Quote notes (#87)

Following a mysterious blog crash, Jim is back with a concise barn-burner.  The conclusion gives a sense of the provocation:

Suppose a neoreactionary becomes a Roman Catholic. Trouble is that the Pope is to the left of Pol Pot. So he can disown the pope, and keep the New Testament, which is kind of protestant of him, or disown the New Testament and keep the pope, which is kind of commie of him.

He wants to be a throne and altar conservative, but all the thrones are empty, and all the altars desecrated, so he winds up worshiping desecration, which is one step away from the New Age worship of demons and the evil dead.

(If any eddies from the subsequent turbulence end up in the comment thread here, they are most welcome.)

My question: What sense of providence comes out of this?


ADDED: I’ve thrown in an ‘Insanity’ tag in honor of the comment thread. Also this:

June 5, 2014admin 110 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations , Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

110 Responses to this entry

  • Bryce Laliberte Says:

    It’s never easy being Catholic.

    The Catholics accuse you of being insufficiently Catholic, the non-Catholics accuse you of being too Catholic. For good measure, there’s always a liberal dose of talk about child molestation or Pope Francis’ stupid political opinions, never mind both are irrelevant to the essence of the matter.

    And then: “There are few good Christians, darkly enlightened, neoreactionary: They are Dalrock and Sunshine Mary. I really am not aware of any others that blog, or used to blog.”

    So Steves and I don’t count? Or is Jim old and forgetful?

    One finds himself constantly wishing that Jim were a little longer on reasoning and a little shorter on indignation.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I realize Catholics don’t tend to stress the upside of fission, but I’m naively hoping to see some stresses explored elsewhere in the Trike — beyond the NeoCam v. Eth-nat arguments (which have got quite stale). Jim is probably too detached from the fever pit to get into that himself — unless possibly at his place?

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    Forgetful, sorry about that.

    [Reply]

    Al Reply:

    What, then, is relevant to the essence of the matter? The way I see it, Jesus Christ is said to have made a promise to Peter, “gates of hell shall not prevail” against the Church and all that. We then get two options:

    1) The promise applied to the institutional Catholic Church. In that case, Vatican II never happened. If Vatican II did happen, Jesus’s promise is invalid. If the promise is invalid, Jesus was not the Son of God and did not establish the Catholic Church. Catholicism is thereby proved false.

    2) The promise applied to something amorphous, called a “church”, which may be just about anything (“if two or three are gathered in my name”, and so on). That’s the only way I see that’s compatible with Christianity being true, but, then, why the need to tolerate heretic Popes in order to maintain oneself inside a de facto anti-Christian institution?

    I have the greatest respect for Catholicism. It’s a safe bet that every one of my ancestors from 1500 years ago to the last two generations lived and died in the Faith, and the last thing I’d want is to piss on their graves. But the mind games necessary to convince oneself to keep loyal to the current Church seem to me just like, say, trying to argue that the United States is still governed by its Constitution. In both cases, the arguments are internally consistent, but they strike everyone not already committed to the conclusion as special pleading.

    That’s my $2c.

    [Reply]

    bob sykes Reply:

    Perhaps the promise was made to the Orthodox Church. After all, Peter was first among equals, but is not obvious that he had Pope status at that point. The Orthodox Church also has a good claim on continuity. The Great Schism set one Patriarch (of the West) agains the rest.

    The downside of Orthodoxy is that it does not recognize any other form of Christianity as valid.

    Catholicism’s current dominance of Christianity (at least 50% and maybe as much as 80% of all Christians) is large the result of the success of the Portuguese and Spanish Empires.

    PS. I would add Vox Day to the neoreactionary Christians. Of course, he’s not orthodox in any sense.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 4:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    They don’t worship desecration, they abhor it but endure it for the sake of fidelity to something higher and in the hope of its transience. They adhere in their hearts to their ideal, but not always realized, version of their faith community, and feel that current deviations are personal and temporary, and that one day this too shall pass and the perpetual institution can better achieve that vision in the future.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Which is a sense of enduring providence? (As opposed to radical religious crisis — and a meta- or hyper-providentialism.)

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    Example: Many people in the US military are less than perfectly ebullient about the recent requirement to embrace pretty much every kind of sexual deviancy. That makes them disappointed in the current state of affairs regarding their institution, but does not really undermine their loyalty or the part of their identity they associate with belonging to that institution. It’s something that stings and makes them grimace, but they can endure it, still stand up and salute, attribute it to ‘the times we live in’. And they perhaps retain some shred of hope that in the far future the momentum will cease and change directions and these policies could be reversed, and the permanent institution is redeemed without interruption and remains strong for future generations.

    Well, that’s the analogous feeling anyway. They’d be wrong about the military, we’re going to replace Joe with robots forever just as soon as they are competitive.

    Maybe the Catholic Church could find some robot worshippers. In Robin Hanson EMS land, the biggest religion is the one that supports the most human-equivalent-prayers per second. Full St Peter’s will a supercomputer farm called “The Monastery” with countless simulated souls performing 17 gazillion Hail Mary’s every minute.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 5:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Billy Chav Says:

    This is exactly why I think the term “Cathedral” is so powerful. It’s the image of a church without an orientation to God, but still administered by these weird cowled personages, which is both chilling and truthful.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Yes.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 5:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    I wonder, considering the current Pope, why don’t catholics just convert to orthodoxy?

    [Reply]

    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    We are Catholic for the Papacy, not the Pope.

    [Reply]

    Brandon Bruce Reply:

    I don’t see why someone 0% Greek/Slavic would covert to Orthodoxy, even if it lacks some of the progressive infection that the RC does. My ancestors were serfs for the Holy Roman Emperor, not the one in Constantinople. It would just feel odd being Orthodox.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 5:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    In the linked thread, I noted a brief discussion on Mormonism:

    I find the descent of Mormonism into the subversive depths of progressivism profoundly depressing- what could be a lively model (in many respects) for NRx to emulate has all but been completely lost.

    I share Harold Bloom’s lamentation that Mormonism has devolved into one more Protestant sect- visit their website, it looks like some propaganda campaign for multiculturalism and the most puerile of self help, Osteen brand Christian hedonism.

    Being raised Mormon (though not having so identified for many, many years), with the leftover vestiges of love, for the people, the culture, and even some of its original theology, I’m literally nauseated.

    Mormonism always had that broad sense of affinity with ‘liberal theology,’ even going so far as to declare that the rift between God and man was one of degree, not expressly ontological in nature- far removed from Barth and company, in their epistemological nihilism and postulation of the absolute “Otherness” of God, and far removed from the pessimism of Solomon and Job and of course, “The Imitation of Christ,” which declared, “Verily it is a wretched thing to be alive on the earth.”

    But, the “dark” undertones were there, enough to be compelling in its vision of the order of earth- in fact, Mormonism was originally theological steampunk- and Joseph Smith the perfect Romantic reaction to the Industrial Revolution.

    Mormonism is now, to quote Julius Evola, “resemble(s) the fluorescence that appears when a corpse decomposes.”

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I’m pretty sure you’re wrong. That may be where things end up, but they aren’t there yet and they aren’t on an irrevocable course for that either. Mormons just rejected a media and protest campaign for female ordination, for example.

    [Reply]

    RorschachRomanov Reply:

    The Church throws an occasional bone to the proverbial Orthodox, geriatric dementia patient (as has come to be portrayed), but the silver has been flying from their hands for half a century- I am not so disposed as to declare their complete dissolution into one more hydra head of the Cathedral as “inevitable,” but it is (at minimum) a reasonable inference.

    Though, perhaps indeed this process was an inevitability, see the 9th Article of Faith:

    “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

    God will soon be “revealing” that gay marriage is divinely ordained after all- my estimation, 10-15 years.

    No exit.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    The Mormons did have that experience in the 19th where they found out that if you successfully resist the Cathedral, they just send the troops after you (or pass laws confiscating all your property and suppressing your believers, which is close enough). So its only natural that they would want to make concessions here and there as America drift leftwards that would be enough to keep them just this side of the line that leads you to being crushed. But they are as close to that line as ever–see Prop. 8.

    I don’t think Mormons have some kind of secret magic ring that makes them inherently invulnerable to the Left. In fact, I’m pretty sure that the church will continue to grudgingly move left or be forcibly crushed.* Being dragged along by the ratchet instead of marching right along with it is probably the best that can be hoped for any large organization (USG does NOT accept rivals). So by that standard, the Mormons are doing pretty good. They still have sex roles, they still have children, they still reject gay marriage, they still say homosex is sin, they still believe in hard work and enterprise and haven’t called for social welfare. Keep a gimlet eye, but for now it still looks like the best community in which to raise children around, unless you are willing to go full Amish.

    *there are counterindications. The Mormon leadership has recently been warning the membership to expect more persecutions in the future and a more adversarial relationship with the larger soceity

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    There is always hope.

    Two of the most prominent Mormon progressives have just had excommunication proceedings opened against them, the NYT’s is reporting.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us/two-activists-within-mormon-church-threatened-with-excommunication.html?_r=0

    I loved the ‘probation’ letter that one of them put up. The lack of interest in thought crimes in the letter is 100% incompatible with Left thinking.

    http://www.jrganymede.com/2014/06/11/kellys-probation-letter/

    Xunzi Reply:

    As a fellow traveler of NRx and having a Mormon background myself (which I gave up at a young age), I must sympathize with this lamentation. Although it still retains its hierarchical structure, it seems unable to resist the temptations of egalitarianism. The goal it shares with most offshoots of Christianity to spread its variation of ‘truth’ to all those who will listen, if taken seriously, renders it incapable of resisting degeneration in the era of globalization; isn’t Brazil now the country with the greatest number of Mormons? In the blue state where I gained most of my exposure to Mormonism, you would be forgiven for walking into a congregation and mistakenly thinking you stumbled upon the public and oh-so multicultural psychiatric ward staffed with starry-eyed SWPLs setting up de facto social services for the deranged. In recent years, since it must be conceded that the actual beliefs of Mormonism are absurd, it has been my impression that there has been an influx of the kookiest of lower-class blacks drawn in by the prospects of a socially acceptable channel for their insanity in addition to the benefits layered neatly adopt those provided to them by the state. Recent comparative-historical studies (‘The Rise of Mormonism’) have shown that Mormonism is rising at the same rate that Christianity once did, so I would expect that to continue broadening its base it will become progressively progressive until it sits neatly alongside other branches of Protestantism. It’s a shame, but it had a good run.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 5:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Amon Khan Says:

    Reactionaries, neo- or otherwise, should let the dessicated corpse that is Christianity shamble off into oblivion. Better yet, they should push it into a grave and cover it with tons of rock to ensure that it never rises again. The Nazarene cult is, after all, the mother of the Cathedral and the progressive spirit, and should never be forgiven for that.

    If you need a muscular, anti-progressive form of monotheism, you’d be better off considering certain varieties of Islam. Muslims have been resisting the arrogance and aggression of the Cathedral for centuries, not just with blogs but with blood, and their spirit still hasn’t been broken (unlike Christians). There is something attractive, at least to me, about a religion that aggressively resists bid’ah (innovation), Bolshevism and cultural degeneration, is fecund, vital, and seeks power without shame. Many of the ills of modern Western civilization can find an antidote in Islam.

    Some of the more interesting (white) reactionaries around are Muslims, like Abdalqadir as-Sufi, Abdur Raheem Green, and Hamza Yusuf. Where else but in Islam will you find white men lecturing largely Middle Eastern and African audiences about the restoration of the British Monarchy, Edgar Allen Poe or the evils of feminism and sexual deviancy?

    Of course, if capitalism, technology or race is your religion, then Islam won’t be for you either. But if you are looking for a comprehensive ideological and cultural antidote to Judeo-Christian-Progressivism, there’s nothing stronger in the world today than Islam. Just something to consider…

    [Reply]

    Nyk Reply:

    I have been recently considering the same ideas, following a trip to Morocco. Morocco is a Muslim country, but with enough French elements mixed in to become a functional country, even one to be admired considering its location in Africa just north of a hellhole such as Mauritania. They have good roads and railways, the cities are generally clean and well-maintained – they are clearly trying to be civilized in spite of their maybe not-so-helpful genes (according to Lynn the average IQ would be about 90). Oh, and did I mention they have a King? Constitutional they say, but in practice it is forbidden to criticize him, and he has a LOT of influence and wealth.

    Not only is there no official dress code (beyond basic decency, i.e. women in bathing suits are only allowed on the beach), alcohol can be freely purchased in any Carrefour supermarket (admittedly, in a separate section of the store). 40% of young women in coastal cities (usually the unmarried ones) don’t wear the veil (a time-saving aid for young men if you ask me).

    If we Europeans were to convert en-masse to Islam, we would certainly find the potential to refashion Islam into something like it is currently in Morocco, soften the radicals and restore the Golden Age of Islamic science, while also taking the good, reactionary values contained in the Qur’an. But I strongly suspect this will only buy us a couple hundred years (bar the Singularity occurring). We are just as likely to ruin Islam as we ruined Christianity, turning a reactionary-to-the-core religion into some vehicle for progressivism. I will only note that Islam is also a small-u universalist religion. So it certainly can become a large-U Universalist ideology in a couple of centures, especially under White European domination. We managed to ruin the Roman Empire too, didn’t we?

    [Reply]

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    [devil’s advocate]

    Well, not necessarily.

    It would take us a few hundred years to ruin Islam.

    But by that time we might be completely different people thanks to the (unofficial) Muslim custom of cousin marriage. Universalism down, corruption and clannishness up.

    See HBD chick on clannishness vs universalism.

    And if you avoid marrying your first cousins then cousin marriage doesn’t even lower IQ significantly.

    If HBD chick’s theory is correct then a heretical endogamous ethno-religious sect of Islam could, in theory, fix the White universalism problem without significant dysgenic effect.

    Meanwhile, outbreeders are (in theory) doomed to become more universalistic.
    [/devil’s advocate]

    [Reply]

    Amon Khan Reply:

    Right, a white version of Nation of Islam would be a stroke of genius.

    Amon Khan Reply:

    To elaborate a bit, according to NOI doctrine, Allah sent Elijah Muhammad as a prophet for black people, to address the unique problems they were facing in his time. Is it such a great stretch to imagine Allah sending a prophet for white people, to address the unique problems we are facing today?

    Amon Khan Reply:

    Right Nyk, a European-led Islam would be an unstoppable powerhouse. What besides Islam can revitalize moribund Europe at this point? Guess who realized all this more than 70 years ago?

    “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

    “Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers – Already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! – Then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.”

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    “Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers – Already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! – Then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. …”

    “If only those meek, cringing, sheeplike followers of the Jewish Slave-God hadn’t won such a crushingly decisive military victory over the invincible warriors of Islam!”

    Dan Reply:

    I am persuaded! Now where can I find an Imam who will scrape out my daughters’ clitorises with a rusty spoon? /sarc

    My six-year-old daughter completed the whole Harry Potter series in a week. Her literacy already disqualifies her. /not sarc

    [Reply]

    Al Reply:

    Cliterectomy is a custom in the Arab and Arab-influenced world, not of “Islam”.

    Of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims, 985.000.000 live in the Asia-Pacific region. Only 317.000.000 live in the Middle East and North Africa. A further 248.000.000 live in sub-Saharan Africa. That’s 61.7% Asia-Pacific, 19.8% Middle East/North Africa, 15.5% Black Africa, the remainder in Europe and the Americas.

    That get’s you something from 20 to 35% of Muslims practicing cliterectomy, depending on how far you guess African Muslims adopted the Arab practice of cliterectomy with their Islam. That is to say, 65 to 80% of them, at least, do not practice it.

    [Reply]

    survivingbabel Reply:

    I can’t think of anything less reactionary than selecting a religion based on cynical calculus as opposed to truth value. Which is why I expect mass Prog conversions to Islam (at least in Europe) within the next decade.

    [Reply]

    RorschachRomanov Reply:

    The Leftist affinity for Islam has always stuck me as woefully self relationally antipodean- like injecting its own Trojan Horse into its own ideology.

    Is this a manifestation of the Cathedral’s suicidal ideation?

    Reminds me of the white progressive, bravely charging into the metro heart of darkness, (aka heavily populated by blacks) to show his solidarity with the downtrodden black man, only to be robbed and beaten. Irony.

    [Reply]

    Wahabists Reply:

    Ernest Gellner thought Islam was the religion best suited for modernity, and gives several book length arguments (both philosophical and empirical) that this is the case. All the talk above about it being reactionary doesn’t actually gel with the anthropological literature, and also matches with recent prog-to-Islam conversions as you both noted.

    soapjackal Reply:

    How repulsive. No one remembers the ottoman empire or the Muslim wars against Europe. Or early Christanity.

    Weak variants and various corruptions and proto leftoids can always corrupt something orderly.

    There’s also something impressive about the age of Christanity before it was destroyed. Will Islam fair just as well when given wealth.

    I’ll be honest I’m gnostic who loves his heritage. The very concept of tying to Islam is repulsive. I’ll listen to an intellectual conversation but I want less than nothing to do with that thede.

    I’d rather be onboard with the stoics or German pagans.

    [Reply]

    Al Reply:

    I don’t get the “no one remembers”-style arguments. Continuing this line of thought, we should ditch Christianity because that damned Theodosius persecuted our Pagan ancestors and closed down the Academy.

    Jerusalem and Athens/Rome were utterly irreconcilable, and then a synthesis laboriously emerged. Given this precedent, it’s not impossible that a further synthesis of Mecca with Jerusalem/Athens/Rome could yet arise, no matter how monstrous the thing might appear to us now.

    [Reply]

    Al Reply:

    And in that case, the Christendom/Dar al-Islam wars will eventually look like internal squabbles from the very long run perspective, just like the Roman conquest of the Hellenistic kingdoms doesn’t strike us today as wars between utterly irreconcilable opponents.

    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    >If you need a muscular, anti-progressive form of monotheism, you’d be better off considering certain varieties of Islam.

    Christianity is not perfect (full of lies and some bad social tech) but it’s mine. Converting to islam is getting conquered. No thanks.

    Islam is not currently leftist (it is admired by leftists, but not leftist itself), but we don’t really understand the process by which a religion becomes leftist well enough to throw out our dignity and convert to Islam.

    I am of the opinion that we ought to figure out these matters to the point where we can fix the Western tradition.

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    The Nazarene cult is, after all, the mother of the Cathedral

    Strong evidence for its truth (corruptio optimi pessima and all that).

    [Reply]

    totalesturns Reply:

    Some of the more interesting (white) reactionaries around are Muslims, like Abdalqadir as-Sufi, Abdur Raheem Green, and Hamza Yusuf.

    Add to that list the English convert Abdal-Hakim Murad, whose Contentions (aphorisms) ought to be more widely read; he resembles an Islamic version of Don Colacho.

    [Reply]

    Amon Khan Reply:

    Thank you for telling me about Shaykh Murad, I’m very impressed. Readers may find this critique of modern Western civilization interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWOKaOb33K4

    Brilliant stuff. NRxers may be surprised at the depth and power of the Islamic critique of modernity. I know I was.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 6:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    @RorschachRomanov

    Though, Mormonism could serve as a template for the techno-commercialist faction of NRx- their theosis is not even a full step removed from transhumanism.

    And Mormon metaphysics are broadly materialist, after all.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 7:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    RorschachRomanov @ RorschachRomanov? What the hell? Well, I’ll take this blatant display of ludditism as a badge of honor!

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 7:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mai La Dreapta Says:

    There is something attractive, at least to me, about a religion that aggressively resists bid’ah (innovation),

    Eastern Orthodoxy has the same feature; the main theological cause of the schism between east and west was the innovation of the filioque. In fact, most of your complaints about Christianity are really complaints about Protestantism, and secondarily about Roman Catholicism. The average native Orthodox is a perfect natural reactionary, suspicious and disdainful of all social change and theological innovation, and the average convert is a perfect reasoned reactionary (to use the terminology from here) seeking refuge after realizing that their original religious identity was, if not actually an agent of evil, incapable of resisting the rot. (Though of course one can find prominent liberal Orthodox, which the media are likely to fawn over, just as they fawn over ‘moderate’ Islam.)

    Nonetheless, if mainstream Eastern Orthodoxy is still too progressive for you, you can always try the non-Chalcedonian Coptic Orthodox or Ethiopian Tewahedo Church, or the Russian Old Believers.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 7:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • R7 Rocket Says:

    Well… Progressivism really is an offshoot of Christianity after all.

    [Reply]

    soapjackal Reply:

    You think that African Christanity or Orthodoxy would really spawn progressivism? It’s progressives (or protoprogs) that produce progressivism.

    [Reply]

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    It might not be progressivism (different environment, totally different starting material / stats) but there is every reason to believe that interesting stuff would have happened if Africans had been taking Christianity seriously for the last 1200 or 1300 years.

    That’s an evolutionarily significant period of time (see 10,000 year explosion) and Christianity (like other social systems) changes the game when it comes to reproductive fitness; advantaging some traits and disadvantaging other traits.

    If African Christianity looks barbaric and warlike right now, that’s hardly a surprise. Germanic Christianity looked like that at first too. See http://www.amazon.com/Germanization-Early-Medieval-Christianity-Sociohistorical/dp/0195104668 As German barbarians were made Christian, they also made Christianity more German. In a stabby way.

    But the social order imposed by Christianity naturally expunged those elements over time, it took a while, but it led to a more Christian Christianity. Which is, perhaps, not an unmixed blessing.

    And perhaps the natural eugenic effect of the traditional Christian order wasn’t strictly eugenic after all, but situationally beneficial. Christianity made people more domesticated and more universalistic. And those traits were highly beneficial up to a point, but when they reached extreme levels they became detrimental. A number of personality traits are beneficial within certain ranges but detrimental or even insane when they reach extreme levels. Christianity’s “eugenic” effect sowed the seeds of its own destruction by giving rise to a race of overly-domesticated, overly-universalistic people. Progressives.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Oh, it can. The Bogomils (Catars) were probably one of the more crazy christian heretics and precursors to protestantism in their aggressive rejection of official canon and church authority because of the corruption its corruption and they originated in orthodox Bulgaria.
    Orthodoxy didn’t spawn anything serious on its territory because the tzar or emperor would always persecute heretics for disobeying church canon, as they were in effect disobeying him. (Plus, by the time of protestantism, the only Orthodox nation not conquered by the Ottomans were the Russians) You have a more complicated church-sovereign relations in the west and the kings there had less incentive to prosecute heretics, even on the contrary.

    It’s a fact christianity produced progressivism, Moldbug’s work on the religious nature and origin of progressivism is probably his most interesting.
    There’s something about monotheistic semitic religions and batshit insane fundamentalism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 7:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    LesserBull,

    Perhaps I have been unkind; you are correct to highlight the intensity of the Cathedral’s efforts to preclude ‘exit’ at all costs, and to be sure, surviving a literal “extermination order” (1838) and a series of persecutions would quite naturally induce a strong sense of remembrance.

    As ‘exit’ threatens the (always and everywhere selective) hyper-inclusivity of progressivism, the very ideology in question demands pogroms, Inquisitions, and/or doctrinal acquiescence. In light of this fact, and your response, I have been forced, it would seem, to adopt more a pro-attitude of tragedy as relative to Mormonism and as against the tone of righteous indignation in my former post.

    I suppose this painfully reveals that omnipresent disconnect between the ideal and the actual- ideally, those seeking exit would not face a Waco-style apocalypse, actually, (as you say) “being dragged along by the ratchet” is that condition which forestalls annihilation.

    In this humbled spirit of remembrance, I am reminded of one of my favorite verses of Mormon scripture, The Doctrine and Covenants, Section 123:10-

    The Cathedral…”Which dark and blackening deeds are enough to make hell itself shudder, and to stand aghast and pale, and the hands of the very devil to tremble and palsy.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 8:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Contemplationist Says:

    Yes, let’s become Muslim savages and forsake capitalism, technology and European Christian culture. The stupid, it hurts.

    [Reply]

    RorschachRomanov Reply:

    Well, to be fair, there is nothing in being Muslim that demands the rejection of capitalism or technology, and there would be more affinity between traditionalist reactionarism guided by Islam with European Christian culture than anything even miles approaching the Cathedral radius.

    The problem, as I see it, is that Islam is inherently and profoundly universalist and expansionist- I don’t think it’d be long before it too would resemble the waning, decadent, expansionist empire of America.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 8:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • Quote notes (#87) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 8:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • fotrkd Says:

    NRx goes Islamic? I missed the memo. (Peace be upon him).

    [Reply]

    RorschachRomanov Reply:

    The mainstream “right” cries foul over the degeneration of its visualized civilizational core a la Islam; Subway is going straight halal where Islamic demographics are outpacing European natives…meanwhile, the Cathedral is working its subverting darkness dialectically on Islam…you want empirical evidence? See below:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVDIXqILqSM

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    I’ve become convinced in the past couple of months that liberals naturally produce some serious LSD style compound. That video seems to me how the liberal seriously sees the world.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    (I was actually thinking of this (for some reason)).

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 9:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    As with a great majority of perceived existential threats, Islam is threatening to NRx not because of evaluative disconnects between the two, but because of mutual similarities. The ‘ethical’ problem is less that of difference, and more that of sameness.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Jesus wept.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 9:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Yes there is something inherent in Islam against technology, the conflict of faith and reason was resolved conclusively in favor of faith [The Incoherence of the Philosophers] 1000 years ago. Avorres is studied in the West, usually by apologists. They will always be the slaves of ignorant, donkey riding mullahs.

    Speaking of incoherent philosophers….this isn’t hyper-providentialism, it’s a rerun.

    Catholicism has an Anti-Pope. This is either number 33 or 34, depending on how you count.

    This has happened many times. The Church endures. In many ways the coming time of reckoning will be good for it. At present it seems it can’t resist evil, that’s what happens when you’re a coward. You can’t resist anything.

    Our problem is our Catholic Elites – The Prelates – are as rotted out as all the rest.

    Dan don’t despair. They just want anyone else to do any heavy lifting, Islam, robots, Kings, anyone. NRxn is good as critique of Progressivism. It excels at that. That is the end of the matter and it’s been noted and I believe at this point fairly widely acknowledged.

    The solution must come from elsewhere, I suggest we look for the Brave and the Unreasonable. And the modestly educated. Simple literacy is enough. Beyond that seems to lead to Chaos. The Muslims may be right about that….certainly any brighter than say Plunkitt was disasterous for America. Intelligence and power breed ambition and conquest.

    My problem is you’re all the most interesting people to talk to, action Heroes aren’t. Sigh.
    It’s like looking for the perfect wife I guess.

    [Reply]

    RorschachRomanov Reply:

    Ah yes, Islam demands ludditism which is of course why, contextually through history, Islamic nations defeated Christian nations- it was there inferior Islamic technology that carried the day.

    The Burj Khalifa is the perfect example of Islamic primitivism. Savages.

    http://burj-khalifa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Burj-1.jpg

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Then submit to Islam and be done with it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 10:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • fotrkd Says:

    Dear Google Europe,

    NRx turned me – completely unwittingly – into a white nationalist Muslim. I am therefore making a formal Forget Me Now request.

    Yours sincerely,

    fotrkd

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 11:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    @VXXC

    *their*

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 11:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    @
    Nation of Islam. Seriously.
    This is the religion that has a black scientist called Yacub that lived 6,000 years ago and created the white man as a race of devils?

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 5th, 2014 at 11:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • soapjackal Says:

    I find that I went from agnostic to gnostic via divine experience and then I was totally submerged into the archeofuturist branch of the right.

    Pre 10th century Christianity may have a comeback.

    Also anyone on this thread who is actually considering Islam is quite silly.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Silly or in the wrong place. You know, we’re actually teeing it up perfectly for admin to make a dogleg on this:

    “The past was a lazy assumption we couldn’t afford any longer. Even the jihadis understood that, the smart ones, the ones we dealt with, by the time we’d done with them. Our squabble was beginning to seem like a very shallow affair, when compared to the things that started to emerge from beneath the deep cover. And then, just as the new threat-scape maps were coming together, the final absurdity rolled in, the investigations, the hearings. We were accused of driving people insane …”

    [Reply]

    soapjackal Reply:

    Hopefully

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2014 at 12:20 am Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    Christianity is all but a rotted corpse, Buddhism had half of itself in the grave from the beginning, Judaism is designed for a delimited population…myriad waves of rebranded, kitsch religions will arise, as is to be expected for a civilization still living in the shadows of dead gods (Evola calls this the “second religiosity”)…

    …atheism will be intolerable when the incessant divertissements offered us in the land of the hyper-real wane (“what are you doing after the orgy?”, Baudrillard).

    NRx needs Islam.

    Neoslam.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    I vote we let the US Secret Service scan this thread for sarcasm (with this guy). It must be…

    [Reply]

    RorschachRomanov Reply:

    NRx is already at war with itself-

    The ethno-nationalists tend towards demotism, to their destruction.

    The techno-commercialists are gnostic extinctionists.

    The traditionalist reactionaries desperately need to distance themselves from NRx, on account of the “neo” (in neo-reaction) smelling like BO.

    Only a revitalized, Christian West stands a chance against Islam- McDonalds has the power of deterritorialization, but I fear even this powerful god of the West, Mr. Ronald McDonald, will be defeated by the Koran.

    Allahu Akbar.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    OK. That’s fine. You’ve renounced (or never claimed?) the NRx label. So long as other reactionaries do the same we have no argument.

    admin Reply:

    Hang on, has Rorschach gone from degenerate Mormonism to Crimson Jihad over the course of one comment thread? Or is my concentration slipping?

    (On the substantive point — agreed, Crimson Jihad probably isn’t a great fit with NRx.)

    admin Reply:

    “The techno-commercialists are gnostic extinctionists.” — Only in part.

    Would you consider recognition of individual human mortality ‘extinctionist’? (You do know that everything dies, right? The only question is about the timing.)

    soapjackal Reply:

    @rorschach

    Don’t confuse analysis with action.

    No one went into this pretending those 3 factions would.be together in such action. Only those who have congruent values and capacity to consider an archeofuturistic sythesis are even considering at and they were usually that way prior.

    No, Nrx is about analysis and truth value. To even consider going down that route is innane.

    Even I’d Islamic flavored fraternities form for the right whites here I know for sure that I won’t be their friends even if they produce discussion that’s stimulating. It’s the same thing I do with all anti-civilization discontents like progs

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2014 at 12:58 am Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    Does this thread figure on the NSA database as a Jihadi recruitment center yet?

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    Is that how we qualify for funding?

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2014 at 4:45 am Reply | Quote
  • Red Says:

    The cathedral is embracing Mormonism. If you watched very carefully, they muted their attacks on Romney despite years of obvious prep work designed to rip Romney apart on his goofy religion. At the last moment the attack plan was called off. The Mormon church appears to prepping to replace Jews as the middleman minority class for the cathedral. Step by step they’ve moving into the Cathedral camp no mater what the rank and file think. After all, the Cathedral needs a class to do their high level dirty work and the Mormons will be a great fit.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    The Mormons might be moving left, but surely “replacing the Jews” is hyperbole.

    Becoming the political commissar class in the army and security agencies sounds more like it.

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    Correct. They are doing their long march through those institutions and slowly but surely accumulating over-representation at the top levels. That’s worth an analysis on its own, but it also means that those institutions have gotten a booster shot of long-term immunity to auto-Cathedralization. The military can still be ordered to embrace trannies by the political appointee level, but it’s never going to go full retard on its own.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Guys, I’d like to think that there is some awesome Machiavellian plan like that, but it just ain’t so. Mormons are and continue to be overrepresented in the officer corps and the security state, in the corporate managerial world and in the professions, but there is no plan. It’s an inevitable and natural outgrowth of the strong Mormon cultural pattern of wanting a wife who isn’t the primary earner and who has kids. Even easier when you consider that Mormonism has a positive role for masculinity in its way and a lot of those institutions are vestigially and subterraneanly still fairly masculine too. Plus the fact that Mormons are comfortable with hierarchy.

    But those institutions are all increasingly cathedralized, so its creating dilemmas. Sometime in the last decade or so the Mormon leadership has decided that the attempt to keep the US culture and politics Mormon friendly has failed and instead they’re moving in the direction of trying to privatize and exoticize Mormonism, so that its social sanity is just some kind of peculiar quirk that doesn’t threaten anybody, no sir, please please leave us alone. Success is not guaranteed, but they have to try, because inadvertently or advertently, Mormonism has a number of pre-commitments that radically raise the cost of internalizing the Cathedral in the LBGTQ/radical gender construction area. To take just one core problem: Mormonism’s family ideology that the married, complementary couple is the basic unit of exaltation to Godhood is one of its key appeals for quality converts and also sociologically at the root of the church’s success in retaining intelligent educated people, and the leadership and the more engaged membership know all this. Interesting times, in the proverbial Chinese/Jewish/whomever sense.

    Posted on June 6th, 2014 at 6:41 am Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    @Outsideness:

    Atheism crosses event horizon into Left Singularity

    There’s been some amusing pushback:

    http://i.imgur.com/8Xjy9.jpg

    http://www.alstefanelli.com/aplusreligion.jpg

    http://oi48.tinypic.com/4qpmjb.jpg

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2014 at 10:15 am Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    “If only those meek, cringing, sheeplike followers of the Jewish Slave-God hadn’t won such a crushingly decisive military victory over the invincible warriors of Islam!”

    Conflicts between Islam and Christendom follow a repetitious pattern. Christians win decisively. Attempt to cash in the victory for a favorable peace. Muslims keep fighting. Christians get sick of it, and agree to an extremely bad deal in return for peace. Peace does not ensue.

    Christian victories only led to satisfactory results when they were followed up vigorously and brutally, when the consequences for Muslims were so horrifying that they were persuaded of the desirability of peace.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Jim is correct.

    And once competition and conflict moved into technology Islam fell hopelessly behind.

    In Islam the conflict between Faith and Reason was resolved in favor of Faith with no peace or place for reason. There’s a reason they have no patents, recent books and all the rest.

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    Be that as it may, as long as Christendom remained strong in the faith, she kept the Mohams at bay and even retook some territory. The Borg stalled. Inconceivable that large, assertive Moham communities would be permitted or even encouraged to settle in Christian lands.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2014 at 12:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    This whole Islam discussion has been very low quality. No offense, ladies and gentlemen. But if you really need to posture in competitive pro-Christian and anti-Christian signaling, wouldn’t it be easier to have two little buttons that we could click, one saying ‘Jesus is the MAN,’ and the other saying ‘Tranny Jesus loves you.’ Lets make this happen.

    Islam raises lots of interesting questions. The biggest question for me is whether Islam had a version of the ratchet. My relatively uninformed model of Islamic history is that once it had used up the gains in trade and industry it made possible, it fell into a relatively steady state of stricter Islamic tribes with asabiya taking over the corrupt civilization centers, and then falling into corruption themselves, saecula saeculorum. My impression is that level of strictness and corruption was fairly constant. The asabiya tribes weren’t ever more strict.

    If that’s true, then a fruitful line of inquiry is why the Left doesn’t work this way. It seems like it should. True believers take power promising equality, liberation, and universal happiness for all, then they gradually end up formalizing rules and hierarchical structures and favoring their own and discarding justice in favor of pragmatism, and then the new revolutionaries come along and kick them out in the name of equality, liberation, and universal happiness. But in practice each revolutionary wave is even more extreme than the one that precedes it. Is it because the West doesn’t have the base tribal structures already in place, so the ideology not only has to create asabiya in the tribe, it has to create the tribe in the first place? Or is it because progressivism isn’t a revealed set of practices but a set of principles, and its easier to signal your superior attachment to the principles by finding a new practice that they require instead of agitating to show that your attachment to the old application of the principles is superior to the current set of johnnies? These need investigating.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Another thought. Maybe Islam did have a ratchet in the form of jihad. In the modern day, in the ghazi-fueled expansion of the Ottomans, and in the Almohad incursions into Spain, one can see a connection between jihad against infidels and the assertion of superior Mussulmanity. If so, the ratchet is to jihad as Progress is to Islam as culture and ideologies are to geography and populations. And the stagnation of the Islamic world post-1500 or so may be the fate of the West once progressivism reaches its limits.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    In terms of corruption that is how the Left works.

    In terms of Islam “The Incoherence of the Philosophers.” Reason was out and has stayed out.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    @Lesser Bull:

    “Is it because the West doesn’t have the base tribal structures already in place, so the ideology not only has to create asabiya in the tribe, it has to create the tribe in the first place? Or is it because progressivism isn’t a revealed set of practices but a set of principles, and its easier to signal your superior attachment to the principles by finding a new practice that they require instead of agitating to show that your attachment to the old application of the principles is superior to the current set of johnnies?”

    The tribalism theory is plausible. But Communism sure caught on quickly in Indochina….

    I deny that Progressivism is a set of principles. The only fixed principle is that “Revelation is not sealed.” I can come up with new principles whenever I want to in order to assert my moral superiority over those people in the next pew, or God forbid, those troglodytes across the street who are still following the script from the previous election campaign, two years ago. The Protestant tradition seems to be uniquely fissiparous. Islam may not have the central authority of Catholicism, but it is less fissiparous because it is more easily hijacked by politics. Islam lacks support for separation of church and state (no “render unto Caesar” principle). (I’m no expert, so everyone, please feel free to correct me.)

    Regarding Islam, someone suggested a while back that what the world really needs is a uniquely German version of Islam. Eating pork and drinking beer and wine become sacraments, but you still have to practice jihad against all the other Muslims who are doing it wrong.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Communist caught on in the non tribal areas. China was a firm bureaucratic state as was Vietnam. Nobody else went Commie, i.e. had the ability to actually build a Red Army.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Peter Taylor denies that progressivism is a set of principles. Maybe I’d recast it as a story being at the heart of progressivism instead of a set of principles, but there has to be some principle of continuity or there would be no basis for claiming greater holiness and rectitude. Protestantism is fissiparous but the high-status movement has been in a fairly coherent direction.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    @Peter Taylor,
    I forgot to add that your idea that the separation of church and state sounds like a productive one that is worth further attention.

    spandrell Reply:

    +1

    It does seem that to some extent Muslims did play holier-than-thou in every wave of activism. And activists did capture the state some times, see the Safavids or the Wahabbis.

    What they could never achieve was grabbing the Ottoman government. Islam probably was too unified and monarchical to allow sanctimonious activists to grab power.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2014 at 1:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • nyan_sandwich Says:

    The problem with Christianity isn’t that it’s false, but that it stuck its neck out and claimed to be true.

    It was a good guiding cultural tradition, but when it turned out that there was no literal God, virgin birth was impossible, and the world was created in 13 billion years, the whole thing got blown apart.

    [Reply]

    soapjackal Reply:

    “no literal God, virgin birth was impossible, and the world was created in 13 billion years, the whole thing got blown apart.”

    Edgy

    [Reply]

    Shlomo Maistre Reply:

    @Nyan sandwich

    So let me get this straight. You think “it turned out that there was no literal God”. LOL

    Could you please explain how this realization/truth/evidence/fact “turned out”?

    Is it because we now….have telescopes? know about DNA? landed on the moon? can travel to Dallas from Chicago in under two years?

    Have you considered that it perhaps, maybe, possibly it “turned out” that there is no literal G-d because we have a new religion now?

    More simply put: the problem with your argument is that it’s false.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2014 at 2:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • Shlomo Maistre Says:

    Islam is a form of Progressivism.

    Where Aristotle’s allegations conflict with the beauty of Platonic thought they A) are wrong and B) far more profoundly impacted Islam and Protestantism than Catholicism. Think existence/essence, intuition/reason, mind-body problem, particulars/universals, the nature of time, analytic/synthetic truth. Then think again.

    Protestantism exhibits sufficiently more cultural traits in common with Islam than with Catholicism to suggest a far more similar ideological perspective between these two religions than is commonly recognized. Consider, for instance, that both Islam and Protestantism are marked by iconoclasm, textualism, and fundamentalism – unlike Catholicism. There’s a reason why both Protestantism and Islam reject monastic orders.

    The Roman Catholic Church is the spiritual vessel of that meager Kingdom that from Palatine Hill forged the Empire that consecrated the very spiritual gravity of Western civilization by its sword arm. Protestantism is Aristotelian pretense with a printing press. Islam is the same pretense spread by sword.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    “Where Aristotle’s allegations conflict with the beauty of Platonic thought they A) are wrong”

    Brilliant argumentation.

    [Reply]

    Shlomo Maistre Reply:

    If I have the time and inclination before this thread dies, I may provide more detail on that particular point, which you may have kindly noticed is actually not central to my comment.

    But if you’re interested in why Aristotle was wrong and harmful:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Weaver#Anti-nominalism

    [Reply]

    Shlomo Maistre Reply:

    I should have added that link’s a good place to START. Also I arguably should had added that it’s Aristotle’s ideas that are harmful – not him. Arguably.

    James A. Donald Reply:

    Aristotle was not a nominalist, but a moderate realist.

    Moderate realism is correct, nominalism is wrong, Platonic realism is wrong.

    Plate tells us the color red is real, and exists on the plane of universals.

    Aristotle tells us the color red is real, and exists in particular real apples.

    A nominalist will tell you that the color red is socially constructed.

    [Reply]

    Shlomo Maistre Reply:

    @James A. DOnald

    Aristotelian/moderate realism predicates universals on particulars. As if the color red is real merely because man observes it in an apple. So would the color red exist were all men struck by protanopia? If yes, then how would one who alleges belief in Aristotle’s moderate realism allow for such a possibility? If no, then, well, I’d say that beliefs ought to conform to truth even if (actually, especially when) they rely on faith.

    One cannot – according to inductive reasoning at least – conclude that there are traits of universals outside the bounds of human observation just because universals are outside the bounds of human understanding. But such a conclusion seems obviously implied by those of us who sooner rely on our intuition than eyes.

    If nothing necessarily exists outside the mortal/physical domain that is not evident in some particular subject to human observation, then man is actually capable of understanding all that could possibly be, which would suggest that truth is if not a human construction at least constructed by humans.

    You see, it’s a short step from Aristotle’s moderate realism to nominalism. Very, very short. Both side with Occam’s razor over Paley’s watchmaker. Since both accept only this world, neither can really explain it in full.

    Plato and I are with Paley.

    James A. Donald Reply:

    Aristotelian/moderate realism predicates universals on particulars. As if the color red is real merely because man observes it in an apple. So would the color red exist were all men struck by protanopia?

    Sure, but we would not bother to have a word for it.

    Bees see colors made from the three additive primaries ultraviolet, blue, and green, while humans see colors made from the three additive primaries blue, green, and red. Yet no one doubts that what bees see are colors.

    The color of a surface is the propensity of that surface to reflect some wavelengths more and others less, and exists regardless of whether we can see it or how accurately we can judge it.

    Posted on June 7th, 2014 at 8:55 am Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    So as I’ve been saying this whole triad of reaction doesn’t integrate,Sure superficially we yhink the religious are conservatives but hows that working out so far? Even moldbug lays progressivism at the feet of Martin Luther one could go back beyond Jefferson and Luther and lay it at the heretic Jesus feet or even at the Jews feet ,religion is inherently leftist and irrational lets just face it. And for the record I’m a superficial Catholic and friend to the religious.
    And Monarchy well I just dont see it . I dont see how its different than what we have I dont see how a bunch of former libertarians and constitutionalists will go for it.
    Neocameralism frankly I dont think I understand even after two or three years reading this stuff every day [whats with the deconstruct speak ] yeah i know my paltry 130 IQ isnt much around here but how are you going to sell Monarchy then to the average 95 IQ especially since you have sworn off revolution. Am I really in the teens version of a D and D cult?
    And that leaves what makes us dark Mere HBD. I think CS Lewis challenge would apply how can we know what we do about HBD and not be ethno nationalists? we neednt be hateful that would be irrational .
    But admitting into our nation/kingdom/church? someone we know will have biological imperatives counter to our culture and who will no matter how brilliant himself throw offspring to his genetic mean IQ . If its higher than our own he will quickly occupy 50% of the elite positions despite a 1% population density if its lower than ourselves his offspring will become a financial burden and cultural corrosive in perpetuity. I’m not squeamish Atlas Shrugged sounded great at 16 as it does today pretty sure she would have been an HBD er too but doesn’t that have a reductio ad absurdem problem ? once we have thrown all the Mud people out of Lake Woebegone we have simply changed our mean now what is to be done with the left side of the curve? The lads at stormfront I suppose have a non Randi -ian solution and an argument could be made [ I’m not making it] that a certain amount of socialism with a certain amount of cultural enforcement of work ethic etc kind of works in Switzerland? Look I really hate socialism but the way they get it instituted is they start ratcheting from pretty extreme cases like are we putting granny on an ice floe are we leaving the sick out on mountainsides, perhaps after we watch the settling in of all the non ethnics back to their ethnic homelands on CNN wheeling Stephen Hawking out on the tundra wont seem so harsh. Personally I could do all that if I thought it would be the least “evil” how many of you could?

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2014 at 12:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    The Scottish convert Ian Dallas (who now rejoices in the name Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi), referenced above, is an interesting fellow. He keeps a relatively low profile in the English-speaking world but leads a fairly influential movement whose ideas including the re-establishment of the gold dinar and silver dirham as the universal Muslim currency. A well-dressed, well-spoken gentleman, he recommends entryist rather than revolutionary tactics – where the buffoon Choudary makes inflammatory statements calling for the Queen of England to don the burqa and Buckingham Palace to be converted into a mosque, the Shaykh urges the Muslim intellectual elite rally to “the weak but potentially strong Monarchy” as an instrument of unifying fractured British society, bypassing the increasingly ineffectual Parliament. He notes Prince Charles’ perennialist tendencies and informed sympathy for Islam and envisages him acting as protector of the Muslims, whom he terms “the new Britons” and compares to the Danes and Normans (!). Ultimately he hopes for a “Second Reformation” in which a revived monarchy (“Henrician” in its refusal to accept Romish dominion) will again usher in a “new religion” (no prizes for guessing which).

    Dallas/Shaykh Abdalqadir allegedly counts Carl Schmitt as an influence, but also points to Wagner, Nietzsche and Rilke as heralds of a Western Islam and detests Catholicism. (Post-conciliar ‘interfaith’ ecumenism is a popish plot to sow discord among Muslims, apparently (shades of the OTO poohbah who denounced liberation theology as a cunning stratagem to destroy Marxism from within).)

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2014 at 3:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    Observed behavior of Islam is that it is very difficult to reconcile with modernity in the sense of science, technology and a prosperous economy, and startlingly easy to reconcile with modernity in the sense of women’s liberation, late marriage, where a woman marries when her looks hit the wall and her fertility collases, and homosexual activism.

    The government of his Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum is doing just fine on science, technology, and prosperity, but he is not very holy – and his lack of holiness makes his kingdom even more vulnerable to female emancipation and such.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2014 at 10:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    Religions of a creator God had the previously unarguable evidence of the watchmaker. Now that evidence is gone.

    Religions descended from the Hebrews had astonishing miracle of the survival of the Hebrews, which evidence is no longer miraculous, for we now know that their religion was simply correct to command them to bury their poop, wash their hands, etc – rules that supposedly came from Moses, but more likely came from Israel (Israel the patriarch, not Israel the people or Israel the territory)

    Though monotheistic religions of the creator God had a long run, there time has ended. Roman Catholicism is not really one of them, since Pope living Saint Francis tells us that Jesus came to teach us to be nice to the oppressed, not to redeem mankind from sin and death. Which makes Pope living Saint Francis holier than Jesus.

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    Religions of a creator God had the previously unarguable evidence of the watchmaker. Now that evidence is gone.

    Argument from design may be untenable but it was never one of the classical philosophical proofs of theism.

    Religions descended from the Hebrews had astonishing miracle of the survival of the Hebrews, which evidence is no longer miraculous, for we now know that their religion was simply correct to command them to bury their poop, wash their hands, etc

    Hygiene rules don’t explain the Jews’ survival in the face of determined attempts to extirpate them by successive historical superpowers. And the Jews’ uncanny quality is not only a matter of survival against formidable odds, but also the world-historical influence they exert out of all proportion to their numbers.

    Pope living Saint Francis tells us that Jesus came to teach us to be nice to the oppressed, not to redeem mankind from sin and death. Which makes Pope living Saint Francis holier than Jesus.

    Pope Francis is problematical because he cannot be dismissed as a one-off embarrassment or loose cannon. He’s the culmination of half a century of institutionalised revolution that has aligned the Church with progressivism — what the then Cardinal Ratzinger frankly called “an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789”.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Since proofs of theism have come up, I can’t resist the temptation to link to a new short story by Kevin Long, “The Negative Side of Proof Positive”. The Devil Satan made me so it.

    http://kevin-long.com/what.asp?who=kevin&id=269

    Comments:
    “I was massively entertained!” — Larry Niven

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    “Mister Don,” he said, “I know you’ve only got a minute, but I’ve got a question.”

    “Sure, ok, what is it?”

    “Well, you’ve talked about the War of the Angels, and how Lucifer led an uprising against God, right?”

    “Yeah, that’s all true.”

    “Well,” the kid said, “I wanted to read more about that, so I’ve been looking for it in my Bible, but I can’t find it. Could you tell me what book it’s in?”

    “Uhm, yeah, I think it’s in Corinthians,” Don said vaguely, and headed for the stage.

    I snorked so loud, three people turned around and looked at me! … I’d spotted that kid the day I got here. He was smart and an unusually non-rigid thinker for this kind of school. I’m not a mindreader, but just looking at him, you could tell he was testing the youth preacher. The kid may not have known the whole “War of the Angels” thing was invented out of whole cloth by a foppy English poet in 1667, but he clearly knew darn well it wasn’t in the Bible.

    Satan lies!

    Posted on June 8th, 2014 at 1:43 am Reply | Quote
  • Shlomo Maistre Says:

    @James A. Donald

    “Sure, but we would not bother to have a word for it.”

    Meaning you accept there would be no way for someone with protanopia who subscribes to Aristotle’s realism to permit the possibility that the color red exists because to such a person nothing exists beyond existence, since universals depend on particulars. Such a stance would be basically incorrect – in this case, since we see red and know about protanopia, we happen to know it’s incorrect.

    It takes a little intuition and perhaps faith to realize that there are UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS that, well, we don’t got names for.

    I notice you did not bother responding to my main points, by the way.

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    I notice you did not bother responding to my main points, by the way.

    I am not aware of that. Perhaps your main points are less clear than you think they are.

    What is wrong with some universals being unknown unknowns? Why would anyone doubt that some universals are unknown, or be surprised that there are universals that are unknown?

    [Reply]

    Shlomo Maistre Reply:

    There’s nothing wrong with there being unknown unknown universals. In fact that’s something I believe in.

    Aristotle’s realism says that universals are predicated on particulars, which means even if there are unknown unknown universals (a bit of a stretch) there is certainly no UNKNOWABLE unknown universal. Red does not exist because you see a red apple. Red exists. And some applies are red.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 8th, 2014 at 6:50 am Reply | Quote
  • Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Spiritual Progress Says:

    […] Quote notes (#87) […]

    Posted on June 8th, 2014 at 1:40 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment