An interesting post from Return of Kings:
I’m not sure who ever said it was. Atheists within the neo-masculinity movement, in contrast to the smug atheists who watch Colbert and Daily Show, don’t have enmity towards Christians. They may not agree with Christianity, but this disagreement is never acrimonious. The author is raising an issue that doesn’t really exist.
But the topic of Christianity and ‘alt right’ politics is interesting. The alt-right movement encompasses a wide variety or mishmash of ideologies and beliefs, with a universal rejection of egalitarianism and liberalism. You can reject religion and still oppose egalitarianism and the welfare state, as in the case of Ayn Ran or Murray Rothbard, for example.
Atheist Conservatism and Libertarianism is one of the fastest growing movements. Contrary to popular belief, Darwinism and Conservatism are compatible because the social order of things often follows from the biological/genetic one, in that social castes and socioeconomic issues (wealth inequity, rich vs. poor, etc) often stem from the biological differences between individuals (race, IQ, etc), meaning that some people by virtue of ‘good’ genes are more likely to succeed, while those with inauspicious genes are likely to find themselves in a lower caste. In agreement with Conservative/Libertarian thought, individuals do have free will – but only within their biological limitations.
You have the free will to try to become a successful physicist or writer, but if your IQ isn’t high enough you won’t get much millage for your efforts. So biology is the ultimate sorting mechanism for man and his role or place in society, and even if the concept of biological determinism is unsettling to many – that millions of individuals are preordained at birth to a life of failure or mediocrity – wishful thinking, vacuous ‘pull yourself up’ platitudes, and political correctness won’t change this. Many atheists understand that evoking a ambiguous higher ‘power’ to try to undo a physical or autonomous process is futile.
These posts may seem negative and pessimistic, but they are in agreement with an empirical reality that is also a biological reality. It’s better to swallow the bitter pill of reality than to live in fantasy. But this should not be confused with a pessimistic view of human nature, as expounded by Hobbes. In the spirit of Locke, I am optimistic about the human condition, as well as the economy, but not for most individual humans – in that while society will continue to advance and prosper in terms of technology and other metrics, and the stock market will keep going up, at the individual level things won’t feel so great, with ennui, anxiety, and emptiness the dominant human condition for the vast majority who are not smart enough to attain ‘enlightenment’. John Locke’s optimism was rooted in his faith, for man to full fill his ‘god given’ potential to create, in contrast to the atheist Hobbes who equates man to animals. There is a middle ground, in that we are in an ‘enlightenment’ for those who are smart and successful enough to participate in it , but a Hobbesian ‘dark age’ for everyone else. The capacity to create does not come from god or some creator, but from genes, which is how Darwinism can be reconciled with the more optimistic, future-oriented worldview of the Enlightenment.
Also many Enlightenment thinkers, from Voltaire to Kant, expressed interest in biological matters such as race, with opinions that would be considered politically incorrect today and an affront to ‘blank slate’ Christianity. Voltaire, for example, rejected Monogenism, which contends that all races have a single origin, while polygenism is the idea that each race has a separate origin. Instead of all people coming from a single origin or creator, some came elsewhere, although it wasn’t until later with the research of Darwin and Galton, and much latter With Murray, Jensen, Rushton, and Lynn, did speculation about race, intelligence, and individual biological differences become burnished with scientific rigour.
But the problem with mainstream/contemporary Christianity (and my own experience going to Church) is that it tends to espouse the ‘bank slate’ pseudoscience that all people are born ‘equal’ under god and that redemption is through belief, when economic reality throws cold water on those delusions. In reality, some people by virtue of IQ and other genetic factors are born ‘better’ than others, and redemption is not as easy as just believing in a spirit, but by quantifiable accomplishments, social status, and the creation of economic value, which I outline in the ‘salvation quadrant’ here. Maybe that’s why the NRx movement argues that progressivism is an offshoot of Puritanism, although this theory is contested by some in the NRx community.
A common rebuttal is that IQ isn’t everything, and it isn’t, but it’s damn important. In the competitive post-2008 economy and recent trend towards automation and the winner-take-all nature of the economy, brains seem to be more important than brawn. The data on wealth vs. IQ is hard to dispute – smarter people tend to earn more more money, while less intelligent people fall into poverty. Smart people also create technologies that improve living standards. Yes, smart people occasionally make stupid decisions, but what kind of decisions do stupid people make? It’s tempting to just cherry-pick a few examples of smart people acting stupidly or unethically to paint all smart people with the same brush. The ‘evil genius’ trope is so ingrained in popular culture that we tend to ignore or overlook all the good that smart people create. Yes, there is evil on the right side of the Bell Curve, but also plenty of evil on the let, too. Gary Ridgway, the most prolific American serial killer, has an IQ of 80. Evil on both sides of the Bell Curve. Even ‘effort’ and ‘hard work’, which the left says is more important than IQ, may also be biological, making it hard to escape the pull of HBD in all facets of society.
I guess we need systems in place to minimize the potential harm caused by morally compromised people. The rule of law is a deterrent, but it can’t undo the past, nor will it effective against those who ignore it.
And although there is evidence smarter people are liberal – wealthy, smart liberals tend to be of the pragmatic/classical/neoliberal variety, with examples being Larry Summers, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Steven Levitt, Steven Pinker and Bryan Caplan, in contrast to the less intelligent welfare liberals. Classical liberals are more inclined to subscribe to Social Darwinism than welfare liberals, and are less hostile to free markets, the rule of law, and private property.