Category Archives: God

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.

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.

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?

Stress & God

Lang, lang geleden, voordat ik een blog had, typte ik al mijn gedachten uit op een typemachine.

Brother AX-410
Op een Brother AX-410

Op een dag had ik een plank vol met schrijfsels en besefte ik dat ik genoeg voor mezelf had geschreven. Toen ben ik deze blog gestart.

Een blog is fijn omdat het je dwingt begrijpelijke lappen tekst voor je lezers te schrijven: orden je gedachten op papier en je ordent je gedachten in je hoofd. Het nadeel is dat je makkelijker een bitch voor validatie wordt – iedereen is een junkie voor likes. Op een typemachine hoef je op niemand behalve jezelf indruk te maken. Ook mis je de stream of consciousness die zo lekker kan lopen als je geen coherent verhaal hoeft te typen.

Deze post schrijf ik in de eerste plaats aan mezelf, alsof ik weer achter de typemachine zit. Ik moet even een stream of consciousness kwijt. Excuses als ik moeilijk te volgen ben.

Leven zit vol met onoplosbare paradoxen. NEE we kunnen die paradoxen niet oplossen. De meeste mensen kan dit uberhaupt niet veel interesseren; komt een moeilijke levensvraag op hun pad dan grijpen ze terug op de leugens die hun vroeger verteld zijn. Verder doen ze er niet zo moeilijk over. Interessant: naarmate een man ouder wordt begint hij vaak steeds meer te twijfelen aan deze leugens en krijgt hij behoefte naar een ‘diepere betekenis’. Dit eindigt zelden goed.

Nu, als je vanaf jonge leeftijd daadwerkelijk hard gaat nadenken over de levensvragen kom je op een gegeven moment uit op een accepteerbaar antwoord voor de onoplosbare paradoxen. Wat je accepteerbaar vindt hangt af van je standaard. Zelfmoord is een valide antwoord. Maar zelfmoord ligt niet echt in mijn natuur en dus is het niet mijn antwoord.

Het ding van een paradox is dat er 2 onoplosbare krachten aan ten grondslag liggen. Yin en Yang. Licht en Donker. Nergens een fuck om geven en leven met passie (de paradox van game!). Goed en Kwaad. Het antwoord voor het leven is ook in termen van zo’n paradox te geven: God & Stress. Aan het einde van de dag zijn dit de enige 2 zaken die tellen.

God = de poging van de mens om iets te bevatten dat groter is dan onszelf. God geeft betekenis aan ons bestaan, geeft een reden om een beschaving te bouwen en te onderhouden alsmede om kunst te produceren. God is onze inspiratiebron om een Goed Mens te zijn.

Stress = Ons falen, onze zonde, onze menselijkheid. Human, all too human, lamenteert Nietzsche. Stress is de bal van paralyserende emoties die we ervaren: onze agressie, onze angst, onze schaamte, onze seksuele driften, ons onvermogen boven onze dierlijkheid uit te stijgen. Stress is de wetenschap dat we een zak van vlees en bloed zijn die op een dag uit elkaar zal vallen.

Beiden zijn nodig voor een gelukkig leven. De persoon die beide krachten weet te bundelen is een persoon die een gelukkig leven leidt, zowel als goed mens en als vleeszak.

NB: Ik heb deze post alsnog geproefleest. Ijdelheid kent geen tijd.