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.

Regime Options

There are essentially three different ways in which modern states have kept their traditional identities intact: Islamofascism, Empire, and Insular Nationalism. The national IQ scores which I mention in this article are from this website (yes, it’s Lynn’s and Vanhanen’s data; if you have any criticisms of it, please cite an alternative source).

Islamofascism (bad idea)

Islam provides rules and virtues for people with limited intelligence to observe and daily rituals to enforce them – although this is a false promise since it achieves the opposite. – Curt Doolittle

Islamofascism is the strategy of the nations of the Middle East and Northern Africa who have an average IQ in the 80’s to retain their traditional identities in the present day. It usually involves persecution of religious minorities, polygamy, marrying women at an age most Westerners would find too young, either executing or imprisoning homosexuals (which even Christians should admit is excessive), as well as a general desire to violently conquer new territory by reason of a superstition (and then either execute, or heavily tax people who refuse to convert to the superstition).

This form of government today is favored in the West by the most unintelligent members of the extreme right and extreme left who often advise genocides of Jews, Whites, or the mass murder of gays, and so on. This is not a form of government which any intelligent person living in the present day can take seriously — there is a reason why it only exists in the present (information age) in nations with an average IQ below ~90. It is definitely not something to emulate; it is fundamentally non-Western, and though it has at times cropped up in the West (mostly in the Middle Ages), it is best left in the dustbin containing the more ugly bits of our history.

This form of government is not unique to the Middle East, however, I suspect that it likely originated there. Charlemagne seems to have emulated it when he butchered the pagan Saxons whom he conquered between 782 and 785 AD. Eventually, Charlemagne’s successors would realize that Islamofascism doesn’t work in the long run; this is where the next strategy comes into play: empire.

Empire

Empire is a very old form of government which was really first mastered by the Persians with their bureaucracy of satraps.  It was later adopted by Alexander the Great of Macedon, then by the Romans. During the Middle Ages, it took shape in the Byzantine, Holy Roman and Angevin Empires. In the early modern period, there was, of course, the Hapsburg Empire, and the Spanish Empire, and in the later part of the modern era, the British Empire reached its peak. Today this form of government is roughly present in Russia and China, and perhaps to a certain degree the Trumpian United States. In all these empires, there is power granted to lower positions of authority underneath of the emperor or king who happens to manage the entire empire, thus various tribes and ethnic groups are usually allowed to have rulership from their own king or local vassal. Because of the multiethnic and multicultural nature of empire,  there is a necessity for the emperor to tolerate the decisions of various kingdoms or tribes to adhere to their own religious opinions. The wisest imperial rulers understood this well, from Cyrus the Great of Persia to the Roman Emperors, and even the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V who tolerated the decision of some of his dependent states to turn Lutheran. It is also understood by the Eastern Orthodox leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin, who must tolerate the folk-ways of all the various tribes who inhabit their own individual republics within his large domain. Regarding the IQ of empires, in the present day, most of them fairly high such as in Russia (97) and China (105).

I have noticed that among reactionaries, it is usually the Catholics who favor empire. There is nothing wrong with this, but it must be accepted that any empire, due to its large territorial expanse, will inevitably include various religious groups who must be treated in a dignified manner. Failing to do this will place any such state closer to the realm of Islamofascism, and I sincerely think that you are all more decent people than to create an Islamofascist style state.

Another interesting note is that Nietzsche seemed to have favored a pan-European empire over nationalism. This, I think, may be due to his extensive study of the classics, and possibly a romantic idealism he possessed regarding the Roman Empire. Brett Stevens seems to have followed suit in his promotion of pan-nationalism.

The European Union is essentially a perversion of the Roman Empire. It has sought the ethnolysis of Europe. The lesson learned here: empires must have good leaders, or else they become death traps.

There are of course certain advantages to empire, it gives a way for small groups of people and kingdoms to unite for common defence, and it is a way of reconciling traditionalism and hierarchy with a multiethnic domain — that being said it can be hard to create and control — all of its members must be willing to live under one roof — something which I do not believe will ever happen in the US as long was we have a large population of angry leftists. I should also mention that it is usually, if not always, because of the conflicting interests of various ethnocultural groups that an empire falls apart; it is almost an inevitable part of the lifecycle of an empire as the ruled come to resent the rulers due to a lack of shared identity. In fact, a good analogy of an empire might be to compare it to a heavy, radioactive atomic nucleus which can fissure under the right conditions. So if one seeks a more internally stable model of government than empire, that of the insular nation state (which can be monarchical) should be examined.

Insular Nationalism

Nationalism, contrary to what some would claim, did not originate with Hussites and is not an inherently left-wing form of government. In fact, the concept of an insular nation state is probably the first concept of a nation-state in the West, beginning with the Greek polis, and the early Roman state. It was for the sake of the independent nation, and against subjugation under an empire, that king Leonidas and the 300 Spartans bravely fought the Persians at Thermopylae. It is, in more modern times, what inspired Irish nationalists to break away from the British Empire and create a nation centered around their own culture and religion. The fundamental feature of this type of government is that it maintains the identity one ethnic group with a single culture, and usually rules only the territory in which this ethnic group lives. The culture and ethnic group of the state’s inhabitants are preserved through very strict immigration laws — cucking is rare compared to in the modern ‘West’.

Among reactionaries, I have observed that the insular nationalist approach is taken by Orthodox Christians and Protestants, as well as polytheists, Cosmotheists, and irreligious individuals. I think that the desire for an independent nation-state that was likely one of the main reasons behind the split of Eastern Europe away from the Catholic church in 1054, as well as the decision of many Northern-European countries to break with Rome during the reformation. These nations perceived (whether rightly or wrongly) the Catholic Church to be too internationalist; that it violated their national sovereignty, so they created their own national churches, which were usually in communion with each other through either an Eastern Orthodox communion or a Protestant communion of Anglican and/or Lutheran churches.

In the present day, there are some notable well-developed nations which follow the model of insular nationalism to keep their traditional ethnic and cultural identities afloat, and they are also nations with some of the highest average IQ’s in the world: Iceland (101), Japan (105), South Korea (106), and Hong Kong (108). Consequently, I am not inclined to believe that ethnocentric nationalism is simply an ideology of “stupid rednecks”. As the description insular nationalism implies, most of these nations are islands; some of them are areas of continental land close to the sea. This was also true of early insular nationalist states such as various Greek city-states, and the early Roman state.

Generally speaking, these states are quite technologically advanced. Their insular, mono-ethnic, monocultural status creates a sense of ethnocultural safety and stability which allows individuals to focus on the advancement of science and technology (which also increases IQ via the Flynn effect). In other words, people can pursue science because they aren’t spending all their time and energy desperately trying to keep their identity intact through culture wars; the state keeps the identity of the people intact for them through strict immigration laws, and sometimes a traditional national religion. There is an advantage over empire here indeed; there is a sense of unified identity, of power, of making one’s own rules as a people; this leads to a stronger sense of pride in one’s nation than an empire can probably ever have as a whole.

Conclusion

Individuals who wish to revive the West must do so in a sincerely Western manner. Islamofascism, an ideology of certain low-IQ non-Westerners will not due. Thus a decision needs to be made in various instances between the formation of a multi-national empire and an insular nation state. Different strategies will work for different people and will have different results. When considering realistic political objectives, I would rather live in an insular ethnic nation state than an empire, but I am also aware that some sort of pan-national empire may be necessary for defense purposes. In a romanticist mindset, I am also aware that empire may provide an important opportunity to politically reunite European-Americans living in the US and Latin America with their homelands in Europe, something I would be in favor of, but Europe has to get fixed though before this can happen.

Postscript

Davidski, the author of the Eurogenes blog has recently brought up an interesting genetic study regarding the ancestral origins of non-native Americans (non-Amerindian peoples living in North America).

You can access the study here

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14238#s1

You can read Davidski’s take on the data here

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/02/american-midwest-home-away-from-home.html

This type of research is important because it shows where in North America new nations (or kingdoms) could arise centered around various ethnic groups.

 

 

Nietzschean Reflections on Tolkien’s Villains

In this post, I am publishing a theory that I have regarding the morality of the villains presented in Tolkien’s novels. Though many villains exist throughout his corpus — dragons, orcs, ungoliants, Suaraman, balrogs, and more — I will be focusing on the main two: Melkor and Sauron. Please note that what I am publishing here is at best a theory, I am not an experienced Nietzsche scholar, though I do find his writings enlightening. It should be remembered, not only for this post but all of mine, that my theories are not usually born perfect, and are almost necessarily modified over a period of time for their improvement. This post will also contain mild criticism of Abrahamic religion in general due to its efforts to create a ‘universal tribe’.

Continue reading “Nietzschean Reflections on Tolkien’s Villains”