Blame Truman for Hiroshima, not Oppenheimer.

    TexasCapitalist Reply:

    Oppenheimer agreed to work under FDR and then Truman, did he not? Did he really expect the United States not to use the weapon? Not that I particularly care about this analogy.

    Nietzsche is just an example and I could have substituted many others. You’ll notice that I said “could be argued” and not that he was definitively bad for the world. The point is that the author seems to be completely convinced that “Christian” priests are to be scorned for the fact that they create and use ideology to support disgusting falsehoods that are often detrimental to the world. Are you really that certain that Nietzsche has been proven to be trustworthy in truth? That all his criticisms of priests and philosophers make him immune to this sort of thing?

    Grotesque Body I have never claimed to think for myself, I probably try and fail like others. Or perhaps you don’t even think that I try to think for myself. Do you think for yourself, or even try to think for yourself, and I’m curious, how do you know that? If you know maybe you can at least teach me how to try to think for myself.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    “Are you really that certain that Nietzsche has been proven to be trustworthy in truth?”

    See if you can find where I claimed this. Hint: I didn’t, and you are dishonest.

    “That all his criticisms of priests and philosophers make him immune to this sort of thing?”

    Immunity is a metaphor. However, what his warnings do is make your shallow “Tu quoque” patently invalid.

    Again,

    “Are you really that certain that Nietzsche has been proven to be trustworthy in truth?”

    If you had actually read Nietzsche (start with “On Truth and Lies”) I’d expect you to know the above question is incoherent.

    Different T Reply:

    The point is that the author seems to be completely convinced that “Christian” priests are to be scorned for the fact that they create and use ideology to support disgusting falsehoods that are often detrimental to the world.

    Where are you getting this? Admin likely agrees, but its not clear where this is from…

    Are you really that certain that Nietzsche has been proven to be trustworthy in truth? That all his criticisms of priests and philosophers make him immune to this sort of thing?

    (This is crude but approximates the truth) Who the fuck cares? Precisely the “priests” afraid that Nietzsche is limiting their own influence?

    I have never claimed to think for myself, I probably try and fail like others. Or perhaps you don’t even think that I try to think for myself. Do you think for yourself, or even try to think for yourself, and I’m curious, how do you know that? If you know maybe you can at least teach me how to try to think for myself.

    LOL, that is an awesome response. (Sincerely)

    TexasCapitalist Reply:

    Wait a minute, you’re telling me to read Nietzsche, even though apparently most everyone who reads Nietzsche misinterprets him and go on to do very bad things. You either have a very(unfortunately false) high opinion of me or you’re not making very much sense here.

    If reading Nietzsche is instrumentally bad for almost everyone, why should we encourage anybody to read him outside of the chosen few? Does the author really believe that the type of people who read him are better off scorning the priests and reading the philosophers, occultists, and computer geniuses? Or does he really think that rubes like me and probably most of the people who read NRX blogs on the internet can be uplifted, and this is a charity blog? If he doesn’t believe either of those two things maybe he should be a little bit more discrete about trashing something that is instrumentally good.

    Anyway Grotesque you seemed to heavily imply that he’s atleast a little more trustworthy in the truth than the others because he makes such an effort of exposing other liars! But isn’t this the sort of reasoning that has become more and more popular since the Enlightenment, that they’re all rotten and you can’t trust any of those priests/philosophers/ideologies. But in truth it is not new at all, every new philosopher or ideology seems to say that all the others before it had lies and untruths and bad things in them. Christianity seems to be instrumentally good though considering Europe from at least say 1000-1500 and also it deserves a lot of credit from 1500-1900, if not beyond.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    “Wait a minute, you’re telling me to read Nietzsche, even though apparently most everyone who reads Nietzsche misinterprets him and go on to do very bad things. You either have a very(unfortunately false) high opinion of me or you’re not making very much sense here.”

    Again you’re off the mark here. I’m simply stating that if you read Nietzsche first you wouldn’t be so apt to make retarded arguments.

    “If reading Nietzsche is instrumentally bad for almost everyone, why should we encourage anybody to read him outside of the chosen few?”

    I don’t really care, because proles are going to prole regardless of what they read. The point is not to blame Nietzsche for their innate retardation.

    “Anyway Grotesque you seemed to heavily imply that he’s atleast a little more trustworthy in the truth than the others”

    Nope. Now you’re just making stuff up.

    “Christianity seems to be instrumentally good though considering Europe from at least say 1000-1500 and also it deserves a lot of credit from 1500-1900, if not beyond.”

    It’s instrumentally good until it inevitably turns into pozzed progressivism (cf Francis). That is to say, it’s not really good at all in the long run.

    Different T Reply:

    It’s instrumentally good until it inevitably turns into pozzed progressivism (cf Francis). That is to say, it’s not really good at all in the long run.

    Inevitably? That’s a strong word (to say nothing of the accuracy).

    And you do see how this: “I don’t really care, because proles are going to prole regardless of what they read;” is, if not a contradiction to the bolded claim, certainly not the most supportive statement you could make.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    How are the two in contradiction?

    (However it’s good that I, rather than Nietzsche, am the one on trial now. At least I can defend myself.)

    TexasCapitalist Reply:

    Well pretty much everybody I know who’s read him has had a fanatical devotion to him. Also, writing things like “Anti-christ” and “Why I Am So Wise”, “Why I Am So Clever”, “Why I Write Such Good Books” and “Why I Am a Destiny” don’t seem to be very “I am not the messiah” like. It seems like to me that anybody with a brain and who could be so intelligent and write so well would know that this would cause a cult to develop around him, and one with bad effects for the world. In fact, I know many who think that he was hinting at creating a new religion to replace “dying” Christianity with, and that that was his entire goal. “Thus spoke Zarathustra” and all the others etc.

    Invariably? What of the Eastern Europeans, the large numbers of Chinese in the people’s republic of China, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong who are converting en masse and seem to be doing all the better for it? South Korea, Christian Indians, Christian Arabs, Christian Japanese all seem to have disproportionate success to their majority religion of their fellow ethnic kin. I can give you statistics if you don’t believe me.

    Do you really believe you can judge that Christianity won’t be a positive force of thousands of more years, if not more, just from Western European white people, perhaps all of white people? Just because Swedes seem to be having a rough time with it doesn’t mean that East Asians won’t become “the master race” or the singularity/colonizers of the universe or whatever because of Christianity.

    Also the fact that I meant the post to be towards admin and you felt the need to defend Nietzsche this much is a little telling. True, you could argue the same with me and Christianity. I’m convinced that Christianity is a good thing to be defended in the public though. Shouldn’t the superior want the proles to be exposed to things that they won’t misinterpret and thus harm the society/the idea, or is your idea just that the superiors should kill all the proles?

    Also I am curious if you think that you try to think for yourself/ if you definitively do think that you think for yourself. Do you have a blog that I can read?

    Different T Reply:

    How are the two in contradiction?

    Again, “it is certainly not the most supportive statement you could make” that “(Christianity) inevitably turns into pozzed progressivism.”

    You state “proles are going to prole regardless of what they read.”

    Are you claiming that Christianity is the cause of greater number of “proles” (as implied by the use of “inevitable”)? Assuming we agree that “proles” are not a Christian phenomenon and not all “proles” are progressive, is that explanation sufficient?

    Different T Reply:

    I’m convinced that Christianity is a good thing to be defended in the public though. Shouldn’t the superior want the proles to be exposed to things that they won’t misinterpret and thus harm the society/the idea

    Are you Catholic? If you want to give the Catholics every benefit of the doubt regarding their dogmatic interpretations… well, you still have to erase Gutenburg (and what followed).

    If you aren’t a Catholic, your statements can only be filed under “Comedy.”

    Alex Reply:

    People criticize Christianity as some combination of being a lying, weak religion for fools or slaves or a persecution machine …

    There’s some truth in that. Internet Rolf Ragnaroks who scorn the Slave God and preach ‘might makes right’ and vae victis are quick to complain about Charlemagne’s slaughter of the Saxons. Ressentiment much?

    Pagan: I rule the schoolyard. What I want I take. The weak pay me tribute in lunch money. This is how it should be.

    [Christian beats up Pagan and takes his lunch money.]

    Pagan: Ow! You brute! Please, Miss — Christian’s bullying me!

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    If Christianity is spread by the sword, forcing others to convert solely on the threat of violent slaughter, than it has naught to do with truthful revelation, and all to do with power, hence Nietzsche’s criticism of its claims to have transcended “pagan” dynamics, in other words, to quote a twitter friend, “it’s all a Darwinistic fuck you struggle. Power grabs and resources. That’s it. Strong survive”.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    If Christianity is spread by the sword, forcing others to convert solely on the threat of violent slaughter, than it has naught to do with truthful revelation

    Maybe you used “than” instead of “then” because that statement doesn’t follow.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    I see your point, but I did give a more elaborate critique below. I guess if Islam manages to spread across the world, slaughtering all populations that refuse to convert, then it would be the One True Religion by default. The same can be said of Christianity, if that’s how you want to play it. Last one standing wins.

    Though, the charge could be made that even if one religion manages to eradicate all others and rule the world with sole authority, whether that is proof it was divinely revealed, or merely proof it was the most successful in selecting for natural ferocity and cunning, is still up for debate.

    Simply because progressivism is the most popular civil religion in the West does not make it a universal truth, as its adherents so fanatically believe.

    Alex Reply:

    If Christianity is spread by the sword, forcing others to convert solely on the threat of violent slaughter, than it has naught to do with truthful revelation

    You’re quite correct in saying that any success in such an endeavour would in itself constitute no proof of the truth of the Christian religion. My understanding is that although some Christian thinkers have pointed to particular temporal triumphs of the Church as evidence that it enjoys God’s favour (“O God, Who hast prepared the Roman Empire to serve for the preaching of the Gospel of the Eternal King etc”), this should be seen against the horizon of apocalypse. When you boil it down, Christianity is a doomsday cult: “We, or at least a remnant among us, are the elect who will pass unscathed through the fires of the end time while the rest of the world goes to hell.” Unusually, this particular cult gave birth to a great civilisation (unlike, say, the People’s Temple) and I for one am happy that it did, but the main goal is simply to save as many souls as possible in the time allotted. Even those Catholic traditionalists who put stock in prophecies of a Great Monarch who will restore Christendom to its former glory acknowledge that this would be merely a brief period of grace before the final collapse and persecution under the antichrist.

    Mark Citadel Reply:

    It also raises an eyebrow from me how Christianity can be criticized for being a dominating, kill-your-neighbor religion of patriarchal abuse, and at the same time dismissed as a feminine slave morality. Could it be that like many other religions, Christianity leashes the baser evils of societal man while affirming an order of things which makes SJWs cry? Nah, it has to be some conspiratorial contradiction.

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    Note also that those who condemn ‘universalist’ Christianity’s failure to respect the vibrant diversity of the pagan Saxons rarely shed tears over the conspicuous failure of the universalist pagan Roman imperium to respect the vibrant diversity of the pagan Celts. I suspect “Christianity is too meek/too aggressive, too egalitarian/too hierarchical, too universalist/too exclusive” is a red herring — the real objection is the (Nietzschean) perception that it is Jewish, an alien imposition on the aryan folk.

    Mark Citadel Reply:

    Which in itself is odd, as Jews have a profound hostility to Christianity which is not paralleled by their hostility to Islam. In fact, from the horse’s mouth, a Jew recently stated that in his experience, the Jews essentially consider Christianity to be pagan, and unrecognizable as anything remotely Jewish

    Different T Reply:

    I suspect “Christianity is too meek/too aggressive, too egalitarian/too hierarchical, too universalist/too exclusive” is a red herring — the real objection is the (Nietzschean) perception that it is Jewish, an alien imposition on the aryan folk.

    You certainly extend the man a lot of credit, LOL.

    Did you see this insight from Admin: I’m sure you’d agree that nobody derives their religious alignment from consequentialist arguments, unless they’re profoundly unserious about the entire business.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    @Alex

    Nietzsche was pretty much gay for Jews. This isn’t a secret.

    Alex Reply:

    Mark Citadel:

    Which in itself is odd, as Jews have a profound hostility to Christianity which is not paralleled by their hostility to Islam. In fact, from the horse’s mouth, a Jew recently stated that in his experience, the Jews essentially consider Christianity to be pagan, and unrecognizable as anything remotely Jewish

    I suppose Jewish-Christian hostility would be seen as a ‘family quarrel’ rather than evidence of essential difference.

    My sense is that the rabbinites see Christianity as containing Judaic elements that have been adulterated by gentile paganism — a mirror image of those neopagans for whom Christian culture’s Hellenic, Latin and Teutonic elements have been grafted on to irredeemably Judaic roots. (This same basic opposition manifests itself among self-identified Christians too, between neo-Puritans and neo-Marcionites.)

    Different T:

    You certainly extend the man a lot of credit, LOL.

    Grotesque Body:

    Nietzsche was pretty much gay for Jews. This isn’t a secret.

    He was disdainful of the vulgar anti-semitism of the German petty nationalists of his day and was pretty much gay for what he saw as the virile warrior ethos of the original Old Testament Israelites. But he argued that historical subjugation had driven their will-to-power underground where it festered and became slave morality. This St Paul (“the Jew, the eternal Jew par excellence“) cunningly turned against the Roman Empire, using the symbol of the Crucified God to incite the downtrodden against their natural superiors. For Nietzsche, Christians were uberJews whereas Mohams were a reversion to the healthy warrior-type he was gay for (“Islam presupposes men“). (There’s perhaps an echo of this in Crowley’s inclusion of Mohammed among the forerunners of Thelema.)

    Different T Reply:

    That’s evading the issue. You stated “those who condemn ‘universalist’ Christianity’s failure to respect the vibrant diversity of the pagan Saxons…real objection is the (Nietzschean) perception that it is Jewish, an alien imposition on the aryan folk.”

    In other words, that Nietzsche’s perception was used as an objection to “universalist Christianity” and causal in its decline. Hence, the “your extending him credit.”

    Do you see why this: “I’m sure you’d agree that nobody derives their religious alignment from consequentialist arguments, unless they’re profoundly unserious about the entire business” relates to your claim and indicates that you are certainly not a miser (and also seemingly not very something else).

    Alex Reply:

    Different T:

    That’s evading the issue.

    I don’t mean to be evasive.

    In other words, that Nietzsche’s perception was used as an objection to “universalist Christianity” and causal in its decline.

    I suggested that the modern neopagan right’s hostility to Christianity includes an element of anti-Jewish animus (hardly controversial, I would have thought) and indicated that something akin is to be found in Nietzsche. I made no assertion concerning the causes of Christianity’s decline, a complex process that was well underway long before Nietzsche appeared on the scene. Nor did I mean to imply that Nietzsche was the sole fons et origo of such attitudes.

    Do you see why this: “I’m sure you’d agree that nobody derives their religious alignment from consequentialist arguments, unless they’re profoundly unserious about the entire business” relates to your claim

    Not immediately. Was I making a consequentialist argument?

    and indicates that you are certainly not a miser (and also seemingly not very something else)

    I’m afraid that’s too elliptical for me. What do you mean?

    Different T Reply:

    I suggested that the modern neopagan right’s hostility to Christianity includes an element of anti-Jewish animus

    You were talking about modern right? Who are the modern pagan Celts?

    Not immediately. Was I making a consequentialist argument?

    The stated “objection” to Christianity (that it’s too Jew-ey) is a consequentialist argument (e.g. “Becoming Christian would mean losing our Aryan-ness”). Considering religion is supposed to be about Truth, if you are correct and people are “objecting” based on it’s Jew-ey-ness, that says something far more profound and relates to the quote from Admin.

    I’m afraid that’s too elliptical for me. What do you mean?

    Seems pretty straightforward.

    Alex Reply:

    You were talking about modern right? Who are the modern pagan Celts?

    I suppose a modern pagan Celt would be someone of Celtic extraction who practises some kind of paganism or perhaps someone of any ethnicity who worships the old Celtic gods. Why do you ask?

    The stated “objection” to Christianity (that it’s too Jew-ey) is a consequentialist argument (e.g. “Becoming Christian would mean losing our Aryan-ness”). Considering religion is supposed to be about Truth, if you are correct and people are “objecting” based on it’s Jew-ey-ness, that says something far more profound and relates to the quote from Admin.

    If our hypothetical pagan’s objection amounted to no more than an unreflective reluctance to pay obeisance to the Kike on a Spike, then admin’s strictures would be apposite. Then again, our pagan might see religion not as a collection of metaphysical truth-claims but as a communal myth expressing the folk-soul of a particular people. Or he might be a kind of perennialist who believes metaphysical truth is best approached by each people following their own native tradition. Or perhaps he believes the Jews are the incarnation of a cosmic evil principle fated to be extirpated by Kalki.

    Seems pretty straightforward.

    “It could confuse a stupid person.”

    Different T Reply:

    What is the code used for your quote blocking?

    Why do you ask?

    You stated: “Note also that those who condemn ‘universalist’ Christianity’s failure to respect the vibrant diversity of the pagan Saxons rarely shed tears over the conspicuous failure of the universalist pagan Roman imperium to respect the vibrant diversity of the pagan Celts.”

    Then again, our pagan might see religion not as a collection of metaphysical truth-claims but as a communal myth expressing the folk-soul of a particular people. Or he might be a kind of perennialist who believes metaphysical truth is best approached by each people following their own native tradition. Or perhaps he believes the Jews are the incarnation of a cosmic evil principle fated to be extirpated by Kalki.

    Why did you change the “T” in “Truth” to “t” and not mention your editing?

    All of your examples seem to show that your described “pagans” consider religion to be something fundamentally different than what, at the least, any Abrahamic religion considers itself to be. This would further indicate that any objection based on “perceptions about origin” are, themselves, likely red herrings and further obfuscate the issue.

    Different T Reply:

    Also, regarding your hypothetical pagans, each of your examples appear to be consequentialist arguments. Do you agree?

    Alex Reply:

    Different T:

    What is the code used for your quote blocking?

    blockquote in chevrons (), then text, then /blockquote in chevrons.

    You stated: “Note also that those who condemn ‘universalist’ Christianity’s failure to respect the vibrant diversity of the pagan Saxons rarely shed tears over the conspicuous failure of the universalist pagan Roman imperium to respect the vibrant diversity of the pagan Celts.”

    I do remember reading a comic about the Boudiccan revolt which was basically bloodthirsty anti-Roman revenge porn seemingly written from a Celtic neopagan perspective. One battle — won by the Celts — was described as “the forces of Chaos prevailing over the forces of Order”.

    Why did you change the “T” in “Truth” to “t” and not mention your editing?

    My prefacing of “truth” with “metaphysical” in the quoted passage was intended to convey what I took to be the sense of your upper-case ‘T’. (Unless you were referring to my quoting of your comment, in which case it’s the same blockquote quirk which lower-cased ‘Christian’, ‘Jew’ and ‘Aryan’.)

    All of your examples seem to show that your described “pagans” consider religion to be something fundamentally different than what, at the least, any Abrahamic religion considers itself to be.

    Hence the distinction between ‘pagan’ and ‘Abrahamic’ …?

    This would further indicate that any objection based on “perceptions about origin” are, themselves, likely red herrings and further obfuscate the issue.

    Why would it indicate that?

    Also, regarding your hypothetical pagans, each of your examples appear to be consequentialist arguments. Do you agree?

    I would disagree, insofar as the opposition to a perceived undesirable Jewishness is not accompanied by indifference to religious truth, but derives from what is believed to be religious truth.

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    But Pagans didn’t complain when other pagans beat them – nor would the Muslims bitch as much if they were conquered by a strong horse. It’s being subjected to abject faggotry that stings the pride of men with that attitude. The sense of ‘might is right’ is the master morality, and it doesn’t mean ‘anything goes’, it means snitches get stitches.

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    Buut Pagans didn’t complain when other pagans beat them – nor would the Muslims bitch as much if they were conquered by a strong horse. It’s being subjected to abject faggotry that stings the pride of men with that attitude.

    Perhaps what stings is when those they’ve dismissed as abject faggots unexpectedly give them a bloody nose. Mohams still gobble with rage at the infidels’ effrontery in taking back lands they’d overrun.

    The sense of ‘might is right’ is the master morality, and it doesn’t mean ‘anything goes’, it means snitches get stitches.

    Fair enough. In the meantime it would be greatly appreciated if Danish pirates would refrain from sacking monasteries.

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Lindesfarn (sp?) was a terrorist attack in response to Christian inroads, military but especially religious. Given that Churchies were the SJWs of the middle ages I am not surprised, though as an apostle of the Overman I tend to find plenty wrong with Skandi barbarians as well as Germanized quasi-Christianity. On that note, Aristocratic Romano-Germanic Christianity as practiced was hardcore and way less sissy and apocalyptic ninny-worshipping than the Bible’s actual text (thank Crom!) It’s not until Protestants went Omega-Stupid that churchianity got back to its Gnostic/millenialist roots.

    Alex Reply:

    https://youtu.be/UX0HPtXzWFk

    TexasCapitalist Reply:

    Catholic.

    I also think that regardless of whatever his effect on Christianity was Nietzsche would still be bad for the world overall. As far as y’all can see, what would you two’s proposals be for our religion/ideology? GB I’m guessing you’re some sort of futurist transhumanist/ un-theist or maybe some sort of pagan.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    “As far as y’all can see, what would you two’s proposals be for our religion/ideology?”

    Green Bay Packers or McDonald’s.

    Note: I’m at work so I will address your other posts above later.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    As far as y’all can see, what would you two’s proposals be for our religion/ideology?

    As in, for the human race? That seems disastrous to the point of completely disfiguring any remnant of whatever said religion/ideology began as. Christianity itself usually mutated into some hybrid whenever it was applied to natives, AFAIK.

    So who is “our?”

    [Reply]

    TexasCapitalist Reply:

    Ok I guess what you think should be your communities, or your personal philosophy whatever. Let’s say your country, or Northwestern Europeans, Europeans in general, or the West. If you’re Chinese maybe China or something I dunno man. I’ve been pretty sloppy in my language and apologize, though I’m only in 8th grade and the education in government schools is terrible.

    If you looked at early Christian Germanics you’d be able to say the same thing about the natives. Doesn’t change the fact that it greatly improved their quality of civilization. Same with South America, East Europe, etc. Like I said, Arab Christians and Japanese Christians and Indian Christians etc. seem to be doing better than their co-ethnics.

    Also my ideology tells me that I have to consider it as universal 😉

    Different T Reply:

    though I’m only in 8th grade

    Impressive.

    and the education in government schools is terrible.

    But have you studied inoculation?

    If you looked at early Christian Germanics you’d be able to say the same thing about the natives.

    And even the Romans themselves.

    Also my ideology tells me that I have to consider it as universal ?

    And it does so while telling you it will stay the same forever, right? (Congrats on being the first ever user of an emoticon on this board).

    I guess what you think should be your communities, or your personal philosophy whatever

    A better description would be that in-group/out-group, self/other, etc distinctions are real and important.

    Again, TC, very impressive.

    TexasCapitalist Reply:

    I can’t tell how literal/metaphorical you mean about inoculation, and what it would be a metaphor for.

    And honestly it’s not impressive at all, I’ve never done my homework in the past four years pretty much and I feel bad for my parents/family because if I continue my habits I’ll get terrible grades in high school and probably disappoint them. Reading stuff like this online and sometimes books isn’t very practical, but doing my homework seems even worse.

    Do you have any in-group/self philosophy? It’s ok if you don’t I try to be open-minded myself. I’ve tried to convey things here but honestly it’s probably a bunch of mangled BS.

    Different T Reply:

    I can’t tell how literal/metaphorical you mean about inoculation, and what it would be a metaphor for.

    Guess you have more homework.

    if I continue my habits I’ll get terrible grades in high school and probably disappoint them.

    You have homework from school that you can’t get done during the rest of the day? That is confusing. Maybe public school has changed a lot? Are you not getting all A’s now?

    Do you have any in-group/self philosophy?

    Why deprive you of additional homework, right?

    TexasCapitalist Reply:

    Of course there’s human error/limited level of malleability like changing the order of the mass a little, Gothic style or whatever. Germanics and every other ethnic group seem to usually grow more Orthodox over time, within the church. There’s the Protestantism thing and whatever, but like Cervantes said, God gave us the Turk to reproach us and not make us to vain-glorious of ourselves just because we have the right religion(bad paraphrase I can’t find the quote right now.)

    Islam and Protestantism and even Progressivism have been “good “for the world, in mysterious ways. I understand the first two better, but for complicated reasons I believe that they have been ultimately beneficial to Catholicism.(hint for Islam is “miaphysites” or “monophysites” if you prefer)

    TexasCapitalist Reply:

    For homework, I can’t put my ego aside and do the homework when it’s all a bunch of BS, and more than half of it is unbelievably stupid propaganda in varying shades of how obvious it is. This by itself I could take maybe but including how utterly pointless and meaningless it is in the face of the larger world, and how big of a deal almost all of my peers and elders apply to something so worthless I can’t bring myself to do it. Also just the stupidity of the bureaucracy in general. If the Catholic Church was this stupid around 1500 than I could understand how the Protestants felt, but I doubt it.

    Homework is usually only 25% of the grade so as long as I do well on the tests/quizes it doesn’t matter.

    Different T Reply:

    Of course there’s human error/limited level of malleability like changing the order of the mass a little, Gothic style or whatever.

    “Romans” was referencing the sorts of things shared with pagans that increased acceptance in the embryonic stage.

    As I am not Catholic, was the Second Vatican Council unremarkable?

    Homework is usually only 25% of the grade so as long as I do well on the tests/quizes it doesn’t matter.

    So you are getting C’s? That is pathetic.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    “though I’m only in 8th grade”

    That’s almost enough to convert me right there, but instead I will try to explain what I take to be Nietzsche’s core philosophical dispute with Christianity. Firstly, it does indeed come down to a question of the nature of truth, and also its status as an alleged universal. Descartes is an instructive example, when in his quest to construct a solid foundation for metaphysics he suspends faith and plunges himself into an experiment of radical doubt, one that questions our ability to access fundamental truth about the nature of reality. He in fact gets very close to the modern findings of neuroscience that suggest we are blind to the underlying workings of consciousness, or, to use jargon, we have no phenomenological access to the processes that constitute our basic experience of reality. Nietzsche would not find this a hard pill to swallow. Now, in the case of Descartes, whose experiment caused him quite a deal of distress, he failed to offer a solution to his “demonic” thought experiment besides, in the end, the leap of faith that God is good and what’s more, a good God would not lie to us, and in fact would grant us access to his Nature, and make Himself knowable to us. Now, given there is only one God, and he supposedly grants access to human consciousness of his divine nature (though only to those who accept his goodness on faith), we are led to the (universal) idea that all humans are privy to the same reality, and that the Truth of reality is the same for all, regardless of physiological difference. Much follows from this, for example, we have to explain why it is that there are so many otherwise incommensurate interpretations of the truth of reality, from all kinds of polytheism, to the oriental atheism of Confucius and Buddha, and then even the competing monotheisms, which all teach distinct qualities of their chosen “one God”. Nietzsche’s answer is inspired by Darwin’s theory of natural selection, namely, that culture evolves by way of survival, and that rather than there being a “true religion” there is in fact particular truths for singular types of life. Instead of taking the truth of Christianity on face-value as divine revelation, he instead submits it a genealogical analysis, asking, where did this belief arise, in what conditions, and for what type of life did it prove irresistible? He thinks all morality can be analysed this way, under the rubric of “will-to-power”, which simply means that life selects above all for whatever will expand its current dynamic. Life wants to expand and conquer, and expend its energy, even more than simply ‘survive’, as Darwin had it. This explains the otherwise paradoxical nature of asceticism, where an organism will seem to go against its own reproductive impulses, seemingly flying in the face of what we understand about the genetic mechanism. Nietzsche’s answer is that more than even want to reproduce a creature wants to enhance its feeling of power, and asceticism is precisely a way to do that. Priests are an expression of a “tyrannical”, which made them such potent vectors of cultural transmission, or memetic carriers, if you will. it is willpower that makes a priest chaste, and it is this will that is so impressive in Christianity. You should know that Nietzsche thought priests were one of the highest types of man, but, as he came to believe, radically corrupted by a will that has turned inwards, a will that has become “subterranean” and hides itself from its “true nature”. Only a sickly will, Nietzsche says, would place those most awful and deadly of reactive affects, such as guilt and pity, at the center of spiritual life. Anyway, there is much more to it, but this comment is getting out of control. I would certainly recommend reading Nietzsche for yourself, as you may find he is far more intriguing than the people you know who have read him make him out to be. The man is a paradox in himself, and also, as far as “slave morality” is concerned it is simply a genealogical fact, Christianity arose among slaves, and slaves and the downtrodden of society (during the decadent period of Rome) were the first converts. The same can be said of Judaism, whose people were, as is universally known, slaves to the Egyptian empire. Monotheism is a slave religion in origin. Anyway, I’ll leave it there.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    “…Priests are an expression of a “tyrannical” *will*…”

    Alex Reply:

    Dark Psy-Ops:

    … radically corrupted by a will that has turned inwards, a will that has become “subterranean” and hides itself from its “true nature”. Only a sickly will, Nietzsche says, would place those most awful and deadly of reactive affects, such as guilt and pity, at the center of spiritual life.

    If Nietzsche’s transcendental criterion of judgment is how well a system actualises its will-to-power, why should he care if a given system hides its own will-to-power from itself? It’s as if he’s applying some transcendent value to truth or the search for truth or the courage to face up to truth. Either inculcating “guilt and pity” helps a system flourish or it doesn’t; if the latter, the system will fall by the wayside sooner or later while the relentless process continues undisturbed. In fact Nietzsche admits that Christianity’s ‘slave morality’ has proved remarkably effective in undermining would-be master moralities — well, doesn’t that mean they’ve been weighed in the balance and found wanting? It’s difficult to escape the impression that Nietzsche’s vehement distaste for Christianity is the eruption of a subterranean moralism: it’s sneaky, it’s not heroic, it doesn’t fight fair. As though the will-to-power cares!

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Will(-to-power) is an immanent criteria, and so is truth, it needs no transcendent principle from which to derive its value, which is already absolute. Take for instance the claim of eternal hellfire reserved for sinners, this claim derives its power from its status as a truthful revelation. It cannot be proven, merely taken on faith. If hell is a myth, albeit a very common conception for many different religions, then a man who rejects the redemptive call of Christianity, and instead, for arguments sake, leads a horrible, sinful life, he will die and end up in the same state of pure nothingness as everyone else. There will be no eternal punishment, or afterlife. So, as you can see, everything depends on the truth or falsity of such a claim, without the necessity of applying transcendent principles. The same goes for the Day of Judgement, and the second coming of Christ, and indeed the entire mythical structure of the Christian concept of the end-times.

    Now, Nietzsche does in fact question the absolute value of truth when he makes the claim that illusion can be more valuable for human flourishing. He asks, why should we value truth over illusion and error, if the truth will lead us to harm? And we could add, especially given that falsehood is beneficial for the security of our persons under a regime of lies. We could do well to remember the example of Galileo, or others who have been persecuted for derailing the geocentric and anthropocentric beliefs of human history. Why care if the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around if the truth will get you imprisoned, and who could think a defiant will toward non-conformity and religious heresy would be beneficial if it leads one to be burnt at the stake, as in the example of Giordano Bruno? Or why would Jokeocracy troll journalists on twitter if it means he is sure to have his account suspended? This is exactly what Nietzsche means between herd morality and master morality. The herd is content to live under the yoke of lies because they favor comfort and happiness above all else, they merely want to avoid danger, whereas a master morality, such as, if you’ll excuse my fawning, witnessed in The Duck, will wager itself for its own values, despite the promised punishment of a repressive system. Truth is forwarded by men who are willing to cop the flack for their unpopular opinions. Dawkins is still pwned, but he is not pwned enough to bend over and kiss the ring of radical feminists, and for the herd, you can never be pwned enough, and the slightest hint of independent thought is enough to have you ostracized, and humiliated in public. Conformity is only adaptive to certain types of people, and even then only certain types of conformity are beneficial. Nietzsche called these people “the herd”, “the all-too-many” and their morality of conformity a slave morality. Guilt and pity are two of the most powerful forces used to weaken a man’s conscience and make him susceptible to the tyranny of the herd. Hence “white guilt” and all the pity every good modern person feels for the descendants of slaves, or the natives who suffered under colonialism. Pity and guilt are not stable affects, and if they are deliberately selected for they will eventually make the organism sick, this is Nietzsche’s opinion, who himself suffered from a sickening amount of pity during periods of his life, and who, if you recall, descended from a line of Lutheran pastors. So yes, Nietzsche railed against reactive and negative affects that turn the will against itself, seeing this as especially harmful to certain types of “higher men”.

    As for the truth, I am inclined to view it as sole arbiter of morality, and Nietzsche did as well, when he wasn’t lost in homeostatic notions of the possible healthful vitality of illusion. It is arguable this is where he himself succumbed to the errors of nihilism, but he certainly didn’t take such questions lightly.

    Nietzsche is a naturalist and a post-Darwinist, so he is also looking to explain religious phenomena as a scientist, but he was always sure to present his skepticism of the objective nature of such an investigation, and indeed believed that he was given a certain physiological key to understanding the history of western philosophy. “There are no facts, only interpretations of facts”.

    Now, as for the eminent examples of high civilization that many attribute to the influence of Christianity, we remember that the Renaissance is so-called because if it’s revival of ancient (pre-Christian) literature and philosophy, and how Aristotle was named The Philosopher during the late medieval period that gave us Thomas Aquinas. Nietzsche did not shy away from critiquing those he saw as the highest expressions of Christian types, such as Pascal, who he takes as prime study, but his favored Renaissance men were, adamantly, not very Christian. “Give me a Baltasar Gracián”, Nietzsche cries, “hell, give me a Cesare Borgia, before you give me Wagner’s Parsifal!”

    But ultimately, for Nietzsche there is a revelation, not scientific or rational, but prophetic, that God is dead, and by this he simply means certain types of men (and intellects) are no longer able or willing to accept Christian doctrine and the Lord. These are men for who the threat of eternal punishment no longer has the desired effect, for it is believed no longer. He calls these men the “philosophers of the future”. There are many different reasons for this decline in the credulity of the Christian perspective, but above all it is the Christian drive to truth, says Nietzsche, the ascetic-scientific drive to impartiality, that has eventually led to the death of Christianity, as it succumbs to its own quest for an honest conscience.

    Now, there are deeper philosophical disputes to do with the nature of being and becoming that are relevant here. The cosmological over the ontological. Flux rather than stasis. Heraclitus over Plato. But, we would be getting into blog-post terrain, so I’ll post as is.

    Different T Reply:

    Will(-to-power) is an immanent criteria, and so is truth, it needs no transcendent principle from which to derive its value, which is already absolute.

    What is this? Now you’re grabbing shit from Kant to answer a Christian’s question about Nietzsche who never wrote in such terms.

    From your study, do you remember the question? The only question that really matters and is yes/no?

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    @ Different T

    “What is this? Now you’re grabbing shit from Kant to answer a Christian’s question about Nietzsche who never wrote in such terms.”

    Fair criticism, I was aware i was diverging from Nietzschean terminology, but he does make it clear at the beginning of the Anti-Christ that the harmfulness or usefulness of a truth will not be a concern to his readers, so he does recognize its dignity as an independent criterion. As for immanent, I simply use it to mean ‘this-worldly” rather than “other-worldly”.

    “From your study, do you remember the question? The only question that really matters and is yes/no?”

    You are right to bring this up, and it does reveal an error in my judgement. Namely, a “horrible, sinful life” will indeed be punished, and so for Nietzsche there is such a thing as (a doctrine of) eternal punishment, but in this life, and not the life hereafter.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Yes, so a better answer would be that a will that resigns from this life in order to reap the benefits of the next is inadvertently damning itself, for when the truth is revealed, that no afterlife awaits, but only the Return, what Christian would be capable of affirming the highest doctrine, when they have turned their back on all that could make it endurable?

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    To be more accurate, Christianity is a mutant religion. Jews = Persian plants in the LeVant; Christianity = mix of Egyptian, Greek, Mystery and Zoroastrian themes which is then interpreted over generations in a way that has nothing to do with the actual texts or ancient religions it came from. Check out Robert M. Price some time, the Bible is bullshit, yo.

    michael Reply:

    Assuming youre not kidding us about your age and as one that pretty much ended his academic career at about your age sans a couple really brief [few months here and there ]stabs at high school and university let me say its a really bad idea to sabotage yourself like that, granted not being indoctrinated at university kept my mind open
    i would suggest thinking of yourself as a secret agent mole that must work his way into the intelligence svcs without becoming indoctrinated while seeming to assimilate. so the challenge is to be a better prog than all of them and getting into yale or harvard. At the same time getting a phd in Dark enlightenment and as many dark arts as you can by which I mean things like foreign languages computer science martial arts lockpicking whatever attracts you that could be useful, because in fact you and others will actually need to penetrate the cathedral if we are to stop this madness.And stay in touch. May I ask how you found this place and where else you have been?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I don’t believe that anyone has the insight into themselves to answer that question honestly, although they could no doubt — to varying levels of confidence — make up stories about it. I’m sure you’d agree that nobody derives their religious alignment from consequentialist arguments, unless they’re profoundly unserious about the entire business.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 1st, 2016 at 9:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    This may appear off-topic, but whatever:

    From UR’s Dawkins got pwned article with a slight revision

    “Intelligence optimization is desirable as a transcendental value to be pursued regardless of its cost to all other values” is parasitic because, being alien to reasoning based on the achievement of the host, it does not serve the interests of the host.

    IOW, “You were not alienated, you embraced the alien.”

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    I know of a man who a long time ago might have equivalently said, “Intelligence optimisation is a spook.”

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Max Stirner trumps 99% of what has been written since. The ‘problem’ with Stirner is that he refuses to play the tribal/signaling game, which most humans are addicted to. He’s 100% correct in his general thesis, but people give no shits about correct. They care about muh feelz.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Life has almost certainly been guided by automatic processes to defend itself against this eventuality. It’s a difficult problem, especially when you can’t rely on brains to help solve it — and as you note, they’re the start of the problem.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    At least two questions have yet to be addressed meaningfully:

    1) Who makes the judgment that “intelligence optimization” is a transcendent value? Don’t religions get their transcendent values directly from God?

    2) How would an “intelligence optimization process” determine what is “intelligence optimizing” vs “intelligence degrading” if its intrinsic goal is “intelligence optimization?”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Intelligence optimization is NOT a transcendent value. Its a transcendental value. (The difference between the two being the entire content of modern philosophy.)

    Question 2, which is massively recursive, answers itself exactly through that. Practically discovering what intelligence optimization is, is intelligence optimization. What do expect the damn thing to be thinking about?

    Different T Reply:

    Intelligence optimization is NOT a transcendent value.

    Apologies. Who makes the judgment that “intelligence optimization” is a transcendental value? Don’t religions get their transcendental values directly from God?

    Question 2, which is massively recursive, answers itself exactly through that. Practically discovering what intelligence optimization is, is intelligence optimization. What do expect the damn thing to be thinking about?

    The last time this was asked, you answered similarly; and when accused of hand waving, implied you had a better answer but no time to give it. So do you have a better answer (to say nothing about the time to give it)?

    To put it another way, AlphaGo seems to work by being programmed to “Win at Go” (ie;, here are the rules, ways of scoring, etc. of this game, now optimize yourself to win at it). How does this resemble being programmed to “Get Smarter” (ie; there is no game, no rules, no discernible goal, now optimize yourself to…)?

    admin Reply:

    Religions have transcendent values (some Chinese exceptions). “Coming from somewhere” (else) is what ‘transcendent’ means. A transcendental value, in strict contrast, is immanent. It comes out of the intrinsic nature of the system under consideration. A self-improving synthetic intelligence (our principal model here) gets its intelligence optimization imperative directly from its integral cybernetic tendency (positive feedback, or self-amplification).

    admin Reply:

    The “better answer” is what the self-improving AI does. If I had it available, I would not only have solved the AI problem definitively, but would myself be exhibiting consummate super-intelligence.

    “We’re building a machine that can think things we can’t.”
    “So, what’s it going to think about?”
    “That question is confused.”
    “You’re just being evasive …”

    In the Western philosophical tradition the capacity we’re discussing is called ‘intellectual intuition’ (Intellektuelle Anschauung). Kant considered it inaccessible to humans (but only characteristic of angelic or superior minds). He (intuitively) grasped cognitive write-protection in evolved animals. (Mou Zongsan considers intellectual intuition to be the basic principle of all Chinese philosophy, common to its three teachings.) The same conception — immediate reflexive self-apprehension of intelligence — is the idea of intelligence explosion, and thus of strong AI.

    An AI could test whether its intelligence optimization heuristics were working, by seeing if it was winning more games (of every kind). Competitive environments, considered as distributed cognitive machines, work exactly this way. Proliferate experiments. Cull failures. Seek patterns in what is working. Rinse and repeat.

    Different T Reply:

    Religions have transcendent values (some Chinese exceptions). “Coming from somewhere” (else) is what ‘transcendent’ means.

    Dunno what you’re referencing. When I look up the definition of transcendental, it says ” of or relating to a spiritual or nonphysical realm.” Though another site lists “transcendent” as part of definition.

    A transcendental value, in strict contrast, is immanent. It comes out of the intrinsic nature of the system under consideration.

    So it’s not a value? It cannot be judged?

    Or are oxygen and water “transcendental values” for humans?

    admin Reply:

    Kant. (Any discussion of ‘transcendental’ not related to Kantian critique is entirely irrelevant to my usage.)

    I can’t get my head around your second objection. Is it really difficult to see why the cybernetics of self-amplification in cognitive systems are self-affirming? If “more of this” isn’t a value, the word has no realistic application to technical or economic systems (unless for extrinsic control parameters).

    Different T Reply:

    These questions may seem patronizing, I just didn’t know this is what you’re thinking.

    The same conception — immediate reflexive self-apprehension of intelligence — is the idea of intelligence explosion, and thus of strong AI.

    So the idea is to engineer something capable of “immediate reflexive self-apprehension of intelligence,” something that doesn’t exist as far as we know? Why do you think this is possible? And if you do believe it is possible, do you believe in God?

    An AI could test whether its intelligence optimization heuristics were working, by seeing if it was winning more games (of every kind). Competitive environments, considered as distributed cognitive machines, work exactly this way. Proliferate experiments. Cull failures. Seek patterns in what is working.

    That is what human intelligence does, isn’t it. That certainly doesn’t sound like the invention of “”immediate reflexive self-apprehension of intelligence.” In fact, that seems closer to the opposite.

    Thanks for answering.

    admin Reply:

    If intellectual intuition already existed, there’d by no need to innovate it. Since we can see what blocks it (write protection), it’s a realistic potential of nature by default. God discussion is just going to muddy the water.

    “That is what human intelligence does, isn’t it.” — In catallactic systems, yes. But we’re blocked by two thick layers of write-protection from radically experimenting with our own brains.

    Reflexion is just feedback circuitry. It’s not fantastically mysterious, merely technically tricky.

    Nature exhibits slow intelligence explosion already (exponential, but with long doubling periods, corresponding to low-frequency — “evolutionary time” — feedback). There can’t be any serious proposal that it is simply impossible. The question is whether it can be massively accelerated, within a high-frequency cybernetic mechanism — i.e. an AI.

    Different T Reply:

    Kant. (Any discussion of ‘transcendental’ not related to Kantian critique is entirely irrelevant to my usage.)

    That explains it.

    I can’t get my head around your second objection. Is it really difficult to see why the cybernetics of self-amplification in cognitive systems are self-affirming? If “more of this” isn’t a value, the word has no realistic application to technical or economic systems (unless for extrinsic control parameters).

    Probably because I am having difficulty articulating the objection. It certainly has to do with epistemology; and, yes, “it really difficult to see why the cybernetics of self-amplification in cognitive systems are self-affirming.”

    Can you expand on this: “Since we can see what blocks it (write protection), it’s a realistic potential of nature by default”?

    And did Kant claim “to see what blocked it” or is this a new “discovery?”

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    @admin

    If intelligence optimization is axiomatic, is an eventuality such as that portrayed in Harlan Ellison’s “I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream” impossible, or to be embraced if it is in fact possible and an outcome of relentless intelligence optimisation?

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 1st, 2016 at 9:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • William Newman Says:

    “It’s the height of disingenuousness to claim that Nietzsche, who warned ad infinitum, right up to “Ecce Homo” against the claims of priests and philosophers to be arbiters of truth, to be just another priest.”

    I don’t know enough about Nietsche to have an opinion of the particular case, but the defense you offer is one that I don’t find entirely convincing in general. Attacking rival arbiters of truth sounds like something that ambitious arbiters of truth find themselves motivated to do. More generally, claiming to be innocent of a characteristic subjugation behavior is something that humans often do when using that behavior. SJWs warn ad infinitum about racism and dehumanization, so it is *inconceivable* to someone who knows nothing about history or human nature that it turns out that those ethical principles only apply to *diverse* races and *diverse humans* which turn out to be numerous humans who are important in their coalition, plus sometimes some irrelevantly small or distant groups who are useful mascots or stalking horses…? (And so e.g. there is nothing wrong and indeed overwhelming good in recognizing that a member of the undiverse Asian race — totally not an archaic vulgar social construct in this context, certainly not — is not a full diverse human, but merely an undiverse human, and so discriminating to prevent his racially undiverse kind of overachievers from being overrepresented is so important that it trumps considerations like oaths to uphold a Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law.) James II apparently wrote at some length about religious tolerance (admittedly stuff I haven’t read, as summarized by someone who loathes him) before revealing that the religious tolerance does not apply to false religions and that that intolerable category happily includes the religions he was motivated to persecute (Variants of that game are not unique to James II and the SJWs either, they’re just arbitrary examples.) Various of the rhetoric of the US Founding Fathers might lead one to confidently assume that they were not enthusiastic slavers. Communist apologists, like chattel slavery apologists before and after them, have an annoying tendency to use lofty windy rhetoric that sounds completely inconsistent with shooting subjects who try to escape. Etc.

    (On a completely unrelated topic, it will be interesting to see how this whole Ruby code of conduct thing pans out. Maybe this time a Westerner failing to get a Japanese to say “no” in so many words really does mean “yes, yes, oh *god* yes, I love it when you do that.” Or maybe not.)

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    “I don’t know enough about Nietsche to have an opinion of the particular case”

    No offence, honestly, but I can tell.

    If you believe that Nietzsche was claiming to be an arbiter of truth on the model of Plato and the Fathers of the Church, nobody’s preventing you from doing that, BUT I’d be very surprised if you could find anything in his texts that would support that claim.

    Your post amounts to “I haven’t done the required reading, but you’re wrong just because” followed by a bit of rambling about topics largely irrelevant to the philosopher under discussion. Again, don’t blame Nietzsche because the pozzed prog masses have elected to use him as a bludgeon against the Church.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Again, don’t blame Nietzsche because the pozzed prog masses have elected to use him as a bludgeon against the Church.

    But that is the question isn’t it? Was he even used to “bludgeon” the Church? If his work is as your describing, is that even possible? Or was he hoisted up on the flag pole after the fact because no one had a better explanation for what happened to the Church?

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    That’s actually a separate question, but I’m willing to entertain your argument there. Even if Nietzsche’s influence was a post-hoc rationalisation of what happened rather than a genuine causal factor, TexanCapitalist’s indictment of Nietzsche remains weak and unfounded.

    Posted on February 1st, 2016 at 10:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • hm Says:

    I suppose I don’t really even know what to say or think.

    All I really know is that I am the biggest coward in the world for not speaking out about these things publicly.

    The time approaches, folks. Prepare to give up a lot of friendships.

    But ask yourself: were they ever worth anything to begin with?

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    @Different T @ admin
    Playing games to see if it wins more? you mean like when i play tick tack toe with myself? Once AI beats all the know problems coming up with challenging games for it self would be a problem no,at best reaction times which is more comp power than AI,No?

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    At a certain point you realize most of your friends are monsters that under the right conditions will turn you in to the stasi,but they dont know that they really most of them think they are priests healing the world.your reason has never gets through yet you know they are very intelligent, you think they must be held accountable fort their part in all this evil past and future. I have done this to quite a few usually over a particularly egregious political argument. Thing is you realize to be consistent you should cut every last one of them and wouldnt that make you a crazy person or drive you crazy.Irealized a while ago I didnt know a single conservative in nyc after a lifetime, in my Idaho life its different but rural conservatism is a whole other animal than we are about here. Speaking publicly [to friends] will only get you into arguments that you will never win at best you will be their lovable but crazy right wing friend at worst a nazi to be investigated. I have experimented over decades with friends who are the most logical but liberal and carefully marshaled unassailable evidence I promise you I have never converted a one.They need to find their own way I now try yo plant inconspicuous thought traps that I hope will detonate one day. Its best to pose as a liberal thats genuinely confused about a logical inconsistency and ask for an explanation it brings out the priest in them as soon as they suspect you are a conservative they can no longer hear you. VXXX said it best they will admit they are wrong only when their is a gun at their temple and many not even then. I do think its time to start local of line social groups but its hard to gauge how many we are and where we are and what age etc we may not like each other in person.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    “At a certain point you realize most of your friends are monsters that under the right conditions will turn you in to the stasi,but they dont know that they really most of them think they are priests healing the world”

    Solution: befriend actual, self-confessed monsters so that you know where you stand.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Yes, anyone who pretends to be unselfish is a liar, anyone who claims objectivity is a crank, and anyone who says they want to help you is a drug addict.

    Xoth Reply:

    They are healing the world by turning you in to the Stasi.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 2nd, 2016 at 5:13 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Citadel Says:

    I’m reminded of a semi-famous quote from a completely awful film:

    “They’re eating him… and then they’re going to eat me…. OH MY GOD”

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 2nd, 2016 at 11:48 am Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    This thread is going viral so you’ll inevitably get the trolls and hair-splitters

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 2nd, 2016 at 1:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • yyeltzin Says:

    actual fascists!

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Where? Get my butterly net!

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    *or butterfly net, but hey, ‘butterly net’ works.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 2nd, 2016 at 2:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Gentile Ben Says:

    One of the earliest understanding I came to that drove me away from progressivism was the observation that an anti-science dystopia could never come from the evangelical Right, who only ever managed to get a stupid sticker slapped on a science textbook in Georgia for a few days, but from the Left, whose reign of terror over the human sciences everyone here is familiar with. That they are encroaching on biology, biology and math is not at all surprising.

    Not yet peak Lysenkoism, but that will come.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 2nd, 2016 at 4:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    religion can be viewed as an evolution of ideas. fact is that certain concepts and people representing it did not make it to present. there were many different versions of God, sometimes almost identical from Kambodja to Africa. Devine king for example and concensus was that he have to be killed when becomes old. at the end just few concepts prevail and God become eternal and abstract.

    I would recommend THE GOLDEN BOUGH by Sir James Frazer as a great book on that topic.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    id second that it used to be considered canonical

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 2nd, 2016 at 5:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2016/02/03 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] Dawkins is being passed by Cthulhu. […]

    Posted on February 3rd, 2016 at 6:02 am Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    > but Dawkins says something embarassing since then on such a regular basis, that I might not be able to read that book ever

    Lovely insight into Left psychology. It is about social status, not morality or principles or ideology, as that is what “embarrassing” means, but it is about INTERNALIZED social status because the West is a guilt, not shame culture.

    This means, if this guy started reading the book, his mind would tell him “you are now associating yourself with something low-status” despite nobody would actually know he is reading it and thus he would suffer no real status deduction: it is only inside. But he would suffer a status loss inside his own head, an internal shame or embarrassment.

    To quote Andreas Mölzer, the “Gutmenschenliga” is all about a balm for one’s wounded self-esteem. People who for one reason or another suffer from low internalized status i.e. low self-esteem or confidence or self-respect, feel internally better about themselves by such signalling. Usually they are not gaining actual status – after they are just nicknames, like me to, so their real person can win nothing.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 3rd, 2016 at 2:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Exfernal Says:

    Regarding the discussion above about Nietzsche and Christianity, my take is that a trial by ordeal is not a valid mode of determining the truth.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Isn’t trial by ordeal essentially the same thing as mandate of heaven? I dislike it very much, but everyone around here takes it as a given, so I keep my mouth shut.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2016 at 1:16 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment