This is my third essay explaining why the popular Human Bio-Diversity (HBD) movement is incompatible with the ideals of The Mustard Seed and a rational civilization. For Part One, click here. And for Part Two, click here.
To quote Lawrence Auster from his original essay, Is HBD the Next Conservative Movement?, “Insofar as HBD is materialist reductionist it is a disaster for mankind, for our civilization, and for conservatism.”
Ultimately, he's a sentimental nihilist. I'll add that I'm OK with that, if he doesn't ever become a destructive nihilist (see Dostoyevsky's Devils which foreshadowed the Russian Revolution), because he's sentimental about the civilization I want restored.
Murray Love continues the critique...
What these guys don't realize is that, by dismissing the concept of a shared, transcendent good as an irrational superstition, they risk walking in the footprints of the totalitarian movements of the last two centuries. They think that--being nice, reasonable guys--they can simply decide to preserve the bits of society that they personally find congenial. And of course, they would never countenance the unjust oppression of others in the name of their, uh ... "pragmatic explanatory tools and reform processes for stabilizing society". But history shows that such a movement--one that highlights the differences between groups of human beings without a corresponding conception of the inherent, God-given dignity of each individual--can and probably will turn to tyranny and bloodlust, given half a chance. One might say that recent history is littered with the corpses of purged technocratic nerds and their millions of victims. Or is that too strong?
Nope, not too strong, at all.
This is an amazing moment, a coming to a head and a crisis of the core liberal idea of the last hundred or more years. Liberalism means you believe in your civilization, without believing in what C.S. Lewis called objective value, the idea that there is an inherent value in things that by its very nature calls forth our attraction, love, and loyalty. Liberals and materialists don't believe in objective value…neither liberals nor materialists have the ability to say, "I love my civilization (or any particular thing about my civilization) because it is inherently, objectively good and its inherent goodness calls forth my love."
The amiably incoherent view that we could call moderate liberalism or relativist conservatism has been a viable option for many people for generations. It was sustainable, so long as not too much attention was brought to bear on it, so long as it wasn't too closely questioned and not too much was asked of it. But now that the openly atheist-materialist view is gaining head and insisting on becoming socially and intellectually dominant, the in-between position of the "conservative non-believer" such as Dennis Mangan, ceases to be sustainable. He can no longer get by with saying, "I believe in my country, even though I don't believe in objective value," because it's become clear that that position cannot hold the line against nihilism. At the same time, he can't opt completely for the materialist-atheist position either, because it is more and more clear that that means he really is a nihilist and cuts the strings altogether. So all hell is breaking loose.
Mangan will reply once again that we are unfairly claiming to read his thoughts and attributing to him things he hasn't said and trying to take over his brain. Not true. There is a large philosophical drama being played out and he happens to be the locus of it at the moment. To put the discussion in terms of a mafia movie: it's not personal, Dennis, it's business--the business of our civilization.
This is perfect. Pitch-perfect.
In the same thread, Ian B. also provides another good explanation of Mangan and others…
It seems that being confronted with what they in fact are is emotionally painful to them. They want to believe that they aren't shallow, that they aren't the sort of inhuman types that nihilism is associated with after a century of atrocities perpetrated by those under its sway, because they *care* about stuff. But everybody cares about stuff, including Nietzsche himself. Caring about stuff doesn't mean you're not a nihilist, when you believe that even the stuff you care about has no ultimate meaning.
Also, back to the subject of "Game"…
I've been commenting on a new pro-Game website, Seasons of Tumult and Discord.
In the comment section to their essay, In Defense of Game: Part One, I wrote the following...
If you’re sincerely interested in helping Beta men, and if you wish to promote the Gospel of Game (or at least the parts of “Game” that have been helpful to you), here’s my humble recommendation: Distant yourself from guys like Roissy and other Gamers who hold women in contempt and want to use Game as a weapon to deceive women and sleep around. Sadly, since that’s 95% of the Gamers I’ve encountered, you would almost certainly be disappointing your constituency. But in the long-run, that’s the only way to get guys like myself who are mostly satisfied with women (the vast majority of guys, I should point out) to accept your movement.
When one of the hosts replied, “I think Roissy is used by people as an easy way of discounting everything Game has to say,” I responded...
Then condemn him! Roissy is filth. Y’all have to decide whose side you’re on. There are guys like me who are on record sympathizing with the plight of modern Beta men (I’m one myself), and would feel comfortable being part of some sort of larger “male empowerment movement,” or whatever you want to call it. See my essays, especially The Content of Their Character and What’s a Degree Got to Do With It? But I can’t endorse Game because y’all like Roissy and see him as a leader in your movement. It’s a disqualification.