Finetuning NRx

enlightenmentpic2-alexgrey

A bit overdue perhaps, but my apologies to Nick Land. I once wrote that I probably would not get along well with him based on his tendency to load up every sentence on his blog with 5-syllable words unknown to me. In retrospect this was a typical case of jumping to internet conclusions. Nick Land does not use fancy words to sound smarter than he is, he uses fancy words to sound exactly as smart as he is.

The reason I bring this up is that I have been thinking about the patchwork plan, a.k.a. Moldbug’s suggestion to split the US into feudalistic city states run by a CEO-emperor.

To recap. Any superorganism is run by a warrior class and a priest class. The warriors ensure everything works, the priests ensure everyone agrees that everything should work. The misery of modernity is that neither class does what they are supposed to do: our priests preach that everything that works is evil and our warriors are either selling out or jacking off to anime porn while being replaced by women and trannies. Not even mentioning slow replacement by immigrants with a fertility rate well above 1.4.

So there’s 2 parts to the equation.

Moldbug’s patchwork plan addresses the warrior-part: install an emperor, give him secure power, run the country like a company with city states, get everything to work again. Simple plan. Of course the usual political philosopher’s disclaimers apply; we do not expect an emperor to rule his empire in exactly the way Moldbug intended. But the spirit of the plan is clear, and it is a good plan. We had city states & feudalism in Europe before and they worked just fine. So, end democracy. For America: install emperor Trump, could be Donald, could be Barron. For Europe: dismantle the European Union until an emperor reconquers Europe by force. For the Netherlands: install Thierry Baudet as Stadtholder. All Problems solved.

This leaves priest-part of the equation. How do we convince people that it is just that everything works?

The crux of our current conundrum is that the right wants to be left in peace and expects everyone else to play fair while the left wants to win no matter the cost. Over the past 200 years, massive jumps in technology have been great assets in helping the left to assert power: used to be so that 1 voice could reach at best a village, now it can reach an entire world. Leftist priests thus hijacked religion to great succes.

So to counter this we need to reconquer religion. Or as Spandrell is fond of saying, start a new religion. I think this is not as hard as it looks.

The nature of religion has changed slightly, for the upper percentile of human consciousness has evolved beyond supernatural thinking. The masses still require supernatural beliefs and in fact so does the upper echelon, but the bell curve as a whole has shifted away from preferring religion as the sole explanation for reality. Mankind has become critical. The Dutch are overwhelmingly atheist because many aspects of Jesus’ life are obviously made up. He never cured blindness, he never walked over water, he never actually came back from the dead. People were willing to believe this 1000 years ago, but today our brains no longer accept this story as truth. And those who do believe obvious falsehoods such as the Mormons are rightfully ridiculed for it.

Yet we still crave to be part of something bigger than ourselves and are willing to believe lies for it. Quite obviously we believe a lot of lies told to us by the leftist church: we believe that women are the same as men, that blacks are the same as whites, that a gay marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage. In this sense we are only slightly less religious than our ancestors.

Our religious instincts can be explained in biological, evolutionary terms: there is safety in shared myths. We just don’t want our myths to be silly.

So Nietzsche was almost right: it is not God who is dead but our connection with God that is dead. We are lonely in a cold and dark universe. This allows us to understand how Nietzsche’s plan to ascend our need for religion was flawed; we are no supermen, we’re just men. Sometimes we do great stuff, other times we get high and masturbate. Never do we transcend the need for religion.

So it seems we are back to square one of inventing a new religion. But I don’t think we are. The thing about religion is, it comes very natural to us. We are built for it. Consider: the Old Testament counts about 640.000 words, the New Testament about 140.000. I don’t know about the OT, but the NT gave us about 1700 years of quality religion. That’s only 82 words a year!

So we don’t need that many words to point us in the right direction. All we need is some scripture that explains our current predicament, separates good from evil, and tells us in modern language why it is just when everything works. Jim’s blog has that scripture. Thus, the solution for our new religion is staring right at us: Christians should reconquer their churches from the demons that inhabit it and every Sunday morning have their priests tell the congregation a story from the Blog of Jim.

“Welcome everybody. Today I will read an excerpt from the Blog of Jim, August 8th, 2017. ‘Field Report on a Trans.’ I was with a girl in a bar…” 

This should solve the priest-part of the equation and prevent further holiness spiralling for a few centuries or so. It should also appeal to those Alt-Rightists weary of (((Moldbug))), for Moldbug’s plan only relates to the warrior-equation, not the priest-equation.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Finetuning NRx

  1. Gods die and then come back to life. That’s the way it is.

    I’d also like to comment on using pop culture videos. I think it’s fine to show current trends but not great when it comes to long term over-arching truths about human nature. You need myths for that.

    1. Your comment deserves a slightly longer response.

      Something about videos is much more gripping than writing. It has more direct impact — you can tell so much about people by observing them. I like videos in this way, they efficiently convey a lot of information that many don’t get through reading.

      At the same time the difference between bloggers/vloggers exist for a reason. Videos distract from the flow of reading. And yes, they tend to feel like the fastfood of blogging. But eh, it’s not like I never visit McDonalds. So that’s my thoughts on that.

  2. Myself, I generally avoid pop culture because it’s mostly white people trying to imitate black people. Black people are boring.

  3. Interesting post, but I don’t think the priest part of the equation is as relevant as you think it is. My concern is with how vague the warrior bit is. “For America: install emperor Trump, could be Donald, could be Barron.” Wonderful, but can you elaborate? Who exactly is going to install him? And how?

    Moldbug (and a lot of NRx) loves to theorize about how Europe might have turned out if the monarchs had remained in power. Frankly, I regard this as a potentially interesting pub conversation but not really relevant to history. The change from aristocratic warfare to popular warfare – gunpowder, basically – guaranteed the end of the monarchies and the rise of so-called “demotic” governments [I don’t like the word, but when in Rome…]. A lot of NRx seems to want aristocracy in an environment where popular means are necessary to prop it up. Really doesn’t seem like it’d work.

    I’ll also posit that aristocratic government is warrior-rule, and popular government is priest-rule. Whether warriors have the edge over priests or vice versa is technology-dependent.

    But, fortunately or unfortunately, the opposite transition is now underway. AI and robotics advances mean that aristocratic warfare is coming back, hence aristocratic government too. And the transition is apt to get pretty bloody, unless we have a Schelling Point available in advance, a warrior proto-government which can smoothly take power. A new religion seems unlikely to make much of a difference, because unless you can get the powerful to subscribe early it will simply be shut out of power. And good luck getting anyone relevant to attend the Church of the Sacred Jim.

    England did far better than France or Russia in the transition from aristocratic government to popular government because it already had a popular-government institution to serve as a Schelling Point for the transition. If England plays its cards right, it still has its monarchy to serve as a Schelling Point on the way back. The royals haven’t exercised responsibility for a while but they’re still popular and once it’s clear that a transition is happening they can step back into their historic role. America is a much harder problem.

    You (and Jim) suggest Trump as a natural focal point. Granted (though I did disparage the idea a couple of days ago on Jim’s blog, I found myself unable to come up with a better alternative). What’s the game plan? How soon are you aiming to accomplish things? Will a new religion help in this goal, or distract? How will you deal with the uncertainty in tech advancement (i.e. totally unknown timeline for the transition)? How will you make sure that the new rulers are grounded in some sort of tradition to constrain them from becoming too crazy? etc.

    1. > Who exactly is going to install him? And how?

      A coup by Trump would work like any other coup. Needs enough loyalists; military, spies and praetorians. Declare state of emergency, likely in response to leftist coup attempt, and transfer power from the presidency to the president. Jim has written extensively about this.

      > What’s the game plan? How soon are you aiming to accomplish things? Will a new religion help in this goal, or distract? How will you deal with the uncertainty in tech advancement (i.e. totally unknown timeline for the transition)? How will you make sure that the new rulers are grounded in some sort of tradition to constrain them from becoming too crazy? etc.

      My entire post describes the game plan. As soon as possible. A new religion helps, that is the entire point. You deal with uncertainty by learning as you’re doing. By giving them secure power and a reliable priest class.

      1. Alf, you can’t just start a new religion. Atheists ought to develop a little humility. Same with religious fanatics. You can’t prove there’s no supernatural world, or in current terms another dimension, any more than fanatics can prove there is one. You can’t say there’s no Hell with demons with pitchforks because you’ve never died. Atheists are, I think, worse than religious fanatics because atheism causes despair.

        Also, I have a question. After your atheist revolution will Rachel Dolezal become a black person? She really, really wants to be one. If she is won’t that get the brothers a little upset? If she can’t be black can Bruce Jenner still be a woman? I’m sure Jim would be very interested.

        1. What gives you the idea I’m an atheist? I believe God exists, in fact find it the only logical conclusion.

          And why can’t we start a new religion? Seems to me if it has been done before it can be done again, and it has been done before. Of course the tricky part is that a new religion needs to successfully latch onto a superorganism, most likely by highjacking an old religion. For instance, Christianity can be reclaimed. Old Christianity was pretty functional, new Christianity simply needs to be more aligned with evolutionary insights, which means Bruce Jenner is a man and Rachel Dolezal is white.

          An alternative is to highjack progressivism, which is more high-risk high-reward.

          1. You give the impression of being an atheist because of your cavalier attitude. You can’t just start a religion in order to dupe the stupid masses. Come on. That has got to be one of the most cynical things I’ve ever heard. It’s so cynical it’s comical. Don’t you think it might be just a tad insulting? Who’s going to buy into a religion that suckers stupid people? LOL.

            Alf, you and Spandrel and others, hear me: If you want to start a religion you’re gonna have to die and then come back to life. It’s called the Harrowing of Hell. They all did it. And even then you may just be viewed (most likely) as a crank and forgotten immediately because it’s all lies by gullible dupes. LOL.

            Maybe you can become a prophet I suppose. But then you gotta slaughter the unbelievers. Millions of ’em.

      2. The question is: can a small number of highly trained and well-equipped troops defeat a gigantic mass of conscripts? Back in the aristocratic age, the answer was yes, a couple hundred armored cavalrymen could slaughter almost limitless peasants. Then came gunpowder, and suddenly quantity beat quality.

        The power of priests lies in getting the people to do their bidding, and once the people were militarily stronger than the aristocracy, the ascendancy of the priests over the warriors was assured. Trying to restore the ancien régime in this environment is impossible, because the priesthood will always be stronger than the warriors. You might as well try to restore lions to the Sahara.

        You mention “secure power” and “reliable priests” for the warriors; but my whole point is that this cannot happen until warriors are stronger than priests, i.e. military power lies with the few rather than the many. Fundamentally, the idea of having a new religion implicitly relies on the formula vox populi, vox dei, and therefore this cannot lead to aristocratic rule, because it requires popular force as its main driver. Aristocratic rule will come when technology shifts military power from the many back to the few. Neither you nor I can change that.

        [A Trump putsch cannot succeed because it will be militarily unstable – unless Trump will rule as a priest and not a warrior. But then he is playing their game, and modern priesthood has centuries of experience and reputational capital. Trump is a natural, but I don’t think even he can out-priest Harvard in the end, any more than Magnus Ver Magnusson can wrestle a dump truck. His only chance is if leftism goes too far and provokes a priestly revolt i.e. a “Progressive Reformation” nailing its 95 theses onto the doors of the Cathedral (hence why I use that handle on Medium).]

        Now, it is possible that your new religion can help put power into the hands of the best aristocrats; or make the transition quicker and less bloody. I don’t think The Gospel of Jim is best way, but it’s at least debatable. But the most important step is to establish a clear and natural aristocratic successor to the popular state, so that it can assume power when the time comes; otherwise there’s going to be a Hell of a fight over who gets to rule. Hence why e.g. England has an advantage here, because it still has a traditional aristocracy which it can revive and most everyone can agree on without fighting too much.

        1. > Aristocratic rule will come when technology shifts military power from the many back to the few.

          It is not a matter of technology, it is a matter of will. An organised military beats an unorganised mob every time, unless the leaders of the military order the military to stand down, as is the case right now.

          > His only chance is if leftism goes too far and provokes a priestly revolt i.e. a “Progressive Reformation” nailing its 95 theses onto the doors of the Cathedral

          I attest we are already seeing this priestly revolt on the internet. Hence Jim as the 21st century Martin Luther.

          1. > It is not a matter of technology, it is a matter of will. An organised military beats an unorganised mob every time, unless the leaders of the military order the military to stand down, as is the case right now.

            Yes, but if the number of military personnel required to beat a mob is too high, then only priests can reliably wield military power. The “will” required to mobilize an effective military force is too high to achieve without the tacit backing of some priests. Any military action that does not have their support will find itself suffering from mutiny and desertion.

            A putsch might succeed briefly with a small number of loyal elite troops. But the number of military personnel who would obey an order to carry out a putsch is too small to sustain any government it installs; unless priests convince the rest of the military to stand down, the rest of the military will simply topple the new government in return.

            > I attest we are already seeing this priestly revolt on the internet. Hence Jim as the 21st century Martin Luther.

            I agree that we are seeing the beginnings of it, though I don’t think Jim is really the Martin Luther of this movement. Moldbug is closer to it, but even that is a stretch. The revolt will not be that right-wing, there’s not a sufficient following; it will be moderate leftists who are sick of ideological control. In the original Reformation, the dissidents were still Christians. Hence, James Damore is more in line of what I’d expect.

  4. “The Dutch are overwhelmingly atheist because many aspects of Jesus’ life are obviously made up. He never cured blindness, he never walked over water, he never actually came back from the dead.”

    Oh, boy, where to start. How about: they already believe in a bunch of stuff for which they have even worse evidence (such as global warming). They don’t believe because they have been corrupted by 500 years of democracy. If they still had a king, they would still believe.

    1. It is a bit of both. Yes, we are still superstitious and still believe lots of silly nonsense. But 2000 years of evolution and the age of industry have done a lot for our sense of magic. A magician in the Netherlands no longer is a mysterious wizard, he is simply a low-status entertainer. Jesus quite obviously was -among other things- a magician. Warmist scientists similarly are magicians but it is less obvious. After all, the earth Is warming up 1 degree per century.

      Christ’s disciples said ‘believe because God’, but Warmist disciples say ‘believe because Science’. While the difference between the 2 is much smaller than the average person would tell you, they are not interchangeable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s