This post has been cooking for a while and with good reason: you come at the king, you best not miss. But prudence should not become cowardice so I’ll take aim and try not to miss.
Spandrell is smarter than I am. He has a better mind for facts and information, whereas I forget most of what I have read. He has made many excellent points on the nature of politics which any good thinker would be wise to keep in mind. Nonetheless I am taking a swing at him, so what is up with that.
Spandrell is in many ways the guardian of Gnon, God of nature, whose motto might well be that we shall all drown and no one will save us. Spandrell is a down to earth thinker who points out that the history of mankind has been one of stupidity and struggle. Think you can outsmart Gnon? Think again, Gnon will cut you down. Spandrell gives plenty of examples from Eastern history which confirm this.
But I am not satisfied with this. I am a spiritual man, a brahmin who is as much concerned with religion and morality as with the material world, probably even more. I believe in God. I believe in Christianity, the dying animal that it is. Spandrell does not help me with religious matters; he dryly points out that religion is your genes looking for a group to cling on to. We are all social animals after all. He is probably right, although not necessarily.
In essence Spandrell is rejecting God, or at the very least the capability of humans to follow the will of God. This is the crux of the issue. I believe in God and to some extent I believe in the capability of humans to follow the will of God. This is a matter of faith and either answer is valid. You either believe in God or you do not and whatever you believe the consequences of that belief will follow. If I understand correctly this has been an earlier subject of blogosphere debate, then referred to as the split between HRx / NRx. So far I find that there is no real use in distinguishing yourself as HRx. It’s not like I am a church goer anyway. And personal faith is personal; one man’s faith need not be another’s. It is pointless to wait until either Spandrell or I change our religious beliefs. But I will make the argument for the need of organised religion in accordance with natural laws.
Organised religion is an attempt by humans to follow the will of God, as ridiculous as that may sound. It is concerned with questions of existence and morality: what is Good? What is Evil? Even if morality is indistinguishable from natural law, a man-made morality needs an organising principle for modernity teaches me that man is not necessarily in tune with natural law. If a man is told his property is not his own he ends up a spiteful cuck. If a woman is told not to marry she ends up a bitter spinster. But why own property? Why marry? Why? The age old question has never been satisfyingly answered by humans and likely never will, but at the same time it has already been answered by theology: question: why? Answer: because God. Easy. There is no better Schelling point than God. Hence the need for brahmins aka priests, hence the need for organised religion.
Organised religion is of course human, all too human. Its priests will make mistakes at their best and may serve evil at their worst. But the acceptance that there is good and there is evil is enough to justify religious institutions from defending good and vanquishing evil. Why marry? Because it is good. Why own property? Because it is good. Why fight leftism? Because it is evil.
To put all this in another way: God is a better sounding story than nihilism. I prefer the story of God. If that makes me a LARPer for holy status points in the eyes of Gnon’s guardian, so be it.