Dissecting Symptoms of the W.E.I.R.D World
A collection of notes
The method of secularist humanism for grounding the ethical life is to simply refer back to its humanity through a sort of mythologization of the individual and the abstract notion of human rights. The finite, contingent, being is the spirit that is to be exalted. The image of the highest self then does not find its likeness in God, achieved through overcoming the self in accordance with the divine. The image of the highest self is but a mirror of the self, raised up through a perceived self-liberation and following of one’s will above all else. It is in the worship of and obsession with the individual ego. Rights, having been dragged through the philosophical wasteland of post-modernism, are grounded in nothing, and have been grounded into dust. Like the settling of dust, they are but a thin veneer blanketing whatever has sat long enough to be considered within “rights” territory. Rights like dust can be stirred up and blown out of existence by a whimper of wind.
There is a simple, yet perhaps counter-intuitive reason as to why this method finds itself so averse to the Christian ethical life: a lack of discrimination. Self-overcoming and living in accordance with the divine requires the pruning of the self, and the capacity to discriminate between good and bad ways of being, founded on the imperatives placed upon us by a higher power. You must change. As a moral inversion, the secular universalist believes that there are no states of being human which are necessarily good or bad, better or worse, so long as there is not a clear victim (but even here we see some appalling exceptions because they are at the ground level, hedonists and utilitarian’s, the latter of which they execute poorly). This moral inversion carries through to adjudicating a new structure of good and bad. That which discriminates, or in other words, promotes overcoming the self, objective values, etc., by discerning the good from the bad, is the bad. So then what is good in this vision of the world?
The progressive world has the eyes of the deconstructionist and in the critical theoreticians fashion, believes the chronicles of human history are to be properly construed and clarified by seeing the world through a dichotomous lens of the “oppressors” and the “oppressed”. The oppressed become a form of “the good” simply because of their place in the dynamic, not due to any virtuous quality or content of their character. Their victimhood functions as a moral currency and social invulnerability. “Live and let live” in its most extreme iteration is the highest moral cause, even if its ends are self-sabotage or suicide. Western history's “oppressed” identities are to be worshipped, to take pride, while all of Western civilizations values, incomparable triumphs, and fruits for which most of the world now gets to partake of, are to be rejected as uniquely theirs. The greater number of marginalized identities you can claim, the greater the potential exaltation of your individual ego. Since this currency is both produced and accepted by major cultural institutions, solidifying its role in the paradigm, it is functionally, a ploy for power actionable by those who would otherwise never obtain it. This pathological cognitive profile has been dissected ad nauseam, so we will leave it at that.
Let us be clear, the prolific and beautiful emergent realities of our civilizations’ history are what they are in the business of dismantling and attempting to erase, not baseless constructs. Of course, there are constructs, but what is considered a construct primarily depends on where you draw the ontological line upward of fundamentality, and there is hardly anything more imaginably upward of that which is fundamental and unfruitful than the progressive world: Marxism, the façade of epistemological and ontological open (yet reality grounded?) -ness of the current state of this philosophical genealogy, and the universalist possibility; a multi-cultural, hyper-relative, utopian world model that exists in the minds of many of the WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic). It has an inbuilt belief that whole world can be swallowed up and enlightened by the WEIRD project, by having the WEIRD themselves denounce and discredit the WEIRD peoples’ past, injecting the non-WEIRD into the WEIRD world with little to no selectivity or requirement for internal cohesion (or “tribing-up”), and embracing the globalized order and multinational agendas of the WEIRD future. For WEIRD progressives, it is often an ardent belief that the established methodologies and institutions of the WEIRD bureaucracy can only benefit from propagating, both internally and externally, and that the spread of this parasitic growth is to save the world from itself. This diagnosis is not conspiratorial. This is obvious to and has been articulated, and predicted, by another camp of the WEIRD for many decades.
I often think of the progressive fascination and affinity for importing droves of third world minorities and promoting their unassimilated cultural communities as a child thinks of exotic animals at the zoo. "Look at them in their habitat! What peculiar, curious behavior...we should let them roam free! We are all just animals, right?” In a similar tone, the progressive gloats… “I am so glad we get to preserve their incompatible lifeway’s here in this foreign land not made for or by them! Skyrocketing crime statistics attributed to them? Degradation in the quality of our own peoples communities? That’s just due to our prejudice! Every human being is born equal and is a blank slate. We’re just not providing enough resources!” There is, of course, a common sentiment amongst them. All culture except white, European, and Christian culture, should be granted preservation despite incongruence, and take representation in the socio-political sphere, because the former is the hegemony. This is false. The uber-liberal, secular, and progressive society at hand was facilitated by enlightened Europeans who naively tribed-up, transcending their dogmas and duties towards their own, and perhaps most emphatically through post-WWII policy, “gradually, then suddenly”, sold their countries out (except the Brits, who in pushing for WWII so ardently, Churchill made bankrupt and literally sold off British assets for pennies on the dollar before the war was even over. So, who did “win” the war? Well, if you know you know). This is not a European-centric, nor European-people concerned society. They will have you believe they were only fulfilling your needs, providing what you wanted: More “equality”, more creature comfort, more global integration, more commodification, more death to the soul of your people. This is how the market place of ideas works, yes? When the market place of ideas is flooded with social propaganda from an enveloping storm of deceptive ideology, it only appears to us that each progressive dialectic within its movement is the god of reason and progress, peeping through the clouds asking “Che vuoi?” while in that same moment, striking the body with a bolt of lightning that wires the mind with the answer. So what has become of Western civilization? It has more or less, become the zoo of those “noticed”, and contemporary leftists are their programmed automatons. Despite our hopes, the present political administration, acting as the antithesis to the progressive, appears to be merely dressed in the garb of Western values and mentality, but under that garb may be the devil all the same. This is likely just another dialectical phase in solidifying those future expansion plans the zookeepers have in the works (e.g. complete dominion over Gaza, U.K. and greater European destabilization through mass migration, Palantir-built social credit scores, etc.). Kalergi lives on.
In the secular worldview, each phenomena in existence is reducible to physical processes, except for the human, who precariously maintains an odd exemption from these realist rules. As aforementioned, in this “progressive” view of the world, the identities and roles humans perpetuate are constructs, but how does one discover they are an incorrect construct? You don’t discover constructs, you construct them. Hence, for those burdened by gender dysphoria, you cannot be born in the wrong body if you cannot discover the signifier (where/what) of your being that grounds this contrary identity.
So, are they constructing an identity for themselves in opposition to the body, by still adhering to the very nature of being embedded within the structure in the act of construction? How can this be? Evidently, because the structure is not baseless. Ontological kinds (species, sexes, etc.), with their respective attributes, roles, and relations, are inescapable.
The emergent social and higher order phenomena of the human being, although not completely contained within their substrates, are well-mapped to their kinds and with high degrees of emergence symmetry across cultures. The sexes and their finely mapped attributions (gender), coordinate through their interdependent strategies of preservation and persistence. If either, within the context of the greater civilization, denies or is absolved of its role, it is perhaps the greatest progenitor of civilizational decline from the bottom up. If you harbor a disdain for such realities, devoting your energies towards the distortion and dismantling of the human person, it is not with the end or by way of an ever-hopeful progress. The keen mind will find this immensely apropos to the trends of “trans” outside of the transcendental divine (transgenderism, transhumanism, etc.). I have already touched on the dilemma of transgenderism; it descends from poor philosophy, is cross-dressing in the trappings of liberty, and reveals only one thing about the person in question: an illness manifested in a dysphoria with the body. Someone is not transgender, they are suffering with the distorted desire that is transgenderism. Lord, help them.
Transhumanism could be easily misunderstood as politically opposite to transgenderism based on a face-value assessment of the most prominent figures of each movement, but they are theoretically adjacent, and upheld and propagandized by a common denominator. For Thiel and the like, it is at its highest calling, the desire to escape the bodies drives entirely by transcending its embodiment, leaving it behind for something ethereal, virtual, and yet to be fully imagined in all its technological glory. As a deeply heretical and perhaps sycophantic Christian, Thiel is not entirely obtuse to its ethos. Christianity is about overcoming the passions by ordering the self. It is not, however, subjugation by elimination (or augmentation). Doing so to God's design would be a blasphemous transgression - a true modern day Babylon - hacking, augmenting, and deserting the body in a perverted cyborgian theosis. Any true Christian knows theosis is achieved not by transcending to a state that wills what one wills, but by doing what God wills in our human form. As Nietzsche was prescient of the moral pitfall of progressivism, Heidegger spotted the ushering in of this beast.
Each of these is evidence towards the vicious cycle of hopelessness that exists when separated from God’s design, and extreme instances of what psychological hells are achievable when living outside of it. People ensnared in these ideologies will never know peace. Their anxiety, depression, and discontent with the human condition will remain. If you are a Christian, you see them strung along the path of demons and seek to see them saved. If you are an honest Darwinian and true believer in science, they’re those not fit to survive and will surely die off as their future realities collapse in on their existence. Both are parasitic, self-annihilating ideologies. For the transgender, this is because of their hyper-absorption with the individual self and inability to healthily procreate. If they are capable of procreation, their lifeways will nevertheless fail to propagate a familial model that can carry on into the future. Yet it is not just through their own seed that their model proliferates. Media and cultural propaganda, embracing and espousing their disorder with pride, makes those most malleable minds of the children and already mentally burdened susceptible to their distorted desire; that there is no good or right way of being, you are innately without intention or design, and changing your pronouns, wearing different clothes, or mutilating your body, may finally satiate your individuality (ego). For the transhumanist, it is because they will totally annihilate what the human being is and cut off procreation from the body, within the family, and therefore, cutoff love and bastardize the human essence. In this future, nothing human survives. But why should we care? Why does it concern us what one puts out into the world, so long as we are not forced to partake? Because proper concern comes out of love, and these are not just their futures, but ours.
If we are being honest, the political worldview of the transgender-pampering present is currently drifting, and will seem utterly silly (perhaps even dead), when the transhumanists reach their climax. Lord, help us.
Emergence feeds back into the grounds from which it is birthed, so we must tend to and cultivate the soil, while with equal vigor and toil, prune and discriminate between flora both native and foreign. Love is not letting nature run rampant, letting the garden be overcome by weeds and infested by invasive species’. This is letting the devil loose, scattering the crop and polluting the earthen womb of those most bounteous roots.
Discrimination is not hate, it is hygiene. A culture is the cultivated spirit of its people, an emergence of its collective soul. To neglect the hygiene of the spirit is sin, and “the wages of sin is death.”
Despite my demure of the man, Nietzsche so aptly predicted and familiarized this future for us. However, if you ask Nietzsche, this is all downstream from Christianity itself, but so far downstream that the water is no longer the pure and living, flowing water of the Church, but a stagnant swamp filled with the pollution of confluent ideologies. It is at this point apparent to most in the circle that Nietzsche was not living in this flowing stream, but in the rip current of the enlightenment.
It is obvious why this moral paradigm is failing and the return of Christianity as the dominant force appears to be in our midst. The paradigm subsists on shallow spiritualities, ill-equipped and parasitic philosophies (from the ontological to the political), and that which I have yet to confront, the Darwinian lineage, specifically, evolutionary psychology. As logically proceeds, if you believe in evolutionary psychology, you believe humans evolved to be religious in some capacity. In my undergraduate years, I believed this to be true in the vein of human homo-duplexity. However, the way of life of the religious, their groundwork for ethics, their emergent rules and realities, cannot be garnered from the source of evolutionary psychology. You did not evolve so that you might know evolution as God, and from it, siphon the truth of your axiological being. This is one instance where Hume’s is-ought rule applies.
I am reminded of a popular quote from Wittgenstein. He was a man who wrestled with his religious convictions, which is evident when he states, “I am not a religious man, but I cannot help but see every problem from a religious point of view.” I could identify myself in this sentiment for quite some time, but consider this mirroring statement:
I am not a human being, a product of evolution, emergent with complex faculties and phenomenal realities irreducible to all previous stages of said process, through which I cognize the world, but I cannot help but see every problem from a human beings point of view.
I see Wittgenstein’s quote as one nested in this very proclamation. If you believe humans evolved to be religious, and then try to smuggle this role, this attributive power, back into not even the roots, but an ever-correcting, approximate abstraction of their origination, to attempt at conjuring out a truer religion, you are misguided. Yes, science is real. It is really a method, and no more than this in the pursuit of Truth, beauty, and survival.
The question of greater survival has never felt so visceral and close to home. It is no surprise, to reference my note addressing the death of Iryna Zarutska, that the right has come to understand that the compassion underlying “live and let live” too radically exercised, devolves into “kill or be killed”. We are tired of being killed, whether by senseless violence or deliberate evil. The death of Charlie Kirk, whether perpetrated by a lunatic leftist or a hired-gun for grander motives, matters to the heart only incrementally when faced with the sight of idiotic and sadistic young liberals thinking this is worth celebrating. An apt comparison would be right-wingers celebrating the murder of Iryna at the hands of a deranged black for having a BLM poster in her room, or for European readers, the rape of some young liberal girl in support of mass immigration by an African or Middle-Eastern immigrant. And so, the cognitive profile of such leftists in contrast to the right is quite plain. They are like our rebellious children, too naive and deaf to reality, and who against their own will, need to be protected from their own self-righteous stupidity. We mourn their self-sabotage, their literal and figurative suicides, but like the arrogant, immature juveniles they are, they call for and giggle with glee at the death of any remote authority. Their ethos can be summed up in this quote from “Children of Dune” by Frank Herbert:
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.
The storm to follow is only natural. We were too passive, like cool air gently falling on a fiery updraft. The winds were allowed to stir for too long and the tilt of this vicious wind has reached its upright position. A tornado of fury is in the forecast and bound to touch ground at any moment. These people, weak on their feet as they are, are not built to endure.
We are being groomed for political violence, and I pray this passion of violence is tempered by the heart of Christ and quelled through the right restoration of order.