If you are reading this blog, we probably agree about a lot of things. So: cool. Hi! Make yourself at home. I can’t serve any refreshments, but here, perhaps, is the Internet analogue:
Keep in mind, as you note the above, that I think divorce should be illegal, and I am not entirely unsympathetic to those who call for a white ethnostate. So, like, I’m kind of a big deal, or at least an internet tough guy, kitten notwithstanding. Badass, right? Good. Reputation salvaged.
On this blog I’ve aired my frustrations with ambiguity. When you stop to think how many different factors are present in any given situation (as manifest by how hard it is to do good experimental design), it becomes much more understandable that the Enlightenment happened 300 years ago rather than four thousand. If you have to do a million and one things to artificially engineer the environment just so empiricism will work, well, mankind can perhaps be forgiven for doubting the whole process at the starting line. And out here in the Endarkened parts of the internet we are at least wistfully contemplating undoing the whole project anyway, even if that’s not practical.
Complexity! Take that away, keep things in small numbers in identical environments, and we can predict the future. This was the excited realization of the Enlightenment. With observation, explanation; with explanation, prediction; with prediction, control; with control, power.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
That’s the dream, and perhaps the future. But for now, though we may spy some inklings, we cannot see far enough to make adequate judgments on our own.
Can we take a second and acknowledge the truth of that last statement? Humans are not omniscient. Theists think about that and conclude that they should take their marching orders from God; atheists will point out that inadequacy is not evidence for a superior, adequate Being. Both of these views are completely reasonable. What is not reasonable is the position that humans make great decisions all the time.
This is a problem for our future survival. We are only one comet strike or viral plague or nanoreplicator or nuclear war away from mass extinction. There are a million needles to thread, a million Kessel Runs to cover in less than 12 parsecs, and if we get any of them wrong, it throws all of human achievement into meaninglessness.
One of the great concepts of the neoreactionary…field of study…is that Man is buffeted about by forces he cannot (or at least is failing to) control. If the problem were “Obama,” well, fine, we got rid of Hitler. If only. No, it’s Cthullhu.
This is a very hard thing for people to accept. The illusion of control is very comforting. “We can make a difference,” is a very nice thing to say—and while, like all things, it is true in its own way, it is not true in the way that’s generally hoped.
If this were about American Idol choices, fine. But it’s not; it’s about peoples’ survival. So they reach out with the most powerful weapons they have: a worldwide publishing platform that let’s them put out their well-formatted thoughts for free, 24/7, instant delivery—and find that it’s not enough, because everyone else has those same weapons, and oh crap Cthullhu has followed us here.
Peace, be still. Your survival is not at stake; you already lost it when the lady believed the snake. But don’t stop there—if you take only the bad news you’ll be a nervous wreck.
This is all important stuff in this corner of the internet. But don’t let it affect you. The war has already been won (or lost, if you so believe).