Sex and the Religious-Left

[Atla]

This lamenting about the decline of Western values usually forgets to mention the detail that probably most people held and hold those 'values' at gunpoint. Because if they don't, God will punish them and they're going to Hell.

This seems a mistaken assertion. I have spent years now examining closely the activism of radical Right Dissidents, religious Conservatives (Christian & Pagan), and perhaps more closely the Catholic Traditional movement(s) and I could not say they are motivated by the threat of hellish punishment. Very clearly they are people who sense that the entire ground of modernity (the cultural machine of The Stereopticon as Richard Weaver would say) is unstable and — to use their terms — dangerous to the soul. They are concerned about their own spiritual well-bing, that of their family and children, and society more generally. I.e. their concerns are based around values, meaning and quality.

Since they are, like all of us, •victims• of the same debasing influences, they all struggle to define and to understand what the ground is that needs to be recovered, and how to go about doing this while life’s exigencies demand the greater portion of their attention. But to propose that their entire motivation is that of fear is wildly inaccurate.

There were and are no real values in the West. Lamenting about a past that never was. Some individuals do have real values but they don't yet reach critical mass, the goal should be to reach critical mass in the future.

This is absurd. On the face. However if the assertion is that of ‘critical mass’ then that is another issue. Reference to an ‘ideal past’ is a mistake. But noticing a decline in shared social or cultural values is not a hallucination. It is a genuine observation.

Not their entire motivation of course, but it is the strongest factor and always has been. God, heaven, hell. Without religion their communities would disintegrate and they would find themselves in the same boat as others: having to find real values without relying on lies.

Of course the shared social and cultural values are severely deteriorating, who doesn't know that and isn't impacted by that? I'm just sayin that the values have always mainly been based on lies, but from now on we'll have to reinvent them without the lies, religion is no longer an option in the modern age.

[Wizard22]

Why not just accept that Religion is geared toward the lower-50%-IQ of Humanity, which need overtly simplistic notions (Heaven and Hell) to understand their rewards and punishments in life (and after death)?

A Low-IQ person cannot think "ahead" or plan for the future, significantly.

A Low-IQ person has children "accidentally" and incidentally, always unexpected.

A Low-IQ person is unequipped to inculcate and indoctrinate their children as of 2024, in Postmodernity.



So why shouldn't the masses be manipulated by State or Church, with Leftist or Rightist "Big Lies"?

I think the Jews are onto something, when they refer to the unwashed masses as 'Goyim', Cattle, Human Husbandry.

The implication is that an Intellectual Elite control and dominate the Decision-making processes of most people (75% of the world).



Why is this wrong or bad? Is it not necessary, for the masses to be controlled?

Is it not necessary to give the masses, a Big Lie illusion, that they have (political) "choices", when they really don't?

And what "Choice" do Low-IQ people have, really? Isn't the implication of IQ/Intelligence, that you have more Choices, better Choices?

[Wizard22]

Or, let's put it this way...

If the "Free Will" of the masses lead them into homelessness, thievery, and drug addiction, by which they'll die painful and suffered deaths, meaningless lies...then why shouldn't the State forcefully draft them into the Military, or the Church forcefully put them into prayer and ideology? Their "Free Will" leads them to worthless, meaningless lives , which they themselves will admit to. So why not force "Meaning" upon them? As-if there really are "Choices"? Because what is Choice, except the specific influence that leads an individual to Hedonism, or State Military, or to The Church?

It's about which Master you serve. But in no cases, are the low-IQ or weak-willed, capable of becoming masters of themselves.

If they could, then would they not be in charge of the State, or the Church?

Would they not be the charismatic, persuasive Drug-dealer who peddles his fentanyl to others...but does not imbibe it himself?



You are made to take the poison. But you are not supposed to be the seller of it.

Or furthermore, your were never intended to truly become Independent in the first place.

[Atla]

Why not just accept that Religion is geared toward the lower-50%-IQ of Humanity, which need overtly simplistic notions (Heaven and Hell) to understand their rewards and punishments in life (and after death)?

A Low-IQ person cannot think "ahead" or plan for the future, significantly.

A Low-IQ person has children "accidentally" and incidentally, always unexpected.

A Low-IQ person is unequipped to inculcate and indoctrinate their children as of 2024, in Postmodernity.



So why shouldn't the masses be manipulated by State or Church, with Leftist or Rightist "Big Lies"?

I think the Jews are onto something, when they refer to the unwashed masses as 'Goyim', Cattle, Human Husbandry.

The implication is that an Intellectual Elite control and dominate the Decision-making processes of most people (75% of the world).



Why is this wrong or bad? Is it not necessary, for the masses to be controlled?

Is it not necessary to give the masses, a Big Lie illusion, that they have (political) "choices", when they really don't?

And what "Choice" do Low-IQ people have, really? Isn't the implication of IQ/Intelligence, that you have more Choices, better Choices?

They do need to be controlled. But as long as the lower 50-60% IQ of humanity gets to vote, they will always vote the wrong people into power who will use the control over them for their own selfish goals.

[Harbal]

Oh dear, I can feel a magnum opus coming, and I am going to be the excuse for it.

Since you, by your own definition, are here for purposes of entertainment; since you by choice have very little preparation in those topics pertinent to the issues under discussion; since you generally assume the role of attacking or ridiculing or declaring as empty those •categories of value• that move people who are concerned, who do have preparation, who will take the time to advance their understanding and who can define values worthy of struggling for; you really must sit on the sidelines in your self-assumed irrelevancy.

Let others do that work that you don’t even recognize as being important. There are many who are similarly oriented who will come to your support since they are motivated by a similar spirit.

Does that sum it up accurately?

So is this rather underwhelming response what you had in mind when you said:

I’ll have some comments and questions.

What are we to make of this retreat, I wonder?

[Harbal]

Why not just accept that Religion is geared toward the lower-50%-IQ of Humanity, which need overtly simplistic notions (Heaven and Hell) to understand their rewards and punishments in life (and after death)?

A Low-IQ person cannot think "ahead" or plan for the future, significantly.

A Low-IQ person has children "accidentally" and incidentally, always unexpected.

A Low-IQ person is unequipped to inculcate and indoctrinate their children as of 2024, in Postmodernity.



So why shouldn't the masses be manipulated by State or Church, with Leftist or Rightist "Big Lies"?

I think the Jews are onto something, when they refer to the unwashed masses as 'Goyim', Cattle, Human Husbandry.

The implication is that an Intellectual Elite control and dominate the Decision-making processes of most people (75% of the world).



Why is this wrong or bad? Is it not necessary, for the masses to be controlled?

Is it not necessary to give the masses, a Big Lie illusion, that they have (political) "choices", when they really don't?

And what "Choice" do Low-IQ people have, really? Isn't the implication of IQ/Intelligence, that you have more Choices, better Choices?

You are obsessed with IQ and Jews, you strange little creature.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What are we to make of this retreat, I wonder?

You are to make nothing in particular about it.

I asked you to tell me why you what you thought about my "unsavory ideology" and you could muster no response. And that is fitting, of course, because you don't have much (intellectual, historical, contemporary) material with which to think things through. You have vague feelings though which lurk in your mind.

What I do here (not only in relation to you but to everyone) is to expose myself to your thought, or the lack of it, or the smallish windows through which people see contemporary issues, and subject myself to them as if I am asked to answer for them or perhaps retort is the right word. But I do not have everything all neatly worked out and, indeed, every day my own ideas and perceptions and opinions are changing.

My purpose is sort of alchemical: so many of *you-plural* are deeply confounded and (to me you seem) stuck. You are very capable, and very dedicated, to projects of negation, and negation is essentially what defines you (more than anything else). I do not have any other option available to me except to transmute your-plural mire into something positively actionable.

There is no retreat, Harbal, just some necessary preparation.

[FlashDangerpants]

What are we to make of this retreat, I wonder?

Perhaps that he is dimly aware that he shouldn't think too hard about his own weaknesses as others might view them?

[Gary Childress]

So why shouldn't the masses be manipulated by State or Church, with Leftist or Rightist "Big Lies"?

Because lying is unethical. It causes the victims of it to make poor decisions for themselves based on inaccurate information.

[Dubious]

Every inspired, sought-for objectivity surrendered to eventually inspires its own negation.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Allow me to put out a few notes or bullets that define the issues about which the critical position of the Dissident Right is concerned. Think of it as preliminary.

1) Decline. Why not start with Spengler? (Decline of the West). Your mouth drops open, some saliva falls onto your keyboard. You do not know who he is nor do you have any idea what his ideas were. But in order to understand Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences, and to understand why it is in ideation that decline begins, you'd have to understand Spenglerian Gloom ...

2) Counter-politics as-against Liberal constructs. The theorists of the Right -- who are not read, who are excluded from the academic canon generally -- propose alternatives to the Liberal construct. If someone refers to *Liberal rot* (and some do) then it becomes necessary to define why it has rotted and then to theorize what could eliminate the rot and what ideas and social pracitices (or political organization) could generate something better (or more in accord with certain *defined values* that are, perhaps, pushed out of the picture in our present).

3) Identity. You are a wondrous example of a man who has lost his cultural and civilizational identity. To define identity requires a intellectual platform in ideas & values. Because you are the spat-out scrag of postmodern wimpishness, a collapsed man who, very probably, could not defend his civilization nor his country, the notion of *strong identity* is foreign to you. And in it lurks a sense of danger. I refer to Jonathan Bowden who spoke about A European Grammar of Self-Intolerance. The present dispensation has castrated you. You are either an intellectual weakling or a faggot or some sort of masturbating porn-addict (this is a general reference). To recover, to consolidate, a sense of strong identity is terrifying to you, and indeed it is described as something fascistic, something dark and dangerous. So the Politics of Identity, and very certainly the need for Occidental Caucasian man to rediscover and re-invigorate Identity is something crucial but also feared (cowered away from).

4) Tradition and Metaphysics. When men, who recognize they are in a weakened position and subsumed into debilitating postmodern mire, when they look around for tools with which to pull themselves out of that mire, they quickly realize their struggle is metaphysical. They have to reconstitute their orientation at a metaphysical level. This involves idea-renovation. So again I can refer to Richard Weaver who wrote compellingly on this idea of one's *metaphysical dream of the world*. But also of those, perhaps more archaic if not any more radical, like René Guénon or Julius Evola.

So in relation to what you said about unsavory ideology, which is something you feel but cannot define, I have here outlined the first of four sets of concerns or topics that motivate many of those who seek a ground on which to base themselves and a ground upon which to construct alternatives (to a present in decline). And it is around each of these things that your sense of apprehension and fear congeal. There are others but these form a base.

[Harbal]

What are we to make of this retreat, I wonder?

You are to make nothing in particular about it.

It's too late, I've already made something of it.

I asked you to tell me why you what you thought about my "unsavory ideology" and you could muster no response.

I think I did muster something of a response. There is a sense of something unwholesome in your views on society, and I don't think I am the only one who senses it. But your are too vague to actually pin down; you just hint at things, and then when pressed, you make references to some book or other; presumably, so that if some of the ideas you like are too much for the rest of us to stomach, someone else will take the flack, rather than you.

What I do here (not only in relation to you but to everyone) is to expose myself to your thought, or the lack of it, or the smallish windows through which people see contemporary issues,

In other words, if I don't like the sound of what you are saying, it's because I'm not well enough informed. I don't want to spend my time reading stuff I am not interested in, I just want to register my objection to people like you advocating social change for what I consider to be the worse.

My purpose is sort of alchemical: so many of *you-plural* are deeply confounded and (to me you seem) stuck.

I assume your purpose is to influence others to think along the same lines as you, and my purpose is to undermine you in some small way. It has to only be a in a small way because I am hampered by my short attention span.

You are very capable, and very dedicated, to projects of negation, and negation is essentially what defines you (more than anything else).

Yes, it defines me in relation to you, because I find many of your views disturbing.

I do not have any other option available to me except to transmute your-plural mire into something positively actionable.

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

[Harbal]

Allow me to put out a few notes or bullets that define the issues about which the critical position of the Dissident Right is concerned. Think of it as preliminary.

1) Decline. Why not start with Spengler? (Decline of the West). Your mouth drops open, some saliva falls onto your keyboard. You do not know who he is nor do you have any idea what his ideas were. But in order to understand Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences, and to understand why it is in ideation that decline begins, you'd have to understand Spenglerian Gloom ...

2) Counter-politics as-against Liberal constructs. The theorists of the Right -- who are not read, who are excluded from the academic canon generally -- propose alternatives to the Liberal construct. If someone refers to *Liberal rot* (and some do) then it becomes necessary to define why it has rotted and then to theorize what could eliminate the rot and what ideas and social pracitices (or political organization) could generate something better (or more in accord with certain *defined values* that are, perhaps, pushed out of the picture in our present).

3) Identity. You are a wondrous example of a man who has lost his cultural and civilizational identity. To define identity requires a intellectual platform in ideas & values. Because you are the spat-out scrag of postmodern wimpishness, a collapsed man who, very probably, could not defend his civilization nor his country, the notion of *strong identity* is foreign to you. And in it lurks a sense of danger. I refer to Jonathan Bowden who spoke about A European Grammar of Self-Intolerance. The present dispensation has castrated you. You are either an intellectual weakling or a faggot or some sort of masturbating porn-addict (this is a general reference). To recover, to consolidate, a sense of strong identity is terrifying to you, and indeed it is described as something fascistic, something dark and dangerous. So the Politics of Identity, and very certainly the need for Occidental Caucasian man to rediscover and re-invigorate Identity is something crucial but also feared (cowered away from).

4) Tradition and Metaphysics. When men, who recognize they are in a weakened position and subsumed into debilitating postmodern mire, when they look around for tools with which to pull themselves out of that mire, they quickly realize their struggle is metaphysical. They have to reconstitute their orientation at a metaphysical level. This involves idea-renovation. So again I can refer to Richard Weaver who wrote compellingly on this idea of one's *metaphysical dream of the world*. But also of those, perhaps more archaic if not any more radical, like René Guénon or Julius Evola.

So in relation to what you said about unsavory ideology, which is something you feel but cannot define, I have here outlined the first of four sets of concerns or topics that motivate many of those who seek a ground on which to base themselves and a ground upon which to construct alternatives (to a present in decline). And it is around each of these things that your sense of apprehension and fear congeal. There are others but these form a base.

All that is going to take a lot of living up to, but I'll give it my best shot.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I know I can count on you!

[Alexis Jacobi]

I do not have any other option available to me except to transmute your-plural mire into something positively actionable.

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

trans·mute (trăns-myo͞ot′, trănz-)

To change from one form, nature, substance, or state into another; transform: Alchemists tried to transmute lead into gold. See Synonyms at convert.

[Middle English transmuten, from Latin trānsmūtāre : trāns-, trans- + mūtāre, to change; see mei- in Indo-European roots.]