Nature boils down to a few simple concepts.

Haters will point out that I oversimplify. The haters are wrong. I am good at saying a lot with few words. Nature indeed boils down to a few simple concepts.

In life, you can either cooperate or defect.

Used to be that defection was the dominant strategy, say in the time when the Roman empire started to crumble. Everybody complained about everybody and in the end nothing got done. Then came Jesus, who told people to be loving and cooperative, and boom: 1800 years later we get the industrial revolution.

Because of Jesus we now find ourselves in a situation where cooperation is the dominant strategy. A normie engages in a ton of cooperation: with the tax collector who wants more and more of his money, with schools who want more and more of his kid’s time, with media who wants him to repeat more and more party lines, with the Zeitgeist of the Collective Spirit of the People’s Progress Towards a New Utopia. Essentially, our normie is cooperating himself into a crumbling Western empire.

Turns out that if everyone blindly cooperates, parasites sprout up like weeds until defection once again becomes the standard.

The point of a post-Christian religion is to once again create conditions for the kind of cooperation that led to the industrial revolution. This necessitates throwing out undead Christianity: you do not blindly cooperate. You cooperate with people that cooperate with you, you defect on people that defect on you. Christianity mixed with Darwinism. God and Gnon meet.

This also means we re-establish spiritual hierarchy, which, like regular hierarchy, is a prerequisite for cooperation. It is this hierarchical cooperation that turns a household into a force to be reckoned with, that allows a group of men to unite as a front against their enemies, that allows a tribe to conquer the world. Remember: Scientology bullied the Cathedral’s tax department into submission.

With a functioning hierarchy, men still gossip, lie and scheme, but they will do so in whispers behind closed doors. In your face they cooperate and contribute to the group’s wellbeing because incentives are thus that contributing to group wellbeing heightens status.

Without a functioning hierarchy, men gossip, lie and scheme, but they do so in your face, and they tell you that you are positively deluded for accusing them of gossiping, lying and scheming. Seeds will not sprout in such ground.

Spiritual dominance is established in the same way any sort of dominance is established: fought for, taken. But the fight is ritualistic. You can’t force spiritual dominance if no one listens, or if you are silenced the ritual is not allowed to happen.

If one of our priests is forbidden from establishing spiritual dominance, that is a sure sign an enemy priest is in better control and has vested interest in preventing you from establishing spiritual dominance..

They defect on you, you defect on them. Let them suffer the consequences of enemy priesthood, among others characterized by the annoying tendency that very little is said with very many words.

7 thoughts on “Defection

  1. Largely true, though in the case of the West the asymmetry is less in the act of defection and more in the inability to cope with defection. Westerners are leaving civil and economic cooperative behavior very rapidly but unlike their competitors they are not enjoying or building parallel cooperative tribal replacements. They are simply sliding down the social hierarchy into oblivion.

    This is likely a biological impediment more so than a spiritual one. Evangelical, orthodox, and agnostic western people all share this problem to a greater or lesser extent. Presumably a Buddhist west would be in the same positon with only minor changes to the justification. At bottom is the game theory of group interactions: selfish individualism is a short and mostly fails, selfless altruism rises quickly but plateaus, and naked tribalism dominates into the late game until the point where that tribe is too large or dominant to maintain tribal cohesion whereupon the game has a soft reset.

    Westerners are the product of a mid-game altruism explosion that came out of highly effective old world European tribalism success. But after riding a wave of altruism for centuries the western genome is no longer fit to compete in the late stage where tribalism once again becomes vastly more competitive. The turning point came when westerners relenquished the elite class and allowed individual defectors and tribalism to dominate there. From this point (first quarter of the 20th century) onward there was simply no question of what would eventually happen.

    You can look back to the early 20th century reactionaries and see this in writing. They may not have forseen a Pakistani Britain or Somali Sweden or Mexican America, but they did forecast that the alliegance of their elite class had gone up in the air and the future was increasingly uncertain as their general population was in no way tribal enough in nature to repel untoward advances by outsiders in collusion with their elite class.

      1. Not so. Were it as you suggest; It would simply be a matter of western people deciding to return to tribal defect-on-defect/defect-on-outgroup instead of the altruistic always cooperation or individualist selfish always defect. As my reading of history and biological development goes, westerners do not have the expressed genes to make that work any more than Arabs or Africans have the genes to practice western levels of highly cooperative altruism.

        I will admit that westerners do have tribalism in their past, while africans in particular have no history of altruism, so the comparison isn’t perfect. But given what we know from modern biology the likelihood of seeing resurgent gene expression over one generation, all the time most westerners have left, particularly given altruistic domestication dates back many more generations, is slim to none. Therefor it is much better to suppose the western mind is largely incapable of reform.

        1. I agree with you.

          My line of thought goes that Christianity promoted the expression of altruistic genes, e.g. that spiritual dominance led to biological dominance. Perhaps the causality is more complex, but the 2 seem to go in hand obviously.

          So, a new dominant religion should also promote new dominant genes.

  2. Too many errors man. You know I agree with most of what you say, but this stuff is way off base.

    1. Jesus showed up when Rome was near it’s peak in terms of civilization. It was the rule of Augustus. He did not show up when Rome was crumbling which was nearly 3 and a half centuries later. There is a case to be made that Jesus turning up was one of the factors that led to Rome Crumbling. The Christians were the ones who defected on the Romans by not adding their God to the Roman pantheon and taking some Roman Gods into their own pantheon as other subject people had done

    2. Jesus turns up and you get the industrial revolution 1800 years later? Are you kidding me? It takes 1800 years? What sort of a cause-effect conjecture is this? How many other things happened within those 1800 years that might have been the actual causes for the industrial revolution? One could more persuasively argue that John Calvin was more of a causative factor for the Renaissance that came soon after which in turn was a causative factor for the industrial revolution that came later. Jesus is basically a Commie Leftie. Fact is, the Christians play defect whenever they enter a space where another civilization is dominant. Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt, Medieval Japan, Modern Korea, Medieval and Modern India. In all these societies, They very much play the role that Jews play in the modern west. I think it is more a monotheistic thing than anything else. Only Islam manages to leash the Christians, being an improved iteration of Christianity which in turn is a mutation of Judaism.

    3. Marxism is descended from Judaism and Cultural Leftism, a.k.a. progressivism is descended from Protestantism. Being iterations, they are able to cannibalize Christianity the way Christianity cannibalizes Polytheism wherever it goes (Except for the Japanese, but they are a high-IQ master race, as we say in India, and so we cannot profit from their example).

    1. 1. Yes, there was the Pax Romana, but there was also the end of the Republic and the murder of Caesar .

      Not that I know much of Roman history. But it seems to me that Christianity summarized is ‘God loves us all’, e.g. ‘work together God damn it’. Judging by the amount of churches and cathedrals Christianity was a success, therefore I conclude that there must have been positive selection for cooperative religions.

      2. Well I might, on occasion, hyperbole for dramatic effect. Blame Jim’s influence.

      But I think I stand by my point. The industrial revolution started in Britain, spread throughout West Europe. It was a culmination of cooperative strategies, heavily popularized by some Jewish dude 1800 years ago (although I’m willing to indulge in I believe Koanic’s assertion that Jesus was not Jewish, mostly because Jesus doesn’t look particularly Jewish in paintings. But who knows.).

      Course as soon we got electricity, cars and airplanes, Christian God was declared dead.

      Naturally Christians go into defect mode in strange lands. Spiritual dominance only takes you so far, in survival mode more primitive instincts take over. Christian cooperation is more of a large in-group thing.

      3. I’m not following your point.

      1. My point is that Europeans do not need Christianity to co-operate with each other and have a great civilization. Ancient Greece and Rome with their polytheisms are decent exhibits to prove my point. The 1st century Greek polytheists came up with Steam Engines, see link below. Had Christianity not interfered, Europe might have had an industrial revolution by the 4th century itself instead of waiting until the 18th century.

        I’ve said it before and I say it again, everything profound about Christianity is plagiarized from Greco-Roman thought.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.