Category Archives: Theology

Immortal gene, mortal man

The first nervous system, an electric communication channel between cells, was evolutionary adaptive for making a binary decision: forward or backwards, which can be explained in different but actually similar terms: eat or don’t eat, left or right, fight or flight, reproduce or don’t reproduce. It is said that fight/flight includes a 3rd option, freeze, but it still a dual decision: 1) make decision or 2) postpone decision. So, always dualism. Always nature’s love of symmetry.

Screen Shot 2017-11-30 at 19.07.34

Our brain still works in the same manner as that first primitive nervous system did, still the same neurons firing of ‘yes’ or ‘no’, just many more neurons with many more interconnected decision trees. Like binary code, but interlinked binary code.


It’s the interlinking part that makes a nervous system self-conscious, that makes a neuron metaphorically say ‘I am part of the whole but I am also me’ and makes a human literally say ‘I am part of the whole but I am also me’. A computer can be programmed to say it, but not to understand it. Per Jim (PJ), artificial intelligence turns to be hard to figure out, with currently developed computers merely getting better at missing the point. We lack the ability to artificially create adaptive feedback loops.

Our brain cells are adaptive feedback loops. Mutation makes it so they often miss the point, but over time natural selection makes for resilient neurons. Thus humans are wired for optimum decision-making, which is to say they make decisions well above the threshold of ‘let’s jump off every skyscraper roof’ because natural equilibrium drifts towards safety barriers.

Do our brain cells function like a democracy? No. Nature is generally to our right, so likely a lot more dictatorial, in that some neurons overrule others. But there are connections and feedback loops between all nodes, so not absolutism either.

Does a neuron have consciousness? Can it separate itself from the brain of which it is part? No, it can’t, unless you’re the kind of person who believes hugging trees and not killing wasps raises your status, in which case you’d still be wrong (about the consciousness, not always about the status).

Do humans have consciousness? Yes. We can separate our individual meat vessel from the genes that created us. We can look at our body and say: every cell in this body is made and inhabited by genes, about 30.000 of them, packed in 46 chromosomes, safely hidden in cell nuclei.

Which leads to the realisation our genes don’t really care about us.

It’s not like they hate us, just that they are indifferent. To our genes, we’re just temporary vessels waiting to die. To us, they’re just little immortality factories waiting for us to die.

Yes, we are guardians to our genes. We protect and spread them. But we do it because we are programmed to do, like the puppet obeying the puppetmaster. If one gene combination won’t do, there will be others. Plenty of duplicate chromosomes in the genepool. Genes have safety barrier insurance against malfunctioning guardians. Said differently: from the point of view of our genes, there is no free will involved. It is evolve or die: you either evolve in accordance with your genes, or you die and are no longer relevant.

Though our relation is not exactly that of a puppetmaster-puppet. As said, we are conscious about our puppetmaster. The nature of the DNA survival strategy makes it so that while DNA is floating in a tiny space of cell fluid, we are walking and lifting meat machines. Your DNA is stuck with you, whether it likes it or not.

Still we are very strongly nudged in certain directions, in fact our decisions are defined by the nervous system created by DNA. This is why the nature/nurture-debate is post-modernist bunk. The answer to the debate is: nature. Nature wins. Nurture, or more accurately, meatspace, counts. It is good to have nice meatspace, very important even. But we modify the environment to fit ourselves instead of modifying ourselves to fit the environment, no matter how much veganists try to convince themselves of the opposite. Nurture is only important insofar DNA allows for cell plasticity. You may throw buckets of water at my feet or stuff kilos of oven-baked pork into tree hollows, you will not overcome nature.

Phrased differently: does magic dirt change tribalists into feudalists? Does a chimpanzee learn English if you teach it? The answers are no and no. [Are there more factual Nrx posts on nature/nurture are floating around…? As I understand one-egg twins separated at birth grow up to be fairly similar but not identical. Adoption children have close to zero resemblance to foster parents. But can not back that up. Links appreciated.]

Another modern debate that is bunkum: is there free will? The answer to this question is: well, a little, if you allow for a very broad definition of ‘free’ and ‘will’. But mostly it’s just people making themselves way more important than they are. You are a guardian for your genes, that is your designated role. How you choose to fulfil that role is about as much freedom as you’ll get.

In the end there is no escaping Gnon.

Of course, not for our lack of trying. We try to overcome Gnon at every turn. Take Jesus, who had no kids but has made much larger cultural impact than Genghis Khan who had tons of kids. But then you can say that Jesus was completely in line with Gnon in that he was good for the Jew gene pool, or even more broadly, good for cooperative genes similar to the ones Jesus had. But as the Jesus-propagated gene pool is cucked and and on the retreat, so does Jesus’ legacy diminishes.

Similarly, there is the archetype of the villain obsessed with eternal life, but then again there is the even stronger archetype of the vampire with eternal life. The former archetype is morally signalling that you are holier than Gnon. The second archetype is admitting that Gnon rules. Vampires are cool.

So no escaping Gnon.

Like it would be an insult to a chimpanzee to expect a chimpanzee to be human, it would be an insult to the sun if Icharus didn’t get knocked down a peg.

The question is, where does Gnon end and God begin? Probable answer: we never get to see God, only Gnon. We see a lot more evidence for Gnon than for God. God is fickle and vague, only talking to us through mostly Jewish texts. Why shouldn’t a man sleep with another man according to God? Because it is written. OK.

Why shouldn’t a man sleep with another man according to Gnon? Because gays are like eunuchs, in that they have no interest in society beyond their death and thus would rather have sex with children than care about them. [a cursory google search on ‘how many pedophiles are gay?’ links to indignant scientists telling me with statistics that I am horrible for even thinking there is a link, but personal observation tells me gays are obviously overrepresented in pedophilia, similar to how jews are overrepresented in Hollywood.]

So Gnon seems more accurate than God. And the earthly incarnation of Gnon seems to be genes.

But it is kind of cold to worship genes, especially when we observe genes’ indifference towards humans. So easier to worship God and have His commandments be completely in line with Gnon. Morality becomes intertwined with natural law. That is the symbiosis between biology and theology.


Finetuning NRx


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.

From Socrates to Jesus to Nietzsche to Jim

I do like that title.

Western philosophy pretty much peaked with Socrates. Aristotle was nice with his classifications, Plato was okay with his cave riddle but Socrates nailed it: the only thing we know is that there is stuff we don’t know. Beyond that Socrates seems to have just gotten on with his life,; speaking truth to power and paying the price for it. Socrates’ life shows the veracity of his philosophy.

But Socrates did not catch on in Greece. He was too high-brow.

Western religion pretty much peaked with Jesus. Damn man, that guy man, Jesus… King of the Jews, huh. What year are we living in again? Year X after you-know-who, amirite? Jesus knew how to occupy the West for a millenium or 2.

But Christians see their churches empty. The faith is dying. An event Nietzsche predicted over a hundred years ago: God is dead. Hail übermensch! But is God really dead, or is it Jesus who is dead, and with Jesus our connection to God? That remains to be seen. (although Socrates is raising his hand)

But like Socrates, Nietzsche did not catch on. He demanded too much. I have to transcend myself? That sounds like a lot of work. I dunno man. I work to live, I don’t live to work.

Maybe that’s why Jim is an old, fat and bald man. It is a nice counterpoint.

Will Jim catch on?

Screen Shot 2017-06-13 at 23.47.16
Socrates has something to say