Review of Costin Alamariu, Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy
"Think about the Twitter account of a modern intellectual who engages in a good bit of trolling, and how hard it can be to figure out when he’s presenting his authentic views as opposed to joking or trying to avoid getting into trouble."
I can't imagine doing that. Do you have anyone in mind?
We don’t need one more intellectual attempt to replace faith in God with a creation of the mind. You either have no faith, and all is permissible, or submit yourself to a righteous authority (not another human mind), and live constrained out of obedience.
Nietzsche and Ayn Rand are similar in that people who are true believers in those theories go crazy and generally don’t end up well -- but going through a Nietzsche or Rand phase and then tempering them with time tested more pro-social ways of being makes one a better person than normal.
I would argue that a Christian-Hellenistic synthesis is the only way forward for the right. A purely Nietzschean-pagan approach is missing that the past is long gone: we’re not in a society that has warriors relaxing by the fire, drinking sweetened wine and telling stories of sacking cities, killing the men and taking the women. We neither have that historical context nor do we want it.
While Nietzsche is critical of Christianity, what he’s actually criticizing is the post 30 years war and post-Enlightenment Christianity, which basically abandoned all values except for “tolerance.” Earlier Christians include Hernando Cortez, who conquered an entire continent with just a boatload of knights, Thomas Aquinas who made a synthesis of Aristotle and Christianity -- in fact, a pure Christianity without Hellenism never actually existed.
Also, Jesus was a spiritual Gigachad. If we team Him up with the intellectual heirs of Achilles, we’re unstoppable.
The Christian Right has the advantage over the Nietzschean Right because of breeding. Evangelicals and Mormons have high TFR (although Mormon TFR has gone down a lot), while Nietzscheans are mostly cosmopolitan elites that don’t really have kids (based on what I’ve seen hanging out with some of them in NYC).
Religiousity is also very heritable, so as long as Christians can sustain parallel media and education separate from the woke mainstream media, their kids will remain Christian.
Also, most immigrants are Christians, further replenishing the Christian pool, whereas Nietzscheans are by definition niche, since they have to resist the masses to be the Overman.
People who are anti-egalitarian and anti-Woke need to understand that Christianity is the number 1 problem. The last should come first/neither Jew nor Greek is the origin point of all of this. You should read Tom Holland's book Dominion which explains just how revolutionary these ideas are and how they persist today even as Christianity formally dies in the West.
For Nietzscheans who believe in civilisation and science, we must make sure that we don't throw out the baby with the bath water when it comes to Western civilisation and Christianity. Extricating these poisonous Christian ideas from our morality and society will take time. Embracing barbarism and LARPing will not help in this endeavour. Having said that I like Mr BAP, he provides a necessary slap in the face to the Christian Right even if it comes with homoerotic muscle worship and Barbarian LARP.
Nietzscheans and Christians alike overestimate the importance of Christianity in shaping modern morality. I'll grant there's a good deal of thematic continuity, but many obvious exceptions (see anything related to sex). IMO, most of what is attributed to Christian influence on modern morality is really just a consequence of wealth, peace, and stability. These things make every society more risk averse, less adventurous, more concerned with the weakest members, etc. The obsession with victimhood is a natural consequence of having a stable, peaceful society where disputes are resolved by each party trying to convince an institution that they are the aggrieved party. I think we'll see the same moral patterns emerge in non-Christian countries too as they become more developed.
This makes the problem more intransigent. Ironically, I think Richard here is overestimating the importance of ideas. Even persuading them away from the ideas of Christianity won't much change people's moral attitudes. The challenge is to convince rich, fat, comfortable people who rarely have to deal with direct confrontation to become adventurous, risk-tolerant, and ambitious. I think your enemy here is prosperity itself rather than Christianity or its legacy.
We have a bad habit of intellectualizing reason and morality. We do it religiously. We do it politically. We do it selfishly. And we do it without any real thinking!
Edmund Burke is considered the father of conservatism. He served in the English Parliament before and during the American revolution and wrote, “Reflections on the Revolution in France” during the French Revolution in 1790. In reading about Edmund Burke it becomes clear that he believed and was very outspoken about embracing the past and at the same time he knew change was inevitable. I think Burke was right in his thought, that traditional values can be reaffirmed under new circumstances. He argued, and I agree, that the French Revolution ended disastrously because it’s abstract foundations, purportedly rational, ignored the complexities of human nature and society. In Thomas Aquinas we find a religious philosophy that was heavily influenced by the argumentative reasoning associated with the Greek philosophers, particularly Aristotle. In 1267 he completed a work on government called “Politics”, where he asserted “yet it is natural for man, more than any other animal, to be a social and political animal, to live in a group. He called the common good as protecting life and promoting peace. Aristotle would have called this “the good life.” For his efforts he was initially rejected by the Catholic Church, which condemned some of his writings based on Aristotle’s ideas. About 50 years after his death the church revived his works and made him a saint. His writings combined reason and faith and became the basis for the official Roman Catholic doctrine known as Thomism. In addition, his forward looking political ideas regarding natural law, unjust rulers, and rebellion influenced Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke, and even Americans such as Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King. History gives great lessons; Confucius was a great philosopher in early Asian history, who had significant early philosophical ideas. Here is a man born more than two thousand years before John Locke, but could he not be seen as an early proponent of liberalism?
Modern intellectuals have a bad habit of being to closely aligned to their own ideas and resist logical discussion and arguments. More inclined to the importance of their theory than allowing critical analysis.
Can a conservative be liberal, of course! Can a liberal be religious, of course! Are all conservatives religious, no! Can a liberal become illiberal, absolutely! Can a conservative be an atheist, of course!
I’ll leave it with this quote by C.S. Lewis, “If you love for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end despair.”
"Think about the Twitter account of a modern intellectual who engages in a good bit of trolling, and how hard it can be to figure out when he’s presenting his authentic views as opposed to joking or trying to avoid getting into trouble. "
Oh, Hanania I can never stay mad at you.
>The cult of knighthood and chivalry owed much more of a debt to the Homeric epics than the Sermon on the Mount.
Joshua, commanding the Sun and Moon to stand still so that his army could fight until midnight: "Am I a joke to you?"
The Christian tradition might have taken a lot of things from Hellenism, but the celebration of great warriors isn't one of them. That came straight from the Old Testament.
Why is this Necessary?
While I'm glad BAP is out there doing his thing, I'm getting pretty depressed at considering what it implies if Nietzscheanism really is the only alternative. Can't we just have compassion, BUT ONLY for the deserving (ie. those who show gratitude and would reciprocate it if they could, ie. not generally Bantus...) Is the only choice really between people that would drown their children to use their corpses as lifeboats for those that hate them or "the justice of nature: the zoos opened, predators unleashed by the dozens, hundreds….four thousand hungry wolves rampaging on streets of these hive cities, elephants and bison stampeding, the buildings smashed to pieces, the cries of the human bug shearing through the streets as the lord of beasts returns (BAP)."?
> Socrates is in effect trying to tame his interlocutor, since too open a defense of rule by elite will motivate the mob to ban philosophy altogether.
This seems unlikely as a broader explanation, because it is too specific to classical Athens. Athens was unusual among the Greek poleis in the extent to which it embraced democracy: aristocratic oligarchy & rule by dictators (τύραννοι) were common in classical Greece, & Athenians who thought they couldn't live well under democracy could have gone to a less democratic polis, or gotten together and founded a separate colony (colonists starting new poleis in foreign lands was common in archaic & classical Greece, & this was sometimes done by a losing faction in an existing city's politics). Indeed, Plato did leave Athens to live for a time in the autocratically ruled colony polis of Syracuse.
Flaviu lepure made a comment here that I agree with, which is namely that the contours of this religion/creed/w.e would probably form something approximating to Christian Hellenism, as a revitalized form of Christianity that gets criticized by Nietzsche in Genealogies. And I agree with lepure's point on this that Nietzsche wasn't critiquing Christianity as a whole, just the effects that it has had on elites. He saw it as a irreplaceable valve to offload resentment from the masses, to great social utility, but when the same ideology of egalitarian humility was taken up by the elites, it corrupted them and made them incapable of rule. So in comes Hellenism to provide the Chad backbone for our new ideology, an escape hatch from the Christian neurosis.
Great read. Really needs to be longer👍🏻
No. Just no. Being the first member of a cult simply makes you a cult leader. Don’t do it. Abandon hope. Despair. But don’t do THIS.
But have you read all 800 pages of Sexual Personae, it's... So... Dense
I finally recalled a quote I've noted down: "The language, the dress and the daily actions of men in democracies are repugnant to conceptions of the ideal." -- Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America"
But the discussion seems to me to be incomplete. Yeah, there's a lot of egalitarianism in modern Western culture, but much more of it in our words than our deeds, especially in the United States. We tolerate capitalism considerably more "red in tooth and claw" than most places. We allow -- expect -- relentless variation on all themes and the consequent elimination of losing variations. The process seems to be democratic only in that if the elite that currently has the upper hand doesn't deliver bread and circuses to the masses (a sort of "greatest good for the greatest number"), it gets turfed out and replaced by one or another of the other elites warring to get the upper hand. A remarkably sucky system, other than for the fact that it's the winner in the Darwinian struggle for memetic dominance of the world.
If a polity has both billionaires and 190 million miserably poor people (at last estimate) struggling to get in, it's the place people think they can achieve greatness. People *walk* across the Darien Gap to get in ...