Wednesday, April 11, 2018

The Corollary to Gresham's Law: bad religion drives out good religion


Conventionally, when one looks at the world he sees only a handful of major religions. But let us expand the definition of "religion" to include any comprehensive system of thought that is not based in scientific evidence, but instead centers around the desire of individuals for meaning, pattern recognition, symbols, and the motivated cognition they engage in to make sense of their world. In this view religion is any comprehensive meaning-based system of viewing the world, and includes secular ideologies such as social justice, Marxism, feminism, environmentalism, etc., and all other forms of faith in transcendental ideals, whether political or god-based, whether a meditative or activist strain. Everything that isn't business, engineering, or hard science is religion.

Now imagine that there are at least one million "religions" of inner peace on Earth, but each of these "religions" usually has only one adherent, so that while there are many ways to develop a sense of tranquility and peace, each person who stumbles upon such a way is usually the only person who has that particular belief system. In fact, in such a vast number of religious/ideological modes of though, a near-infinite diversity is entertained, so that there are as many unique ways to have inner peace as their are individuals, such that each and every one of the "Ideologies of Inner Peace" is completely unique to the individual who has it. There are one million versions, no two are alike, and each has only one believer — the one who invented it.

Furthermore, no individual with an ideology/religion of inner peace will teach you what they know, because why would they? When one has ascended he doesn't care. He has peace. Why would he crusade to change the world? Why would he or she "preach the gospel?" "Educate the masses?" "Stamp out racism?" "Improve the world (tikkun olam)?" or "overcome evil?"

He has inner peace. By definition such a person doesn't need to do much of anything.

If you have inner peace you just don't care. The world is suffering? So what!




But bad religion drives out good religion.

Now let us imagine that there are about 6 or 7 Religions of Pain, and each of them has about a billion or so adherents. All religions of pain are virtually identical since they all follow roughly the same pattern, and that pattern is derived from the properties of how information naturally evolves.

That pattern is there (a), must be something wrong with the world, and (b) we must do something about it, which (c), ever so conveniently involves "spreading the gospel," "educating the masses," "checking White privilege," "serving the disadvantaged," etc. All of these supposed solutions will of course have one thing in common; they require the spread of ideas. Whether it is saving the world, eliminating White privilege, (or for that matter eliminating White people), everything — absolutely every Religion of Pain will require that the action of salvation involves the action of transmission. You know, like disease transmission. The characteristic of every Religion of Pain will be a method of transmission to the brains/minds of other human beings. The virus wants to get out. The ideology will be structured to jump from one mind to the next. It must be structured that way or it never would have spread in the first place.

Structurally, all Religions of Pain will have certain things in common;

There will be something wrong with the world.

The something will require the spread of the ideology.

The ideology will propagate, like a virus.

The ideology will undergo change, in a process analogous to mutation.

The changes that make the ideology more virulent will get it transmitted to more human minds.

The pattern is this;

  • There is something wrong with the world, something painful.
  • We must do something about it.
  • Doing something coincidentally requires spreading the religion, through proselytizing, preaching, or "education."

Now not everyone has enough fervor to educate preach. But some do, and it is enough to make the religion spread, like a virus. The religion undergoes change in its doctrine. Generally speaking, all doctrinal changes make it more virulent, or even more violent.

To a person with a Religion of Pain, all people with inner peace look vile and immoral. Because a person with inner peace doesn't give a shit about virtue, racism, injustice, White privilege, original sin, idolatry, heresy, or whatever. Such a person will be classed as a kafir, shirk, infidel, heretic, atheist, or racist, if the truth ever gets out that they are indifferent. They don't give a shit; they have inner peace. Duh.



Thus, it is the destiny of those who suffer from Religions of Pain to chase down, (really hunt down) every person with a modicum of inner peace on this planet, and even to — get this — consider themselves virtuous for doing so! One wonders if these people are really even human — these demons of virtue. Every righteous person pointing and screaming "racist!" is more or less a meat robot that follows the programming given to them by a kind of mind virus.

The Religion of Pain demands that everyone agree. If even one person is not converted or educated, does not submit to Allah, kneel before Christ, check their privilege, or whatever, then we are all oppressed, enslaved, injured, dinged, offended, victimized, etc.
"If we don't all agree then none of us can be free!" 
"If there is just ONE RACIST in the world then we are ALL OPPRESSED!"
The defining nature of the Religion of Pain is that is can never just leave you alone.

Of course the newer a religion is the worse it it will be. The oldest religions, (Hinduism and Buddhism) are the least virulent and best. The newest religions, (Islam, Communism, Social Justice, Feminism, Environmentalism, and Scientology) are the most virulent and worst. Religion gets progressively worse over time, as selection effects select purely for virulence. On an even playing field, bad religion will get worse, spread everywhere, and dominate. Ideas change just like DNA mutates. Changes that make an idea more virulent stick, while changes that make it less virulent are discarded. This is why communism is the grandchild of Christianity, why the natural outcome of puritan Christianity is social justice, and why the average crusader for social justice, tolerance, or whatever, can legitimately claim that they are more Christian than you, more holy than you, and that Jesus was a socialist. Because they are peddling a more virulent version of your own virus. If Christianity is monkey AIDS, progressive leftism is super-AIDS. If Christianity will make your dick itch, leftism will make it fall off. Leftism is gona-herpa-syphil-AIDS.

Bad religion drives out good religion.

Corollary: anything that can drive out an old religion, is also a religion, and worse than what it drove out. Civilization gets crazier; not saner. "New atheism" is progressive religion repackaged, and is worse than Christianity.

Furthermore, religion is a kind of ecology, so that the nicer religions inhibit the spread of the more virulent ones simply by existing. If social justice is MRSA then Christianity is like a probiotic. It's very existence inhibits the growth of worse organisms.

Corollary: if you cure everyone of religion you will bring about the apocalypse, because virulent religions are not susceptible to the anti-religious equivalent of antibiotics. Trying to abolish religions like Christianity or Buddhism simply clears the field for more virulent religions like Communism, Islam, or Social Justice.

And the average leftist knows this.

As a side note, people only need religion because of the genetic legacy of the ancestral environment. Religion allows for tribal signaling of loyalty to your people. Humans evolved in small bands of hunter-gatherers and behave compulsively like tribal communists, carrying the genetic lacy of those impulses over into modern secular democracies. Every heated debate you have in a coffee shop or bar hearken back to a time when people sitting around a campfire would decide the organization of their entire society through vigorous debate. Debate is not a sign of intellectual superiority but of atavistic tendencies. Capitalism moves humans steadily away from debate and towards systems based in choice. Debate implies that the loser of the argument will be coerced to live under the winners rules, but the choice-based nature of capitalism replaces this with a menu of lifestyles. Thinks like democracy and majoritarian politics are in the past; they are literally a part of our genetic legacy code; a code which is being slowly annihilated by evolution under capitalism. Men — and I do mean males — may enjoy debate, but that is only because they are good at it, and they are only good at it because losing a debate in a tribal society might have gotten one killed.

Now there are various ways to control a mimetic ecology:

1. Official state religion
2. Licencing the ideological teacher
3. Reproductive-ideological licencing
4. Legal liability of ideology teachers

Methods that do not work:

5. Separation of church and state

1 and 2 need no introduction. Let us talk about 3 and 4.

Reproductive-ideological licencing

Is where you licence the ability of people to reproduce based on their conduct. Groups are licenced based on their faith and ethnicity. There are no groups considered without faith. Even atheism is legally a faith. When a group commits a terrorist attack the societal cost is internalized as higher reproductive licencing costs. Say the estimated cost of the 911 terrorist attack was 100 million dollars, and their are 3.3 million Muslims in the US. Then the cost of a reproduction licence for a Muslim would work out to 100 million / 3.3 million, or $30,303 per couple, per child.

Positive behaviors like charity would be calculated to offset some of these costs.

This method has the benefit of selecting against susceptibility to ideological madness over time, so that the species gets genetically saner.

Legal liability

One can simply make the teacher of ideology liable for the cost to society of the actions of his or her student. For example: if you promote transgender ideology and it can be proven that you caused or contributed to x number of mental breakdowns, then you must pay the cost incurred for treating those people. The law in this case is defined statistically. Proof of one particular act of mental harm is not required, only a statistically significant correlation. This method has the benefit of being doable within democracy.






No comments:

Post a Comment

All spam will be deleted