On Death, and How We Deal With It

thrandul2

I have never been all that comfortable thinking about death, but I do it a lot. In recent years most of my grandparents have died, and this has made me feel somewhat isolated and disconnected from my deeper heritage — perhaps my reactionary tendencies are partially a means of compensating for this.

About a month ago my grandmother died somewhat unexpectedly, and it threw me into an internal crisis. I came to the following conclusion:

There tend to be three popular ways of viewing death.

  1. Most atheists and Jews believe that when you die, that is it. You’re dead. Your personality is nonexistent upon death. The end result of this belief is hedonism and base utilitarianism.
  2. Most Muslims and perhaps the majority of conservative Christians believe that most people are tormented in hell forever, and only a few escape this grim fate through being part of the right religious persuasion. The end result of this belief is wasteful religious wars over who is and isn’t going to hell.
  3. Many polytheists, Buddhists and a few Christians (link) believe that the soul is both eternal and that the there is no eternal torment. There may be chastisement in the afterlife followed by a more pleasant eternity, or, in certain religions, reincarnation into a bad life if one has committed moral wrongs, but the idea of eternal torment is alien. The end result usually depends on the IQ of the nation holding these beliefs. India, for instance, is poorer than Japan, but both have religions (Hinduism, Buddhism) which teach some form of reincarnation.

I am not saying the following to insult any religious opinion, but I wish to be honest: Options 1 and 2 are basically pessimistic. Option 2 is often made very pessimistic when it is combined with ideas like total depravity, and the belief I find common among ultra-conservative Christians, that the nature of man is not just sub-par or corruptible, but actually ‘evil’.

Option 3 is the only option which is actually either neutral or optimistic.

I admit I have often been frightened by options 1 and 2. The idea that we die and that’s it (option 1) means that if you lived an incomplete life, you will never have a chance to live a full one, and you will also never be reunited with those you love who have perished.

If option 2 is true than anyone you loved who was not part of the right religion is burning in hell forever and you better figure out which religion is the correct one and become obedient to it, or you will be joining them in eternal torment.

Being somewhat of an empiricist, I consider option 1 more likely than option 2. [Sorry, weird Youtube videos by people claiming to have been in hell don’t count as science]

Nietzsche and Heidegger would likely say that I am staring into the abyss. It takes a lot of courage to stare into the abyss, and it is certainly something I would rather not be doing. In this sense, staring into the abyss, even reaching the point of nihilism, is ascetical and can provide a kind of catharsis, but it is a horrifying catharsis that many, perhaps most people try their best to avoid and that I myself wish to exit.

My sincerest hope is that option 3 is true, although it is something of a conundrum of how to harmonize an afterlife with Nietzscheanism.  In order to do this, the concept of the afterlife cannot teach that this life is to be denied in favor of the next. Rather, one would need to either assume that any life after the present one is like the life we live now (reincarnation, perhaps eternal recurrence),  or that the rewards of an afterlife depend not upon looking forward to that afterlife, but engaging in this life in a highly world-accepting, life-affirming manner. One version of this is the Norse Valhalla, a reward for valiant fighting in a war, an earthly endeavor with an earthly purpose. One might also consider reincarnation itself to be life-affirming in that it encourages one to build or maintain an earthly civilization which one can both reap the fruits of in this life, and return to in a future life — the mindset here is not escapism but is indeed life-affirming, and world-accepting.

To My Followers

Oftentimes I loose track of who I am following and mistakenly think I have followed blogs which I, in fact, have not (things get mixed up in my head a lot with my busy lifestyle). (edit: meaning, just because I have not followed a blog which is following me doesn’t mean I dislike its content)

Also, do not be alarmed if you totally agree with one article I write and absolutely disagree with another article I write (or sometimes just think I am writing crazy nonsense! — I have tried to minimize this in the last four months). This blog is one of the only places I can be honest about my opinions, and while I try to write with manners in mind (and will edit past posts if need be), I am ultimately someone very difficult to pigeonhole; I dislike atheism and Marxism, but I am not a Christian or a capital c capitalist; I am an ethno-statist, but I am not a Hitlerist ideologue; I am a rightist living in the United States, but I am not a ‘patriot’. Thus I am bound to disagree with the left and certain parts of the right — it is unavoidable.

A Reevaluation of r/K Selection and the Political Triangle.

Update 6/21/17: The theory behind this article may be incorrect, further discussion may take place in the future to deduce root causes of the Right-Left political divide.

Anyone aware of the three estates theory discussed by Butch Leghorn and the Propertarians understands the basis of what I am discussing here. The theory may be summarized thus: the first estate corresponds to the left, is feminine, and coerces with speech, the second estate corresponds to the right, is masculine, and coerces with force; and the third estate corresponds to the libertarians, is evolutionary (childish in a way), and coerces with remuneration. Some might object, saying that the first estate of the middle ages was not leftist; this is true, but it is largely due to the fact that it was closely tied with and arguably influenced by the second estate. So long as the first estate is mindful of the needs of the second estate, and natural law in general, leftism is minimized.

  • In Darwinian terms, the masculine right is clearly K-selected, and possess Nietzschean master morality; that is the morality of a sovereign (which really upsets the left). Nietzsche himself articulated in Beyond Good and Evil that some of the key traits of master morality are an honor for what one sees in himself, for one’s hierarchical equals, for ancestors, and for tradition. Likewise, K-selected organisms are competitive, in-group oriented and have inegalitarian social structures (examples being large carnivorous mammals, as well as great apes).
  • I once considered Non-Aggression Principle libertarians to be completely r-selected, but given that competition is inevitable in markets, I would go to argue that they have a mix of r and K selection strategies, and likewise a mixture of master and slave moralities. (Nietzsche actually believed that this ‘mix’ of moralities was inevitable in most higher civilizations, and also a result the intermixture of aristocracy with commoners, more on this here). It’s fine, oftentimes even helpful, if these individuals are present in the realm, just so long as they are not the ones ruling over it.
  • The left, however, given its support for ‘gibsmedat’ as though there were infinite resources to go around is clearly r-selected. Likewise, the left resents the sovereign and any group of people who attempt to claim a hold on resources (which can range from land to a civilization, to even things like one’s own biological ethnicity) as property, leading to the slave morality so characteristic of the left. The most extreme manifestation of this is in the anarcho-communists and Antifa.

It should be noted that what is termed by Nietzsche as ‘slave morality’ clearly fits within what MBTI psychology calls ‘extraverted feeling’ (emotions and value judgements are sourced from without), whereas ‘master morality’ corresponds to what is termed as ‘introverted feeling’ (emotions and value judgements are sourced from within) by psychologists. These moral phenomena are not coincidences, they are merely opposing psychological functions.

Now back to the biology behind all this. It is common knowledge that Karl Marx thought that capitalism would give way to communism due to a revolution of the proletariat. I would agree that capitalism can give rise to far left ideologies, but not so much through a revolution of the proletariat. Rather, capitalism, particularly once the industrial revolution became widespread, provided an unprecedented abundance of resources which led a gradual increase in r-selection among Westerners during the modern era; this then caused the political ‘progression’ from aristocracy (K-selected, right) to Whiggism (liberal capitalism – r/K mixture), to the r-selected, far left-wing SJW cultural norms which are common in the present day West. N.B.: Capitalism also selects for the ‘socialized’ temperament in humans, often leading to, yes, socialism. I personally suspect the North Sea trade networks of the middle ages to have begun the process of creating the socialized, liberal, cosmopolitan mindset found in many NW Europeans as well as their North American white liberal analogs.

However, now the West is reaching its carrying capacity, so K-selection is on the horizon, which is evidenced by the fact that millennials are having sex at a later age than their forefathers (K selection delays sexualization); I myself am 20 years old and still haven’t done it yet. There are also right-wing movements (the Alt-Right and Generation Identity) which have gained traction among millennials. Likewise, there is important evidence that millennials are more conservative than previous generations were at their own age (article), which is just more evidence for increasing K-selection. Gnon wins.

 

 

 

Adapting Christianity

Pantheon Interior Photo
Interior of Pantheon, Rome

In light of the Western Christian Holy Week, I will set forth some ideas regarding how I think Christianity might be made more compatible with our current needs (I speak as an ethnocentric reactionary). It is slightly critical, but there may be solutions to some of the things I bring up. This post is not trying to argue the Christianity is true or false, or that it is good or bad; it is simply taking into account that many Westerners are Christians, and so it would be wise to have an interpretation of the faith that agrees with the cultural and ethnic preservation of the West.

  1. Use the Septuagint instead of Hebrew texts for Old Testament scripture, besides, the Septuagint is older than the Masoretic and other extant Hebrew texts, and scholarship indicates that it is what the apostles used. This also helps disconnect Christianity from the culture and language of Talmudic Judaism.
  2. Figure out how to harmonize martial aristocracy and moderate kin selection with Christian ethics. I Timothy 5:8 might help solve this.
  3. Figure out how to interpret the words of Jesus in the gospels so as not to produce a leveling, Marxist, dysgenic (re)sentiment. It is this perceived sentiment from the gospels that makes critics on the right think that leftists are just “Christians without a Christ”, and it is also responsible for foolish and corrosive “liberation theology” (cf. critical theory/”Cultural Marxism”).
  4. Interpret the meaning of the imperative ‘love not the world’ (first epistle of John) and other statements like this so as not to produce a world-rejecting (quasi-gnostic) sentiment. Ultimately one must accept the physical realm in order to be motivated to refine civilization.
  5.  Systematize a non-Zionist interpretation of Romans 11, also deal with Genesis 12 accordingly. Modern Jewry is to have no special spiritual status different from gentiles.
  6. Interpret II Corinthians 6 so that Christians and non-Christians can cooperate towards common political ends. The West will not be saved without this.
  7. Western churches should consider attempt reforming their view of original sin to be more in line with that of the Eastern Orthodox Church. In the Eastern understanding, man is viewed as inherently fallen, not guilty, by original sin (link) — this should help remove the axiological pipeline between original sin and white guilt, male guilt etc. which plagues the West today.
  8. Divorce the concept of God from the Near Eastern tribal divinity ‘YHWH’ — the Septuagint should help with this since God is not called ‘YHWH’ in the Septuagint. A well-studied history of Israelite monotheism should also help do this (YHWH may have simply been a borrowed epithet for the uniquely monotheistic God of the Israelites).
  9. Develop a way in which Western Christians can at least respect, and hopefully appreciate the pre-Christian culture of Europe, and acknowledge its role in the original foundation of Western Civilization through the Greeks and Romans (as well as the Celto-Germanic contribution of the manorial aristocracy).  We could really use some of the Roman aristocratic virtues — DignitasGravitas, PietasVirtus. Generally speaking, we need to keep an organic continuity with pre-Christian antiquity somehow — the renaissance might be a time to look back on for advice on approaching this matter.

Sanzio 01.jpg

Web sites I found which may be of interest to reactionary Christians

There is a very creative blog I ran across by a Catholic medievalist writing about his perspectives on anime and religion; you can follow the link I posted below to his blog.

https://medievalotaku.wordpress.com/

He provides some interesting insights regarding the importance of the body in the Christian religion which I had not considered before (link).

Also, some Anglican websites I ran across with a clearly reactionary point of view:

https://anglophilicanglican.wordpress.com/

http://www.oldjamestownchurch.com/

Driving the Point Home

Quotes from a very good article I found.

“The playbook of the establishment is very simple and very effective: claim that questioners of diversity are driven by plain hatred, that they are poorly-educated hicks who can’t stand losing their white privilege, and are too parochial to understand the progressive cosmopolitanism marvelously spreading through the West.”

“Through these major epochs, Europeans came to de-emphasize the martial virtues associated with feudalism, and as they turned to commerce, new virtues came to gain precedence: commodious living, orderly existence, and the Protestant emphasis on hard work (notwithstanding the excessive brutality of the religious wars and the interstate rivalries resulting from nation-building during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). David Hume, in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1777), noted this transformation from the martial temper of medieval times to the “sociable, good-natured, humane, merciful, grateful, friendly, generous, beneficent” qualities of the moderns.”

Clearly, Hume understands the origins of cosmopolitan morality.

So yes, the excessive empowerment of the third estate through laissez-faire capitalism (edit: currently through Neoliberal Ayn Rand ideology) clearly has something to do with the pacification of Western nations to their own destruction, and it’s not just da Jooz, it’s the entire socio-economic phenomenon which has atomized and de-masculinized Western men.

Update 4/15/17: This is not to argue in favor of socialism, but for the recognition of how capitalism has changed the social structure of the West in such a way that previously masculine virtues like defending your own tribe have become de-facto sins simply because they are a hindrance or of no use in the marketplace. As far as I am concerned, economics is not something to fetishize and ‘muh free market’ is not an end in itself.

The Effects of Polytheism

[Previous typos have been corrected]

Anthropomorphic deities in any religion often serve as a model by which humans shape their lives, and order their actions. Christians sometimes ask what would Jesus do? and such things as this. In the ancient Hellenic world, a warrior might ask what would Ares do? or a  ruler might ask what would Zeus do? In a strictly, perhaps fanatically monotheistic system, because there is only one unique divinity, everyone strives to have all the same virtues, often embodied in that divinity, and all the same qualities; ethics are universalized. In the enlightenment, this manifested itself in the ethics of Kant and the destruction of aristocracy; and in more modern times it is manifested through the destruction of traditional gender roles.

In a polytheistic system, however, different gods act as a  role model for certain vocations. Zeus (and similar deities such as Odin and Varuna) is a role model for judges, and people for whom wisdom and justice are necessary virtues, Ares is the role model for the warrior, Apollo for the young man, student or athlete, Rhea for the mother, and there are many others. If one takes a broader view of Indo-European religion, one will find that the various deities usually act as archetypes corresponding to the various “three estates”: the oratores, bellatores, and laboratores (priests, aristocrats, and commoners). Research Georges Dumezil’s Trifunctional Hypothesis to find out more about this. Polytheism, for our ancestors, was not just some silly idea of Zeus throwing thunderbolts at people he was angry at (you can also find many such instances of so-called ‘silliness’ coming from the monotheistic deity of the Pentateuch). For them, polytheism was a cosmic blueprint for how society was supposed to be run. Not everyone worshiped the same gods nor was everyone expected to live up to the same virtues. The hierarchy among the gods, and their various duties in keeping cosmic order was the model for a hierarchy among humans and their various roles in a complete society. The different virtues of different gods marked the virtues different virtues different people were supposed to aim for depending on who they were, whether a priest, king, warrior, or farmer. Polytheism is probably the most reliable way to avoid Kantian categorical imperative ethics because it destroys the notion that all maxims by which individuals act must become universal law. It does this through the multiplicity of archetypes, showing that there are inevitably different types of humans with different virtues to be exercised.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy kept a quasi-polytheistic tradition going through a hierarchy of saints and angels, whom devotees would look up to in iconography. A warrior might look up to St. George, a mother to St. Mary, etc. The patron deities which set the virtues for various vocations were replaced by patron saints which served the same function. However, once all vestiges of polytheism were lost through radical Protestantism, we lost our blueprint for an orderly society where each person fulfilled his or her role according to his or her inherent virtue(s); humans became ‘equivalent’ understood as interchangeable units, leading to utilitarianism, democracy, Marxism, ‘gender studies’, and globalism.

So if any religious revival is to take place in the West, polytheism, or a similar system such as the veneration of saints found in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism, must be present in some form or another.  We cannot build a new West on the foundations of evangelicalism, Puritanism, or any other form of radical Protestantism. We must have anthropomorphic ideals and archetypes in place to encourage mothers to be caring for their young, warriors to be courageous and fierce, rulers to be just, and so forth. Otherwise, we will just end up back where we started.