Category Archives: Geloof

Pledging fealty to Hestia

So in my last post I made a case for organised religion which laid the groundwork for this spergy if natural follow-up. With the demonic takeover of Roman-Catholicism I have little faith in the vatican and its churches. Protestantism begat progressivism so that is not an option either. Non-Western religions don’t really appeal to me, even if Buddha said some good things.

But everyone wants to be part of something. So hereby I pledge internet fealty to Hestia Society whose members I believe are closest to following the will of God. May Trump be king, may Hestia establish an American vatican, may Jim be grand inquisitor and may Leafyishere spread reactionary propaganda.

Free will is whatever you believe it to be


So I stumbled upon Kristor’s post on free will, which was a response to Alrenous’ earlier post titled ‘free will is analytically impossible‘. Both talk about free will and both come to opposing conclusions.

Alrenous concludes that “the desire for ‘free will’ is an evopsych thing, not a philosophy thing. It’s about not being in physical chains. It’s about my values not being overridden by someone else’s. Not being in logical/causal chains is impossible.” Ergo there is not such thing as free will.

Kristor concludes “with the opposite notion: that we do really act; that our wanting and so our willing is free; that it is, truly, ours, and not that of some other; and that it is not merely a determinate logical function of its causal antecedents.” Ergo there is such a thing as free will.

Here’s my 2 cents: they’re both right as long as they respect Gnon. Alrenous’ analysis fits that prerequisite slightly better because he explicitly mentions the chains of nature and forces us to acknowledge that we are stuck in them. Kristor is also right but struggles in his explanation. In my opinion his distinction between ‘wanting’ and ‘doing’ is semantical. You do what you do and you want what you want.

Still Kristor is right because free will is whatever you believe it to be. Philosophers have hit a brick wall on the concept. Theology > philosophy. “Free will” has no use in a scientific discussion because there is no freedom in an unfree world. A problem can not be solved on the same level it was created. Do I have free will? Yes because X! No because Y! Either answer is unfalsifiable. The same thing goes for concepts like destiny, kharma and the existence of your soul. Real? False? Who knows. Unfalsifiable. Believe whatever you believe.

Of course I solve this problem by thinking of all those words as synonyms for God. But that’s me.



It seems like I woke up one morning and suddenly It Was Happening. Trump’s Twitter account reaches Justin Bieber popularity level, terrorists attack weekly, Wikipedia hosts LGBT writing weeks and Ghostbusters 2 screens in Dutch Cinemas. Overseas there suddenly is an ‘Alt-right’ and perhaps or very likely it will grow in the Netherlands as well. Reaction has reached peak memetic efficiency in the sense that any modernist argument can pretty much be refuted with a picture and a caption. Modernity is built on a scam and that scam is now falling apart.

It is interesting how people try to explain away the scarier developments of the past year: ISIS. Mass immigration. Putin. Trump. Turkey. It does not fit their pre-existing story, for their pre-existing story tells them that the world is slowly uniting into one big utopian family. But the level of cognitive dissonance is growing and the amount of mental gymnastics performed to counter fearful thoughts is reaching maximum capacity. The Reactionary(c) on the other hand is of course not at all surprised by the events of the past year and if he is surprised it is in the positive sense, for he is not just proven right a little bit, no, he is being proven right a lot. I sure feel like performing an upbeat I-told-you-so dance around a burning globe. I’m probably not the only one.

When one compares the reactionary view with the prevailing mainstream view the discrepancy is huge. Now on the one hand people say that the opinion of the masses does not matter because elites will do as the elite will do. Yet at the same time sovereignty is conserved and since we live in the age of the masses, mass opinion matters. Correct me if I’m wrong but the entire movement around Trump is a mass movement is it not? Trump is redirecting the attention of the masses. For instance Trump has injected into the mainstream audience the -Heartistian- meme that diversity + proximity = war. Which is a great counter meme to modernity. But it is only one of many reactionary memes. For every reactionary mean an an average person has about 99 modernist meetings implanted in their head. After all, progressivism has about a 200 year head start on this whole neoreactionary shenanigans. It is often said that the only way Trump can achieve meaningful change is when he breaks democratic regulations that make up the US Federal government.

Trump, being a charming man, usually knows very well what he can and what he cannot say. There was this one business with him suggesting that women ought to be punished for abortions which did not go down well, but all in all Trump knows very well what the average voter is thinking and act accordingly. Speaking personally I do not posses even 1% of trumps diplomatic tact. I like to talk about truth and that is about it. Ergo I have pretty much the lost all interest in public political discourse, because it now seems clear to me what the topic of conversation will be for the next Current Years: it will be leading towards iconoclasm. Remember everything you have been taught? About history, about the enlightenment, about the second world war, about races, and of course about democracy? Yeah that was all a scam. Remember Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Che Guevara and Barack Obama? Yeah they were all liars or just stupid. Remember freedom of speech, human rights, equality? All just a bunch of leftist bullshit. Oh and have you heard of Harvard university? Man don’t even get me started.

So remind me again- do the masses like comforting lies or do they like harsh truth? Indubitably the masses do not like harsh truth and they will choose comforting lies until harsh truth hits them in the face like a cold fish. Even if Trump does turn out to be the God Emperor alt-right propaganda makes him out to be, I see no pretty way for the West to make this U-turn.

Power is its own justification



It weren’t the Sith that were evil; it were the Jedi all along.
It wasn’t Voldemort that was evil; it was Harry Potter all along.

A beautiful aspect of NRx is that it is inherently realistic about power. Power! It is so breathtakingly fresh to talk honestly about power! It is the one thing people obsess over yet never talk about out loud. Likely even more so today due to the denial of power by those who are actually in power: power = privilege = EVIL. Thus trails along the narrative of equalism.

In the end all biological dynamics are explained by power. Gnon talks only the language of power. I had a discussion with AntiDem recently on Social Matter in which we came to the same conclusion even in our disagreement. All communication is an exchange information to gain power. If I were supreme leader of Social Matter I might have banned AntiDem for a week to prove my point. If he subsequently turns his NRx thedes against me he will again prove my point. If I ultimately were supreme leader of the world I might execute him to ultimately prove my point. Power is all.

This does not mean one should obsess over power, even if I understand the temptation to do so very well. Power = power, whether you deny it or fetishize it. Gnon will do as Gnon does whether you care about it or not.

This also does not mean that all discussions concerning ‘what is right?’ are moot points. But they are impossible without:
a) the admission that theology > philosophy
b) the admission that in the end the gun is always right

Prophet loopholes

Continuing to baffle atheists and Christians alike, let’s take a closer look at some Brahmin loopholes. These are some I can think of on the top off my head, feel free to add your own:

Buddhism loopholes
– Too feel-good. Buddhism gives no space for the devil in men. Pure enlightenment will never be reached by a human, for mankind is fallible per definition.
– Too vague. A good religious code gives people daily instructions which both aid their daily live AND remind them who’s boss. Islam is very good at this, see 5x a day prayer and Ramadan. Buddhism does not give us anything except for ‘meditation is good’. Direct teachings attributed to Gautama Buddha are simply not concrete enough.

Although I like a lot of Buddhist beliefs, ultimately Buddhism ends up being a useful idiot for Kastriyas and an escape mechanism for middle-aged spinster women. Neither will die for their Buddhist beliefs.

Islam loopholes
– Made for a world in which all prisoner dilemmas outcomes are defect-defect. In this sense Mohammed serves as the perfect antithesis of Jesus, whose altruistic beliefs made Christians cooperate-cooperate on an unprecedented scale. Even though Islam is now able to abuse this altruism for its own good, Mohammed’s basic philosophy will prevent Islam from ever being a stable functional religion. Once it has succesfully waged war on the world, it will wage war on itself. Islam is much like a malignant tumor in this way.

Christian loopholes
– As I identify with Christianity the most it is the hardest to come up with Jesus loopholes. Overall I think gays are dealt with, and honestly I think the old testament deals with women pretty well also. Blacks I am not so sure. But perhaps the most pressing loophole is the fact that Jesus never tells us to ‘man the fuck up’. Yes Christians are friendly, yes they try their utmost to do good in the world, but they are overwhelmingly beta do-gooders who hide behind what is left of their community, inwardly feel superior towards atheists yet outwardly are shut up in every serious discussion.

General loopholes
– No prophet has spoken out against tobacco smoking. Tobacco only entered Europe in the 16th century so no blame for them. Generally though I am fairly sure that they would disapprove of the habit (or one would hope so). An additional commandment would perhaps be in place: “commandment 11: thou shalt not smoke tobacco.”
– So whats the deal with abortion, porn & contraception? Are these grave sins? Minor sins? In the category of murder or of masturbation?

The Ultimate Brahmin


Time to wrap up a couple of loose ends.

In the past couple of posts I’ve discussed the power of the Brahmins, which is to give spiritual meaning to life. We pessimistically pointed out that Brahmins like any human are human, all too human… Their belief systems often suck. Turns out it is pretty difficult to come up with a good set of rules for people to follow which endures over the centuries.

Difficult but not impossible. Some rules DO survive and it seems that without exception they are told in stories. A human society hungers for a stories or myths that give meaning to their lives. The truthfulness of these myths is of relative unimportance; their real power is in the conviction of their believers. It is this power that Brahmin seek to control and direct.

In no way do I condemn the Brahmins’ hunger for power. Like any self-convinced Brahmin I will argue that it is perfectly natural and necessary for Brahmin to assert spiritual dominance. As Jesus said, ‘I am the good shepherd.’ The people need a good shepherd. Nonetheless, the realization of Brahmins as power-seeking individuals does change the way we view contemporary Brahmin: the academics, the philosophers and the social scientists. Whatever their modest claims may be, they are all in essence all trying to be the same thing: to be a prophet…. A task which they are overwhelmingly failing.

For simplicity’s sake we can shove most of the blame on the so-called ‘enlightenment’ philosophers. How deluded we were to think of these people as ‘great thinkers’, when in retrospect they were nothing but power-hungry Brahmin usurpers! One can shortly summarize the work of Rousseau, Voltaire & Locke as follows: ‘Forget about our past Brahmins, listen to me!’ The same goes for pretty much any atheistic Brahmin. False prophets, all of them.

In the end, there is no rejecting of God. Holy scripture is ‘holy’ for a reason – it is intended to transcend mortal shortcomings as much as possible so that generation after generation may reap the rewards from its lessons. Does it really transcend our biology? Probably not, but ultimately that is a question of faith. The bible serves as a red thread throughout mankind’s history to provide a feeling of meaning to our life, which is all we spiritually hunger for.

In my mind any deviation from the collective past script is at best an extremely risky undertaking, at worst a total destruction of everything our ancestors built. None of our ‘enlightened’ philosophers or anyone after them really understood this, with the exception of Nietzsche, the ultimate Brahmin badboy. Nietzsche realized that humanity faces a serious crisis of identity after it kills God, which is why he spent his entire life thinking of a way to overcome God’s death. His solution was the gospel of the übermensch, brought to us through the mouth of Zarathustra. It is no coincidence that Thus Spoke Zarathustra resembles the bible in set-up: it is SUPPOSED to be holy scripture. The Newest Testament, a post-God bible, if you will.

Alas, Nietzsche’s grand vision spread, hit a high watermark and then slowly receded. Nietzsche does not nearly have the historical sticking power as prophets before him, most notably Jesus. Which is not to say Nietzsche wasn’t an absolute genius; it just turns out that even Nietzsche can’t kill God.

So I conclude that mankind is a religious creature (incidentally, slumlord also discusses this). Myth is more important than fact, stories are more important than statistics, theology is more important than philosophy. Traditionally the church takes up the responsibility of providing the people with the right myths, but as we have seen contemporary churches are by and large failing: by forcibly maintaining the status quo they will only temporary slow down the sinking process.

But their priests and bishops are not to be blamed for this. One cannot expect a church hierarchy to survive on an infinite timeline if their Brahmin founding father left loopholes – which is exactly what seems to have happened with Christians (and even more so with Jews, if I interpret Jim correctly). So what does all of this lead us to?

It leads us to the grand conclusion: with the failure of Nietzsche mankind now needs a new prophet. Jesus 2.0. The next ultimate Brahmin, so to say. Candidates will have a tough time especially as modernity has grown suspicious of so-called ‘miracles’. Jesus convinced us he could walk over water, heal the sick and come back from the dead. Contemporary prophets will probably not get away with that. Nonetheless, plenty of candidates to go around. Joseph Smith seems to do pretty well in the US. Vissarion also tries his best. Off course Mohammed is making a big comeback as well. NRx insiders naturally point towards Mencius Moldbug, who himself points towards Thomas Carlyle.

Probably it is way too early to speak in terms of possible prophets – the whole prophet thing is ultimately one huge black swan event. History will only in retrospect tell us the answer.

Anti-Fragility and Catholics


Let’s continue the imaginary conversation we’re having with Nick B Steves, in which I post a 500-word article and he succinctly replies with a sentence or two. Last time I discussed the corruption of the Vatican and per extension the corruption of modern Christianity. Nick, friendly enough to share the post on his aggregator blog, offered the following reply:

An anti-fragile system does not become too dependent upon single institutions, I think, even the Vatican. Still, it would be great to have a church hierarchy that was better inoculated against the the lies and empty show of modernity.

Firstly let me admit that I am impressed by the relativity with which Roman-Catholics view their church hierarchy. I had initially thought of the Catholic hierarchy as a much more closed system, much like a military hierarchy. This turns out not to be the case – I am told that Christians are even allowed to rebel against their own church if they strongly feel said church betrays holy scripture. Which was exactly the reasoning used by Luther to  nail his 95 theses to the Wittenberg church, which begat protestantism which begat puritanism which begat progressivism.

Here we near the crux of the closed/open hierarchy problem: perhaps a theological hierarchy does not need to be a completely closed loop, but how open can it be before informal schisms occur? Nick takes the stance that the point of multiple systems is not a schism but instead a continuation of growth even during times of distress, or perhaps especially during times of distress. Hence, anti-fragile.

Despite Bryce Laliberte calling Nassim Taleb “an overrated thinker who will not be remembered by history” I very much enjoyed his book Anti-fragility. A short summary for those who haven’t read it: there are 3 kinds of systems.

1- Fragile. A system that works fine in calm waters but breaks when enough pressure is applied. Think the sword of Damocles. Or glass.

2- Robust. A system that remains stable under enormous amounts of pressure. Think the mythical phoenix. Or a rock.

3 – Anti-fragile. A system that need pressure, that flourishes under pressure. This, according to Taleb, is the best system. Your muscles are anti-fragile; the more you train, the stronger they grow. Think the mythical hydra.

With this in our mind we turn to the matter at hand: is Catholicism anti-fragile? Not a question to be answered in a couple of paragraphs, but lets do it anyway. A cursory search on google gives us the following statistics from the BBC. Basically: Europeans are becoming less catholic, South-Americans & Africans are becoming more catholic. The US is a stable 8%, although Wikipedia gives us a stable 25% which is a confusing difference. The Netherlands follows the European trend: less and less people identify as Roman Catholic (down to 24%) while almost 50% identify as atheist. Dem down to earth Dutch!

Talking from a European perspective: these figures don’t give me too much hope. Call me racist but I don’t expect Catholic Brazilians and Africans to save Western civilization. I’m not really seeing an anti-fragile growth among Catholics – if anything I’m seeing a dilation of its essence, much like a pudding expanding before it collapses. A combination of robust/fragile, if you will.  So I have my doubts about the anti-fragility of catholicism.

Still, to end on an uplifting note: if anything, Taleb teaches us that we are crap at predicting future trends. I don’t know if catholicism will fade like a candle. Perhaps my read of the situation is completely off. But even if it is not: might we not hope for a theological black swan?

Vaishyas en Brahmins


Ok, iets schrijven….

Het is publiek geheim dat niemand geïnteresseerd is in de angst, luiheid, kommer en kwel achter de artiest. Fresku is niet voor niets sinds Gino Pietermaai over z’n hoogtepunt heen.

Kop op jongen, even serieus…

Een ideale samenleving heeft een zo laag mogelijke tijds-preferentie, wat zoveel betekent als dat de samenleving duurzaam is. Inherent aan een duurzame samenleving is orde zoals die in het Indische caste-systeem. Men kent zijn plek, men weet wat van hem/haar verwacht wordt. Op het moment dat men dat niet meer weet vallen pilaren van de samenleving weg – als vuistregel is verandering schadelijk voor de mens. Tegelijkertijd is verandering moeilijk tegen te houden en bovendien lang niet altijd wenselijk. Mens laat zich moeilijk in een hokje passen. Wie zijn wij om de fantasie van de mens klein te houden?

Nou, wij zijn Brahmins. Wij beweren de ultieme eindfantasie van de menselijke samenleving in gedachten te hebben. Wij beweren een bouwplaat te hebben voor de menselijke samenleving in dezelfde zin dat Apple een bouwplaat heeft voor de Macbook. Zo is immers de rol van de Brahmin: wij zijn de spirituele caste, de caste die richting geeft aan andere castes middels geloofsbelijdenis. Noem ons zoals je wilt; shamans, priesters, dominees, profeten of tovenaars, het resultaat is hetzelfde. We leven in onze eigen wereld; een abstracte wereld, eentje waarin aan alles wordt getwijfeld maar waarin tegelijkertijd alles zijn eigen plaats heeft. Als dat paradoxaal klinkt – mooi.

Elke Yin heeft zijn Yang en dat geldt ook voor Brahmins. Het is waar dat alles voorbij gaat (abstract), maar het is net zo goed waar dat een huis staat als een huis (concreet). Tegenover de denkers staan de doeners, die ik hier voor het gemak samenvat als de Vaishyas. Vaishyas zijn doeners – zij willen bouwen, werken, bezig zijn! Zij zijn pas tevreden als het vuil onder hun nagels uitpuilt en het zweet hen in de ogen druppelt. Zij hebben geen tijd voor zweverige denkerij, zij zien er het nut niet van in. Vertel ze liever iets praktisch, iets waar ze wat aan hebben.

Onder zelfverzekerde Brahmins is het publiek geheim dat een Vaisya ondanks al z’n protesten een volgeling van de Brahmin is. Een Vaisya die Brahmins afzweert opereert als Michael Corleone in the Godfather – hij is een machtige zelfgemaakte man, maar eenzaam en verdwaald van binnen. Een niet-sociopatische Vaisya bereikt onvermijdelijk het punt waarop hij zich gaat afvragen WAT hij nou met z’n succes wilt doen. ‘Ok, ik ben rijk. Wat nu?’ Het is op dit punt dat hij naar de dominante Brahmins in de samenleving keert, op dit moment de progressieven. Zie de min of meer mislukte miljarden filantropie van Bill Gates en Mark Zuckerberg. Ironisch: in hun geldgesmijt zien de Brahmin hun eigen status gevalideerd.

Nu, het laatste en belangrijkste punt van deze post is het volgende: net zo goed als dat Vaisyas Brahmins volgen, volgen Brahmins Vaisyas. Yin en Yang. We kunnen zeggen dat uiteindelijk slechts God bestaat (abstract), maar we kunnen net zo goed zeggen dat uiteindelijk slechts Gnon bestaat (concreet). Het enige dat telt, dat Echt is, is datgene dat we met onze handen kunnen voelen. Een goede denker bereikt onvermijdelijk het punt waarop hij is uitgedacht en waarop hij zich gaat afvragen WAT hij nou met z’n succes wilt doen. ‘Ok, ik snap het grote plaatje. Wat nu?’ Alleen de Vaisyas weten dat…

Ik geloof dat George RR Martin een keer schreef over de jongen die jarenlang alleen maar boeken las en op zichzelf was. Op een dag sloeg hij z’n laatste boek dicht en werd hij soldaat. Zelfde verhaal.

A neoreactionary Vatican


In a previous post I confessed my newfound love for God as interpreted by Catholicism – basically because I like the idea of a hierarchy that flows downwards from God to the pope to the people. A society guided by God’s natural law is a society guided by the lowest time-preference possible. I argue once again that that is the end goal of Nrx. This is the teleology which (the Brahmin part of) Western society grasped for so many centuries but lost during the recent ones.

Naturally it is an idealistic construct. First and foremost, power brokers tend to be more into Gnon than into God. After all, Gnon clearly communicates his will on a daily basis. God on the other hand only communicates with us through a select couple of people and, well, most of these people are justifiably on anti-psychotic medication. So if it takes a psychosis to experience the Divine, what does that make of our holy hierarchy?

Catholics take the pope (and per extension his inner circle) to be deeply religious.  At the very least he is expected to take Jesus Christ’s status as son of God for granted, resurrection and virgin birth included. E.g. he is expected to be slightly psychotic. On the other hand he is also expected to be a spiritual leader of millions, a figurehead people can proudly quote at parties. He should not rock the boat for unnecessary reasons. He is expected to be trustworthy. If the Vatican is too psychotic they will be accused of being holier than Jesus. But if the Vatican is too trustworthy, too neutral… Well that brings us to our current day situation.

As we can see, a hierarchy based upon a non-verifiable deity is always forced to navigate the dangerous line between psychotic and trustworthy, perhaps in some way like how a chick must navigate the line between the crazy/hot scale lest she not get dumped.

All of this is basically just a very long introduction into addressing Nick’s comment in the previous post:

“A neoreactionary Vatican would just be a regular old Vatican. Whether we can get that back remains to be seen.”

I have been thinking this over and my inclination is to disagree. A neoreactionary Vatican would have specific safeguarding mechanisms in place to keep it from sliding down the leftist scale. Or to put it in Moldbug’s language: if Nick’s assertion were true then the Vatican should have developed specific antibodies against progressive ideology. This however is not the case – C.S. Lewis is more popular than Jim. I therefore conclude that the Vatican De Facto was never neoreactionary, or at least not sufficiently so.

I imagine it will not be too hard for the holy hierarchy to make these adjustments in the future: let the societal breakdown continue for a couple of decades and bishops will likely draw their conclusions. A permanent change in the immune system might be slightly harder though. The Vatican will probably go with trustworthy over psychotic time after time, using the understandable argument that nor the old Testament nor Jesus explicitly mentioned how to effectively handle feminists/Africans/Muslims.

The disco that is Nrx



This article by Malcolm Pollack got me putting together a few thoughts. Pollack writes about an overarching alt-right theme, namely the impending breakdown that Western society is heading towards. He then addresses a crowd he refers to as Nrx-enthusiasts:

“Where I think I part company with many on the dissident Right — in particular, those who call themselves “neoreactionaries”, most of whom are, I think, several decades younger than I — is that so many of them seem to have a kind of breathless excitement about all of this; it seems they just can’t wait for all the fun they are going to have watching the apocalypse, and then rolling up their sleeves to show everyone how it ought to have been done. This seems to me profoundly, childishly, foolishly, heart-breakingly naïve.”

My gut-response to this was: ‘hah, of course I am not falling for this heroism trap. I am not heart-breakingly naïve!’ My system-2 response is a guiltier one. Yes, a part of me is enthusiastic about Nrx. Yes, that side is naïve. But that side is also very real and in a way almost valid. Why?

From a big picture perspective we can see everything in life as a puzzle. There are simpler puzzles (‘who killed the butler’), there are abstract puzzles (‘why are we here?’). I enjoy the abstract puzzles. ‘Why do things work they way they work?’ ‘Why is our society the way it is right now?’ ‘Why are we waging wars?’ ‘Why doesn’t democracy deliver what it promises to deliver?’ Mainstream intellectual society does not answer these questions, it actually often only obfuscates them further. So questions remain and no one seems to really know how to answer them.

… That is, until Moldbug solved the puzzle and wrote the answer on his blog. Other writers refined his ideas, and boom – Nrx has solved the puzzle of politics and life, in the same sense that Rollo Tomassi and the manosphere solved the puzzle of women and life. Congratulations, you have taken the red pill and come out healthy at the other end! I cannot deny that that triggers me emotionally. The young are hungry for power, to loosely paraphrase Moldbug, and neoreactionary knowledge definitely gives one an evolutionary edge in seeking power.

Nonetheless I concede that yes, very probably this enthusiasm is for the most part childish foolishness. I am sober about the ‘we’re all going to drown and no one is going to save us’ part. Whatever will happen, it will be ugly. Besides, the ultimate conclusion of neoreaction is inherently a  humbling one: it is not a realization of resolution, it is a realization of failure. Speaking generally, atheism has failed. Atheistic Brahmins are limited Brahmins. Nietzsche killed God for a while, but Nietzsche failed. The last part of the puzzle that Moldbug was missing was the final answer that Nrx leads to: God.

The tried-and-tested way of Brahmins to make sense of God is through religion. So those enthusiasts that actually want to fight simply need to make up their minds and join a religious community. My intellectual preference goes to the Roman-Catholics, but honestly I lack the emunah to actively board that ship. The ship also seems to be full of holes. Still though, I wonder what a neoreactionary Vatican would be like. Or is that childishly naïve?