WHY WE ARE LOSING THE WAR
One of the main reasons that we are losing the Culture War is the difference in Nature between Men and Women, between /r and /k type people, and the difference between Nietsche's Master and Slave Morality. These are all similar dichotomies.
Men are stronger and more intelligent than Women, but are not as concerned with Consumerism, so women end up being more important to the Capitalists. This is a problem for us.
Most Men are also not interested in the Manosphere, and our ideas have little relevance to normal Men, especially those who are more subsumed into the day-to-day grind of the Western Lifestyle. Life maybe crap for the average Man, but joining a group of online commentors wont really make it much better. Better the Blue Pill than the Black.
WHY WE SHOULD FOCUS ON PHILOSOPHY
However, there is one place where Men have a natural advantage over Women, and that is in Philosophy and Religion, and all related Intellectual persuits. This is where Men like those in the Manosphere can make a big impact.
The dominance of Men in Philosophy is like the dominance of Women in Consumerism. So why waste our energies competing in every-day society, when we can concentrate our abilities where it most suits us, in Philosophy.
The average Man is more interested in Philosophy than the average Woman, and the average Man is more interested in Philosophy than in Game or the Culture War. Just look at the number of subscribers to Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Rationality Rules etc vs anyone from the Manosphere.
I am saying there is huge demand out there for Philosophers and Intellectuals, where we are best placed to make a difference. We can put our energy into producing something many (though not all) of us agree is a good starting point. Then we can push these ideas into the Intellectual Mainstream, challenge thinkers like Sam Harris, challenge institutions like Universities and Publications. These Institutions are easier to challenge than large Corporations.
WESTERN LIBERALISM IS A RELIGION
It needs to be understood that Western Liberalism is just a Religion, like any other Religion. There are numerous videos on this YT that you can check out. This is the first point we need to push. We can then attack the assumptions of this belief system in the same way Liberals attack Christianity or Islam.
To best attack this belief, we need to produce a different philosophical narrative. So what is best for us to focus our energies around? We want something as universal as possible, but that is also based on Western Civilization.
WHAT IS INDO-EUROPEAN
I cant really go into explaining what Indo-European is here in detail, because it is too big a topic. But in brief..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo..._mythology
In short, Indo European refers primarily to speakers of related languages, all descending from one common source, Proto-Indo-European. Languages are easier to track but more importantly these people also all followed a common Religion and Culture, which was the basis for their Civilizations.
Civilizations descended from PIE include, The Greeks, Latins, Germanic Peoples, Persians, North Indians, Scythians, Tocharians, and many others who are now forgotten and extinct.
INDO-EUROPEAN IS THE BEST STARTING POINT FOR A NEW PHILOSOPHY
WHAT RELEVANT RESULTS CAN WE COME TO
Here are a few things I have learnt from studying IE history
Indo European Religion was based on Art rather than Revelation
This is important because it removes IE Traditions from the criticism levelled at other faiths, that of being non-scientific.
Art is Objective
Art is an Objective thing, created with skill and for a purpose which it fulfills. The word Art is related to the Vedic Rta, meaning 'Cosmic Order', 'Creation', 'Well-Joined', 'Truth' etc, also related is Ancient Greek 'Arrete' and English words such as Righteous and Ritual, and Order.
The concept of Art extends to more than just cultural things like Paintings and Music, Poetry etc it also relates to Engineering, Language, Sports etc.
Indo European Religions were Masculine
These religions were primarly Patriachal, but unlike Christianity and Islam, where Mans place in the Religion is the same as Womens, IE Religions were primarily a Male creation, targeting other Men, and less concerned with the religiousity of Women.
The Vedic poets are all Men, who are primarily singing to other Men, most of whom are Kings or Warriors, and Strength, Virility, Heroic Sons and Victory in battle are the major things desired by the poets. In Norse Mythology Valhana is a place for Males.
'Gay' and 'Homosexuality' are constructs of Western Liberalism
Pre-Christian IE societies do not have these concepts. Those societies see the dichotomy in terms of Active/Passive, Dominant/Submissive, Masculine/Feminine etc. It doesnt matter if one 'loves men' what matters is whether you are Masculine (the one who penetrates) or Feminine (who gets penetrated). We can see that this is still apparant today by looking at prison populations. The concept of 'Homosexual' does not exist in many societies even today. It then becomes apparant that Men would have contempt for Homosexuals, as that is really passive and unmasculine behaviour, in the same way that a Good Engineer would have contempt for bad engineering, so Men desiring Masculinity would have contempt towards those who are unmanly.
Objectivity is the basis for Existence. Objectivity vs Subjectivity is a better way to look at Religion than Good vs Evil.
This is a result I came from looking at this area. Basically, I see that
All existent things are defined by some set of rules.
Things that are defined by some set of rules are Objective
Masculinity is Objective, Art is Objective. Hence Art is a product of Masculinity.
Masculinity is the physical outcome of a biological drive towards Objectivity.
Ergo, Masculinity is superior to Femininity
I can add more but I think I should leave it here for now and see what thoughts people have.
PROBLEMS WITH MODERN PHILOSOPHY
The important point is the Objectivity in our position. We do not create a Moral or Philosophical position based on random ideas that are currently popular but on a real study of pre-existing History and Literature.
What is happening in Western Society today is that new Philosophers come up with novel ways of looking at Morality and then we have competing ideas that are based on little but Sophistry. Take for instance Ayn Rand, or Sam Harris' Moral Landscape, or JP's work. Each of these has their way of looking at the world, based on their own terms and their own definitions of things. Sometimes they overlap more than at other times, but we cannot say for sure which one of these Philosophers are closest to having a 'Universal' Philosophy.
Our ideas are the most Universal for Western Civilization because most of the concepts we hold can be seen either as an evolution of pre-existing IE concepts, or innovations away from it. In each case we can look at our data to determine what it tells us about these ideas, and whether they are consistent or inconsistent with PIE, or any of the descendant cultures.
SOME POSITIONS
Regarding the Gillette Ad, it can be seen that IE societies held that the Priests/Philosophers had the right to discuss these things, not the Merchant Class.
Regarding Veganism, we know that IEs ate meat, enjoyed fatty meats the most, and actually developed their society from Pastoralism, so Veganism is against Tradition. Vegan Moral arguments are based on the idea of Utilitarianism, that of maximising Well-being for Sentient Beings. We see that this is only an assumption, and that Morality is not based on maximising well-being for sentient beings. There is nothing Objective about placing the Well-Being of Sentient Beings as the highest value for humanity.
Regarding Feminism, arguments against can be further developed but we have a position that is pro-Masculinity, so would argue against the equality of Men and Women. Feminism is also Subjective rather than Objective, in that it attempts to ignore real data that contradicts it's position.
Regarding Modern Art and Poetry, these things today are considered completely Subjective, so anything can be Art and anything can be Poetry. Though Art itself is not easily defined (it is a catch-all term) Poetry was always defined from Prose by being written in Metre, and following the constraints of the Metre. So todays 'Poetry', known as Free Verse, is not Poetry. Modern 'Art' too is not Art, because it does follow the definition of Art we have set out. This extends to other parts of modern Culture, Movies, Pop Songs and Fashion for instance.
Art and Poetry in our Society are very much descended from our Indo European Traditions, with the Abrahamic Culture having added little to this. Therefore, questions of 'What is Art' ultimately can only be answered from an Indo-European perspective.
SCIENCE, MORALITY AND GOOD TASTE
Lastly, an important point about Science. We do not have a position against Science, but I would say that Liberalism does not understand the limitation of Science. Science is often a reductionist method, and this is it's ultimate limitation. We accept things in World can be too complex to be reduced to a formal method, such as Logic or Science, hence we prefer to take a more empirical approach to certain questions.
Morality is a good example. Utilitarianism would state that Moral questions can be answered scientifically. I imagine Morality as something more akin to Art then Science.
Art cannot be evaluated scientifically and neither can Morality. Human Societies are too complex for Morality to be reduced to a formalism such as Logic or Science. Hence, Morality is evaluated in the same way as Art, by Good Taste.
It can be shown that 'Good Taste' is an Objective thing. I am saying it is the same thing that tells you something is a good song vs a bad song, as that which tells you what is a virtue and what is not. I would say 'Good Taste' is more important than IQ. IQ is a reductionist method, whereas 'Good Taste', though Objective, cannot be reduced and quantified.
People in our Society put too much emphasis on Logical Arguments, which often are just feats of Sophistry and not real arguments at all. Logical Arguments and Science are often Sound but rarely Complete. When we reduce complexity to a Formalism, we do not know what our formal system may be missing from the Objective Reality we wish to know. But this method results in good articles for the masses to consume, and the illusion of progress.
SUMMARY
We see the importance of Objectivity as a Religious concept, and how Objectivity is at the root of all Art and Science. We see human societies as Objective things governed by existing Laws which we desire to know, so we can better improve our Societies.
There is an ultimate irony in all of human existence. It is the same Laws that seem to constrain Human Freedom, that give rise to Human Existence, and all it's Freedoms. The Liberal desire is to be free of all Natural Laws, but these Laws are that which Human Existence depends on. Freedom comes from knowing these Laws and having the skill to express oneself by them, not against them, as the Liberals desire.
An Engineer can express himself by creating a great car, the same Laws that allow this creation also constrain it.
A Poet expresses himself in a Poem through the use of Metre and Language, the rules of which both allow for the expression and also constrain it.
In Indo-European Religion the Cosmic Law is more powerful than any of the Gods. So, where we, as a post Abrahamic people, think of God as the highest thing in religion, for the Indo Europeans this thing was Cosmic Law, Truth, The-Well-Joined.
This thing is analogous to Objectivity in todays philosophical language.
So, in short, Law, Objectivity, Art and Masculinity are the main buzzwords of this post.
One of the main reasons that we are losing the Culture War is the difference in Nature between Men and Women, between /r and /k type people, and the difference between Nietsche's Master and Slave Morality. These are all similar dichotomies.
Men are stronger and more intelligent than Women, but are not as concerned with Consumerism, so women end up being more important to the Capitalists. This is a problem for us.
Most Men are also not interested in the Manosphere, and our ideas have little relevance to normal Men, especially those who are more subsumed into the day-to-day grind of the Western Lifestyle. Life maybe crap for the average Man, but joining a group of online commentors wont really make it much better. Better the Blue Pill than the Black.
WHY WE SHOULD FOCUS ON PHILOSOPHY
However, there is one place where Men have a natural advantage over Women, and that is in Philosophy and Religion, and all related Intellectual persuits. This is where Men like those in the Manosphere can make a big impact.
The dominance of Men in Philosophy is like the dominance of Women in Consumerism. So why waste our energies competing in every-day society, when we can concentrate our abilities where it most suits us, in Philosophy.
The average Man is more interested in Philosophy than the average Woman, and the average Man is more interested in Philosophy than in Game or the Culture War. Just look at the number of subscribers to Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Rationality Rules etc vs anyone from the Manosphere.
I am saying there is huge demand out there for Philosophers and Intellectuals, where we are best placed to make a difference. We can put our energy into producing something many (though not all) of us agree is a good starting point. Then we can push these ideas into the Intellectual Mainstream, challenge thinkers like Sam Harris, challenge institutions like Universities and Publications. These Institutions are easier to challenge than large Corporations.
WESTERN LIBERALISM IS A RELIGION
It needs to be understood that Western Liberalism is just a Religion, like any other Religion. There are numerous videos on this YT that you can check out. This is the first point we need to push. We can then attack the assumptions of this belief system in the same way Liberals attack Christianity or Islam.
To best attack this belief, we need to produce a different philosophical narrative. So what is best for us to focus our energies around? We want something as universal as possible, but that is also based on Western Civilization.
WHAT IS INDO-EUROPEAN
I cant really go into explaining what Indo-European is here in detail, because it is too big a topic. But in brief..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo..._mythology
In short, Indo European refers primarily to speakers of related languages, all descending from one common source, Proto-Indo-European. Languages are easier to track but more importantly these people also all followed a common Religion and Culture, which was the basis for their Civilizations.
Civilizations descended from PIE include, The Greeks, Latins, Germanic Peoples, Persians, North Indians, Scythians, Tocharians, and many others who are now forgotten and extinct.
INDO-EUROPEAN IS THE BEST STARTING POINT FOR A NEW PHILOSOPHY
- The single most influencial Cultural, Religous and Philosophical idea in European Civilization
- Relatively poorly understood
- Based upon the study of real History, Cultures and Literature. So we can all agree on the starting points.
- New things are still being learnt. Currently the biggest topic in Ancient DNA and Linguistics in Academia.
- We have an objective basis to start from, these are real histories, real literature and culture
- Our starting point is massive, and about as Universal as it can get. All IE societies can be traced back to PIE. To make this position more Universal, we would have to include non-IE Civilizations, such as Chinese or Hebrew, but these cannot fit into one single idea, and cannot be syncretised in any objective way.
WHAT RELEVANT RESULTS CAN WE COME TO
Here are a few things I have learnt from studying IE history
Indo European Religion was based on Art rather than Revelation
This is important because it removes IE Traditions from the criticism levelled at other faiths, that of being non-scientific.
Art is Objective
Art is an Objective thing, created with skill and for a purpose which it fulfills. The word Art is related to the Vedic Rta, meaning 'Cosmic Order', 'Creation', 'Well-Joined', 'Truth' etc, also related is Ancient Greek 'Arrete' and English words such as Righteous and Ritual, and Order.
The concept of Art extends to more than just cultural things like Paintings and Music, Poetry etc it also relates to Engineering, Language, Sports etc.
Indo European Religions were Masculine
These religions were primarly Patriachal, but unlike Christianity and Islam, where Mans place in the Religion is the same as Womens, IE Religions were primarily a Male creation, targeting other Men, and less concerned with the religiousity of Women.
The Vedic poets are all Men, who are primarily singing to other Men, most of whom are Kings or Warriors, and Strength, Virility, Heroic Sons and Victory in battle are the major things desired by the poets. In Norse Mythology Valhana is a place for Males.
'Gay' and 'Homosexuality' are constructs of Western Liberalism
Pre-Christian IE societies do not have these concepts. Those societies see the dichotomy in terms of Active/Passive, Dominant/Submissive, Masculine/Feminine etc. It doesnt matter if one 'loves men' what matters is whether you are Masculine (the one who penetrates) or Feminine (who gets penetrated). We can see that this is still apparant today by looking at prison populations. The concept of 'Homosexual' does not exist in many societies even today. It then becomes apparant that Men would have contempt for Homosexuals, as that is really passive and unmasculine behaviour, in the same way that a Good Engineer would have contempt for bad engineering, so Men desiring Masculinity would have contempt towards those who are unmanly.
Objectivity is the basis for Existence. Objectivity vs Subjectivity is a better way to look at Religion than Good vs Evil.
This is a result I came from looking at this area. Basically, I see that
All existent things are defined by some set of rules.
Things that are defined by some set of rules are Objective
Masculinity is Objective, Art is Objective. Hence Art is a product of Masculinity.
Masculinity is the physical outcome of a biological drive towards Objectivity.
Ergo, Masculinity is superior to Femininity
I can add more but I think I should leave it here for now and see what thoughts people have.
PROBLEMS WITH MODERN PHILOSOPHY
The important point is the Objectivity in our position. We do not create a Moral or Philosophical position based on random ideas that are currently popular but on a real study of pre-existing History and Literature.
What is happening in Western Society today is that new Philosophers come up with novel ways of looking at Morality and then we have competing ideas that are based on little but Sophistry. Take for instance Ayn Rand, or Sam Harris' Moral Landscape, or JP's work. Each of these has their way of looking at the world, based on their own terms and their own definitions of things. Sometimes they overlap more than at other times, but we cannot say for sure which one of these Philosophers are closest to having a 'Universal' Philosophy.
Our ideas are the most Universal for Western Civilization because most of the concepts we hold can be seen either as an evolution of pre-existing IE concepts, or innovations away from it. In each case we can look at our data to determine what it tells us about these ideas, and whether they are consistent or inconsistent with PIE, or any of the descendant cultures.
SOME POSITIONS
Regarding the Gillette Ad, it can be seen that IE societies held that the Priests/Philosophers had the right to discuss these things, not the Merchant Class.
Regarding Veganism, we know that IEs ate meat, enjoyed fatty meats the most, and actually developed their society from Pastoralism, so Veganism is against Tradition. Vegan Moral arguments are based on the idea of Utilitarianism, that of maximising Well-being for Sentient Beings. We see that this is only an assumption, and that Morality is not based on maximising well-being for sentient beings. There is nothing Objective about placing the Well-Being of Sentient Beings as the highest value for humanity.
Regarding Feminism, arguments against can be further developed but we have a position that is pro-Masculinity, so would argue against the equality of Men and Women. Feminism is also Subjective rather than Objective, in that it attempts to ignore real data that contradicts it's position.
Regarding Modern Art and Poetry, these things today are considered completely Subjective, so anything can be Art and anything can be Poetry. Though Art itself is not easily defined (it is a catch-all term) Poetry was always defined from Prose by being written in Metre, and following the constraints of the Metre. So todays 'Poetry', known as Free Verse, is not Poetry. Modern 'Art' too is not Art, because it does follow the definition of Art we have set out. This extends to other parts of modern Culture, Movies, Pop Songs and Fashion for instance.
Art and Poetry in our Society are very much descended from our Indo European Traditions, with the Abrahamic Culture having added little to this. Therefore, questions of 'What is Art' ultimately can only be answered from an Indo-European perspective.
SCIENCE, MORALITY AND GOOD TASTE
Lastly, an important point about Science. We do not have a position against Science, but I would say that Liberalism does not understand the limitation of Science. Science is often a reductionist method, and this is it's ultimate limitation. We accept things in World can be too complex to be reduced to a formal method, such as Logic or Science, hence we prefer to take a more empirical approach to certain questions.
Morality is a good example. Utilitarianism would state that Moral questions can be answered scientifically. I imagine Morality as something more akin to Art then Science.
Art cannot be evaluated scientifically and neither can Morality. Human Societies are too complex for Morality to be reduced to a formalism such as Logic or Science. Hence, Morality is evaluated in the same way as Art, by Good Taste.
It can be shown that 'Good Taste' is an Objective thing. I am saying it is the same thing that tells you something is a good song vs a bad song, as that which tells you what is a virtue and what is not. I would say 'Good Taste' is more important than IQ. IQ is a reductionist method, whereas 'Good Taste', though Objective, cannot be reduced and quantified.
People in our Society put too much emphasis on Logical Arguments, which often are just feats of Sophistry and not real arguments at all. Logical Arguments and Science are often Sound but rarely Complete. When we reduce complexity to a Formalism, we do not know what our formal system may be missing from the Objective Reality we wish to know. But this method results in good articles for the masses to consume, and the illusion of progress.
SUMMARY
We see the importance of Objectivity as a Religious concept, and how Objectivity is at the root of all Art and Science. We see human societies as Objective things governed by existing Laws which we desire to know, so we can better improve our Societies.
There is an ultimate irony in all of human existence. It is the same Laws that seem to constrain Human Freedom, that give rise to Human Existence, and all it's Freedoms. The Liberal desire is to be free of all Natural Laws, but these Laws are that which Human Existence depends on. Freedom comes from knowing these Laws and having the skill to express oneself by them, not against them, as the Liberals desire.
An Engineer can express himself by creating a great car, the same Laws that allow this creation also constrain it.
A Poet expresses himself in a Poem through the use of Metre and Language, the rules of which both allow for the expression and also constrain it.
In Indo-European Religion the Cosmic Law is more powerful than any of the Gods. So, where we, as a post Abrahamic people, think of God as the highest thing in religion, for the Indo Europeans this thing was Cosmic Law, Truth, The-Well-Joined.
This thing is analogous to Objectivity in todays philosophical language.
So, in short, Law, Objectivity, Art and Masculinity are the main buzzwords of this post.