My last book, Crusade against the Cross, contains a passage in which I refer to Hollywood contributing to the prolefeed with films that end with the drama being resolved (unlike in real life, where much ends in tragedy, as the Greek tragedians Nietzsche spoke of saw). An example of this American mentality that there are no tragedies, only dramas, can be seen in a YouTube interview of anti-racist Lex Fridman with scientist Richard Haier about The Bell Curve, ‘the most controversial book ever published in science’.
Within a minute from this moment, the interviewer gives away that he has malware installed in his mind: ‘It’s just, it is difficult in a way that… we are limited by our own biology. It’s difficult, and it is, ahem, at least from the American perspective you like to believe that everything is possible in this world’.
Because Fridman is accustomed to the American ideology that the individual of any race or gender who sets out to succeed can make it in the US—the malware precisely!—, he is pained, almost panicked one might say, that there are genetic differences in intelligence. Such science, I would add, would strike a hard blow to the accepted wisdom of the human mind. This is because the psychological mythology of the US is based on Calvinist ethics that the ‘human soul’ is ‘free’ to choose.
‘Common grace’ is a theological concept in Protestant Christianity that refers to the grace of ‘God’ (the mythical god of the Judeo-Christians) that is supposedly common to all humanity, and is limited only by unnecessary cultural factors. It is ‘common’ because its benefits are experienced by or intended for the entire human race, without distinction between one person and another; and it is ‘grace’ because, according to this Reformed thinking of 19th and 20th century Calvinists, it is unmerited and sovereignly bestowed by their god.
Fridman’s interview evokes once again what in my most recent book I called ‘neotheology’: his rationalisations and fears about IQ studies are expressed at a purely secular level. Those fears remind me of an older interview, between David Rubin and Stefan Molyneux, in which the latter was hurt by the IQ difference between the races (though at least Molyneux accepts the data).
What neither Molyneux nor Fridman ask is why, once we move out of countries that emerged from Christianity in general and Protestantism in particular, people no longer suffer from this ‘ogre of the superego’ as far as racial studies are concerned. In Crusade against the Cross I also mentioned that I exchanged emails with Robert Sheaffer last year, a Nietzsche scholar, but I omitted that he told me that race and IQ studies are the most controversial and radioactive subjects in science.
This is true if one only looks at one’s cultural navel. Go to countries that never were, or continue to be, Christian, and neochristianity disappears completely. The Chinese, for example, not only expel Muslims and discriminate against blacks, but they can study eugenics freely in their universities without any guilt whatsoever.
Whites were like the Chinese, and even more racist. I first read The Antichrist forty-eight years ago, and I remember then coming across the passage in which Nietzsche speaks of Manu’s laws in the Indo-Aryan religion (which resemble the Nuremberg laws): a time when no white man was tearing his hair out over this racism simply because the Aryan collective unconscious hadn’t yet been infected with this ogre of the superego.
5 replies on “Ogre”
What then is the difference between ‘neochristianity’ and ‘neotheology’?
The first is a generic term, the second refers to more particular cases.
The classic example of ‘neotheology’ would be that of Kant, as I wanted to make our friend Gaedhal understand last Saturday: the elaboration of incredibly complex metaphysical webs that, deep down, always had the objective of reintroducing ‘God’ through a philosophy of rear doors.
Speaking of Kant, I think there is also a major problem with his “categorical imperative”. According to the CI, all people owe a duty to society to not act from “inclination” but to act from “duty”. Kant stresses that there is no moral virtue from acting to improve your own circumstances only from improving the circumstances of others. I can’t help but think this was a major step in developing modern altruism; ie the bad “software” that is destroying the White race. While Kant was a racist, sexist and anti-Semite as all people of that time had the good sense to be. Still it looked like he unleashed deranged altruism to mean the duty of White race to uplift the blacks and browns; the essence of modern liberalism.
I’m sure there is much more to it than Kant, but I think his philosophy / neotheology has much to answer for. It looks like he was a major figure in secularizing Christianity (which he was trying to save from the Enlightenment). Protestantism is to blame as well and overall is probably worse than Catholicism but in the end, all of Christianity is a plague.
I find it fascinating to note that Orthodox Christianity (cf. Putin’s Russia) didn’t board the ship of madmen that has produced current Anglo-American liberalism, inspired by these Protestant fanatics. What Nietzsche says about the Renaissance is most interesting: a Cesare Borgia pope would have prevented Luther’s Reformation and the Counter-Reformation of those popes who reintroduced a tough Christianity when it was already dying!
This was such an interesting Nietzschean speculation that I dedicated the last image of my book to it (visible in Appendix I).
The USA/Hollywood need for always a good ending (always winning actually) is probably a narcissistic? trait. Also the same with the belief that one/self is always the nicest and fairest AND seen to be so!
I can do better than wishing a Borgian pope had executed Luther before he spread his madness, I wish the SS had razed the Vatican to the ground when they had the chance in WW2.
But Nietzsche’s idea was never to execute Luther, simply that the power of the image of Renaissance sculpture and paintings were already transvaluing values (the God of the Sistine Chapel is actually a Zeus), and the Italians would have finished transvaluing them if it hadn’t been for the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation.
What Germans and Americans don’t understand is that their respective cultures (Luther’s Bible gave the language to the former and the latter founded their nation by fantasising themselves as Neo-Israelites) are absolute garbage, and that the only thing of worth is their Aryan DNA.