Every time I get more Twitter hits than usual I run a Twitter search to see what are people blabbering about me. It’s usually quite interesting. See here:
Heh. See also Alfa NL, who perhaps should call himself Maurice of Orange-Nassau or any cool soldier from Dutch history, wrote a post where he very kindly called me his Final Boss. I kinda like the attention. He writes how I’m a very compelling advocate of atheism. But he believes in God, and he wants to make God’s will a part of my theories.
He is misunderstanding me, as many do. I actually get quite a lot of correspondence by sympathetic Christians telling me that I could accommodate Christianity in this or that way. The very fact that I get sympathetic Christians reading my blog should tell you that I’m no atheist. I’ve explicitly said so myself long ago. And I’ve said so with the very same argument that Alfa NL makes in his post. There’s no point to atheism. It’s completely self-defeating. I totally get that. I’ve always got that, and over the years I’ve learned what I think is the exact mechanism that makes atheism useless and religion useful.
So why be an atheist? I’m certainly not. But as a writer I can’t be a theist. Thomas Huxley was in the same conundrum when he coined the word “agnostic”, which I think is a brilliant way to put it. Being a theist would destroy all my work. It’s cheating. I want to explain things with the available evidence. Inserting god here or there while I write about history or about theories of social behavior would be just too easy. So I don’t, and I never will. No good historian does.
But if you want to believe in God, but all means don’t let me stop you. If you want to believe in the coming race-war, by all means keep on believing that we will win. Don’t let my pessimism discourage you. Incidentally titled my blog “we shall drown and nobody will save us” after a funny page on a 1930s English textbook that I found at my grandfather’s, where they taught the difference between the usage of “will” and “shall”. I thought it was a pretty accurate reflection of my views. I stand by those views. I do think we’re likely going to hell. But I don’t want you to agree with me. I probably did back in 2011, but I don’t now, now that I know, and have extensively written about, what religion and ideology, and most social behavior is all about.
Razib Khan has had a similar epiphany, his one apparently being caused by his inside exposure to academic politics in the US. Razib Khan is an awesome blogger who’s been writing on history and human biodiversity for a decade already. If we were Chinese I’d call him 師傅 master and would have to be extremely polite with him. Razib knows his facts. He knows a whole lot of them.
But nobody likes facts. Well of course some people do. Razib Khan certainly does, as I do. But why? Because we’re good at it. We’re so much better than everyone else we know that we use the comparative advantage to try go get status. But people aren’t interest in the facts I give them. Why? Because being interested will make them lose, and me win. And they don’t want me to win, of course. Well my mother does (sometimes). But some people want me to lose, they want to win themselves. In this status struggle, the facts aren’t very important. They’re only a factor inasmuch as I make them a factor because I’m good at them so I use them to get status. But if my conversation partner is adamant at being hostile to me, he’ll deny the facts with extreme ease. All of them. You’ve all seen that happen. Especially on the internet.
The old Conquest’s law argues that everybody is conservative (sticks to the facts) in what they know best. But that doesn’t necessarily imply that they talk conservative. They must act conservative, behave conservative, basically because it’s the only way to get things done. But they don’t need to talk conservative. Many around here are constantly bemused about how high IQ, high conscientiousness, by any measure high performance people can be braindead liberals when you talk to them. Well of course they are; they must be, because it’s the way to get status. Talk is also a kind of behavior. It’s social behavior. And the point of social behavior is to maximize social status. So if talking progressive is the shortest path to social status, people are gonna talk progressive. They might even act progressive; but you might have noticed that people tend to do the talk but not the walk. They proclaim the equality of all races but live in white enclaves. They proclaim their love for public education but send their kids to private schools. Hypocrisy? No, just rational behavior.
Now the question of course remains; why is progressive talk the path to social status? The assumption in the right tends to be that the left is in power so they get to write the rules. 成王敗寇. The winner gets called the king, the losers get called rebel scum. And there’s something to that; but that begs the question: how did progressives get to power? There’s something to progressivism itself that gave them an advantage, an edge.
I’ve written extensively myself; perhaps my oldest and most long-lasting insight is that the particular beliefs of progressivism aren’t contingent. They aren’t just some random stuff that got in there. The progressive memeplex evolved because it’s fit. For better or worse, talk about human equality is good social glue. It makes it easy to make friends and keep them. It also makes it easy to virtue-signal; and people like that. It makes it easy for women to claim for power; and as S.A.M. Adshead pointed out, the history of modernity is the history of the feminization of civilization. So the memes that progressives talk about (not necessarily act upon), are, in a sense, just good manners.
Note that evolution works in the margin; it doesn’t follow that good social glue necessarily results in Bruce Jenner getting his dick chopped off using taxpayer’s money. But human equality, feminism, anti-racism, all those are evolutionary fit memes; the perfect cultural viruses that Richard Dawkins suspected were behind much of human history. He didn’t quite understand the mechanism; but then again he’s no sociologist. Human society is complicated; and mere discussion of it is a social bomb. He’s finding that out recently.
If progressive bullshit, if completely absurd beliefs work because they are good social glue; do facts matter? Does the cold, sharp truth that I write about count for nothing? No, it doesn’t. It hasn’t made me any friends. Search for my name in Twitter: you’ll find everyone is saying the same thing: I’m too negative, I don’t get religion, I give people no hope. And they’re right in the general point. But I do get religion. I don’t do religion; not in this blog. But I very much get it. I’m the one who’s been telling everyone that we need a new religion. I’m just least suited man in the world to come up with one. But I’m telling you it’s a good idea.
So again; don’t let me discourage you. You wanna believe in God’s Will: go for it. You wanna believe in Kek: I think it’s a great idea. Just don’t expect me to do Kek theology or to theology about God’s will in this blog. It’s not my strong point. I don’t do bullshit. I just don’t; I’m awfully bad at it. What I’m very good at is cutting through bullshit. Which I understand is counterproductive if you’re trying to build a cohesive political group, but chill. My focus is and has been to cut through progressive bullshit; and I will continue to do so. If and when the cult of Kek or something more suitable to my purposes and those of my family and people achieves power: I for one will be the first to worship our new God and shut up all this negative truth speech.
So get working in your theology. And if you want to think of me as the enemy; be my guest. Any workable religion will have to answer all the questions I’m posing here. Think of me as a friendly sparring. But I am friendly. No enemies to the right. Not until the new dynasty is founded, of course.
And incidentally: my last post about the founding of the Ming Dynasty got people excited and all that. But do remember: the first thing Zhu Yuanzhang did after consolidating power was forbid all cults across the whole empire, and torture and murder everyone who disagreed. Manicheanism and all these Lotus Societies pretty much died forever. Oops, here I am again with my negativity. But hey, I didn’t write the history books.