Gnon Theology

I propose a short ritual for when reactionaries meet each other. You go to a church, or some nice old building. Emphasis on old, more than nice. You get there, and the master says the following string, which the apprentice is to repeat.

There is no God but Gnon. Kek is his avatar. And Jordan Peterson is a pretty good prophet.

Once that is done, the master shows a red pill to the apprentice, hands it to him. And the apprentice swallows it. No. He bites it. Munchs it. He chews it. It's hard. It's bitter. It's really hard to chew really. But at the very end it leaves an awesome aftertaste. Then Dark Enlightenment occurs.

Listen to this short clip (starts at 1:04:50), up to the end.

https://youtu.be/RcmWssTLFv0?t=1h4m57s

The Dark Enlightenment is based in evolution. This admits no discussion. Criticism of modernity on non-evolutionary grounds is just plain old reaction. Religious traditionalism. That's a thing. It's not my thing, but it's out there, even here on my comments, most often by a kinda annoying Jew. All in all it's a good thing that it's out there, annoying as it is. But there's a reason why reaction is a thing and neoreaction is another thing. Arnold Kling called Moldbug "neoreactionary" because he saw he wasn't just some plain old Crown Church and Country guy. Moldbug mentioned (not very heavily) HBD and that's about evolution. But there's more about evolutionary critiques of modernity than mentioning the biological heritage of humanity.

There's many ways that evolutionary theory shows the errors of progressivism. Let me mention 4 of them.

The basic one is that evolution shaped our brains as much as any other part of our bodies; our brains determine much of our behavior, and so much of observable behavior is inherited. See the above. Serotonin modulates animal behavior in lobsters, as much as in humans. You can't change that.

A corollary of these is that different populations evolved in geographically separate areas, adapting over tens of thousands of years to their different environments, producing basically different types of brains. And bodies, of course, but brains too. Evolution does not stop at the neck. So different human populations, and that includes what in popular speech is called races, have different types of brains. Different types of behavior. Different sorts of talents and dispositions. Steve Sailer called that HBD.

And of course a very important characteristic of life in earth, certainly of animal life, is that reproduction is sexual. There are two sexes who must copulate in order to reproduce. We call those male and female. The definition of male and female relies on the different size of the gametes. Males have small gametes: in animals we call it sperm. Sperm cells are tiny. Females have big gametes. In animals we call them eggs. Eggs are pretty big. That alone, the difference between the small reproductive cells of males and the big reproductive cells of females, already creates huge incentives for different behavior between males and females. Sperm is small, cheap to produce, easy to spread. Egg production is metabolically costly. It's basic economics. Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. Reproduction being extremely important; basically the whole point of DNA as a molecule, the very point of life; well having your reproduction mediated by cheap or expensive stuff is probably going to drive your evolution in different ways. To the extent that is possible (after all male and female DNA is mixed in every embryo), males and females are going to reproduce better if they evolve behavioral strategies that optimize how they use their gametes. And so males and females of all species behave differently. They must. Else evolution makes no sense.

This enough is very powerful. It goes against every single dogma of progressivism. Behavior has a strong genetic input. That implies races behave differently. Also that sexes behave differently. Which already by itself demolishes the very basis of progressivism. Of the Enlightenment really. Human brains aren't an blank slate. They are shaped by evolution, in different ways. Ways that matter. And ways that you cannot change.

But brains aren't the only thing that evolution shapes. And this is the fourth and most profound implication of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not only about life. Evolution is about existence. Well at it's core evolution is about conflict; evolution proves what happens when different things are in conflict and what strategies they take to win. And existence implies a conflict. Existence is in conflict with non-existence. Things that exist are here for a reason. Basically because they out-competed other things, which hence don't exist. Things exist because they work. Things that don't work cease, sooner or later, to exist. If you track how things came to exist, how they out-competed other things which used to exist, or things that might have existed; well you are doing evolutionary theory. This is of course more abstract than the very physical evolution of DNA molecules in living beings. But it is the same process all the same.

It is so abstract that can even be mapped to transcendental religion, which is why the term Gnon was coined. Gnon standing for Nature or Nature's God. Nature being that which exists. And so that which evolved. Once you understand this point you must think that everything exists for a reason. Everything exists because it works, certainly it worked until the present day. Now you may not like it that some things exist. You might want to destroy them. But before you do so you should stop and think about the evolutionary process that made them exist in the first place. Because remember, that things is there because it worked. And if the evolutionary process that put it there on there first place remains in place, then that thing will come back. Gnon will bring it back, no matter how much you hate it. No matter how utterly you destroy it, Gnon will bring it back. And you can't do anything about it.

That doesn't mean you must like everything. Or that everything always stays the same. Nature changes. I mean, Gnon changes. Evolution is a process; that implies change. Life changes. Animals change all the time. Humans also change things, and sometimes the change sticks. Human sacrifice used to be a thing. The Carthaginians sacrificed their own children. Their first bon sons. That was a thing. It happened for a reason. It evolved. It worked for them. Then the Romans conquered them and destroyed that thing; and it didn't come back. It stopped working. That's evolution too. That is Gnon's will.

The Romans destroyed other things too. They destroyed the patriarchal family. They'd rather have fun and be merry. They stopped having children. Roman hedonism was a thing. Then the Germans conquered them. Roman hedonism stopped being a thing. Rome itself stopped being a thing. Gnon brought back the patriarchal family. That one works. You can mess with it. You can destroy it for a while. Even a long while. But it will come back. Gnon will always bring it back.

So the point here is to tell what will come back and what will not. What works always and what doesn't necessarily do so. In theological terms, we must find out Gnon's will. I guess I'd translate it into Chinese as the Dao. Figuring out Gnon's will is not easy. Surely some Carthaginians might have protested about having to throw their first bon baby sons to die on the feet of Moloch. But the Carthaginian elite strongly believed doing so was Gnon's will. Turns out it wasn't. And they paid dearly for it.

And of course many Romans protested about the changes to paternal authority and general sexual morality in late Republican and Imperial Rome. But people thought that wasn't important, that Gnon's will was changing. Turns out it wasn't. And they paid dearly for it.

So you gotta be careful about every thing. And society is a thing. Culture is a thing. Every social ritual is a thing. You must understand Gnon's will if you want to survive. If you want to continue to be a thing yourself in the future. This means you need to understand why every thing exists. How it got there. How it evolved. You must understand it's history, in other words.

So in the above examples: the Carthaginians sacrificed their baby boys because many centuries back home people back in the old country in the Levant were doing their sacrifices. They had some problem, perhaps some weather problem, or some war with a neighboring tribe. Sacrificing bulls and goats as usual wasn't quite doing it; so some crazy guy. Most likely a woman actually, she threw a baby boy to the idol's altar. Then something good happened. It worked. Maybe the tribesmen saw the woman killing her baby to the tribal god, felt her strong commitment towards the tribe, which gave them courage, took them to battle, and made them win. Or maybe it was just some coincidence and it rained the next day. At any rate, the thing stuck, and ever since it became a mainstream signal of commitment to the tribe. An extremely costly, and hence strong, signal. Now signaling is also a thing. It exists for a reason. A very good reason. Signaling is important. You can't run a large human group without commitment. And you need costly signals to confirm commitment. But signals also tend to spiral for spurious reasons. Greedy people trying to gain status for themselves. Gnon doesn't like that. He doesn't care too much about it, hence peacocks. But every now and then he comes down to stop the spiral and restore order.

So child sacrifice died because it stopped working; it wasn't necessary to produce its evolutionary function of giving costly signals of commitment. Gnon came up with an alternative. The Roman error was more egregious. The Romans didn't get signaling wrong. They got something very fundamental wrong. They got family wrong. And there is no alternative for family. You can get everything exactly right and still perish because you got family wrong. The Roman Empire was a very great, long-lasting empire. It did everything right. They had the best military machine the world had ever seen. They had a very well managed urban culture that tribes all over the West eagerly adopted. They had a great bureaucratic and logistic machine. But they got family wrong. And Gnon made them pay dearly. Family exists for a reason. A permanently valid reason. Well perhaps not permanent, nobody knows the future. But certainly valid today, and likely to be valid for the foreseeable future.

The patriarchal family works. It evolved for a reason. It probably evolved separately a lot of times. There's this book called "The Inevitability of Patriarchy" which makes the point at length. Basically for a country to prosper you need men to defend it. And why would men defend the country? What's there in it for them? Well they get paid. Pretty well actually, soldiery was  good job in Rome. But what do they want the money for? To raise a family. To have a wife and children. Emphasis on have. Have implies possession. Possession implies some degree of freedom of use. You have a wife so you can use her. So that she's nice to you and does things that you want. And of course the same goes for children. Children are the whole point. Children are everything. Gnon manifest his will through children. That's what evolution is.

But for some odd reason Gnon did not make men desire a wife and children in the abstract. The behavioral urges of men are somewhat indirect. Men need sex, the way they need food. A man without food for a sufficient lenght of time will stop whatever he's doing and go crazy until he finds something to eat. A man without sex will stop whatever he's doin and go crazy until he finds a suitable woman. If the woman is nice to him he'll stick around. That is the way Gnon made it. In the old days that fairly reliably resulted in surviving children. Gnon saw it and saw it was good; and so that is what men do. A man with an obedient wife and well behaved children is a happy man. A man that will fight to defend it.

Well take that from a man and he will not defend his country. Why would he? Not to say that often it isn't man that takes it from himself. Many a man would rather not stick by his wife nor care about his children; seeking random women instead. That man, if successful, might be quite happy. Happier than a married man indeed. But he won't fight for his country. He has no reason to. Which is why that man, the sneaky fucker man, is considered evil in most societies. This is a man who has no skin in the game. An unloyal man. Gnon had it so that healthy societies did not allow that kind of behavior. That's why we got fornication laws. Regulation of sexual behavior. Monogamy was one way to solve it, but not the only one. But as Gnon had it having sex with a woman who was not your legal wife or a prostitute was a punishable crime.

The Romans messed with all of that. They allowed women to not be obedient to their husbands. This destroyed the incentive for many men to stick to their wives. This destroyed their incentive to defend their country. Soon enough no Roman was willing to do so. What happens when the men of a country are not willing to defend it? Somebody attacks you; and they win. The inevitability of patriarchy. That is evolution. Gnon's will.

**********

Let me recap. I have been writing about Epistemology of late. An important theme of this blog from the beginning was why leftists believe what they do. All that obvious crap. Are they stupid? Well they obviously aren't stupid. Look at Harvard. Those guys aren't stupid. But leftist they are. They believe obviously false things. Well why?

There's two parts to the answer to that. First is that you don't know what people believe. You know what they say they believe. That's different. You can't possibly know what's going on inside somebody's head.

Second is that most likely there's nothing going on inside that head. You can't possibly have definite knowledge on anything. And there's no reason why human brains will have evolve to capture objective truth. Brains are designed by Gnon so that you could be here. That means have you survive and reproduce. That's all they have to do. It's no easy task, of course, which is why are brains are so big and complex. But caring about objective truth makes no sense, either in philosophical or evolutionary terms. What's important is to be evolutionary fit. In human terms that means to have social status. So people who want social status will say whatever it is necessary, no matter how false. And they will believe whatever is expedient. That's all that believe really means anyway; you may define it is "to have whatever mental content necessary in order to produce some particular behavior". So most people today believe that homosexuals are born that way while transexualism is a free choice. It's logically nonsensical, of course. But the point is to say that when asked, and to be able to interact with the designated victim-privilege groups as necessary.

Rationalism equates language with thought; Chomsky famously said that language's primary function is as a vehicle of thought, not communication. That's completely wrong, of course, most of the computation your brain does to keep you alive doesn't use language at all. To the extent that a minority of people tend to have extensive internal monologues, that's just conversation practice. Talking to yourself; generally in order to be ready to talk with others.

Now of course language is a huge part of how we interact socially; and much of our knowledge is social. We learn from others how to behave, how to speak. To the extent that knowledge is mediated through language; well language is a social medium. There is no meaning to language but the correlation between the use of certain words and the behavior of the people who use them. You can learn that the sun comes from the same direction every day just by looking yourself. But you will only learn the meaning of the word "democracy" by hearing somebody talk about it. I made that point also here.

Now of course humans are social creatures, we learn most of our behavior from others, which includes the entirety of our language. But what determines what society does? One way of thinking about this is that Power does. Politics does. Societies have power hierarchies. People on top can change the behavior of others, either through violence or persuasion. This seems pretty obvious. Indeed it was at the core of Chinese classical political thought. Confucius talked about how a courteous and well behaved lord could "teach" their people to behave morally. Lord Shang talked how the state could make laws that killed or tortured those who didn't behave morally. Both work, to a point. Eventually they were integrated into Imperial Confucianism, the ruling ideology for 2,000 years.

Europe was under the spell of rationalism mediated by Christianity so we didn't really get this until the Communists came by. Or I guess Hegel stumbled upon this. Experts on German idealism can contribute in the comments. But Communists soon enough realized that people do and say what they're told; and they loved the idea. They'd grab all the levels of power and change people to do what they wanted. They'd change everything, even language. George Orwell made that point very vividly when O'Brien forces Winston Smith to say that 2+2 equals 5. There is no module in your brain which contains numbers when you're born. Some forager tribes hardly have any numbers at all. The way we count, our number system is a social construct. If the state applies enough force, they could possibly change that.

But of course the problem with Communism, as well as Chinese legalism is that they forgot about Gnon. Knowledge is socially constructed alright. Power can alter society alright. But power is inside society. The powerful are also people. The state is not an uncaused agent with freedom of action. Nobody has freedom. Everything is evolved. Everything is subject to the will of Gnon. Knowledge is socially constructed alright. But the precise way in that humans acquire their knowledge from society is an evolved mechanism. And it's fixed. You can't change that mechanism. That is Gnon's mechanism. If you want to play with it you have to understand it first. You can't just tell people that 2+2=5. Partly because that sort of stuff is taught to small children and once taught it's extremely hard to alter.

You can't tell people to look at a guy with a beard and call him "ze", because the basic constructions of language are learned as a small child and they're as much a hard habit as the way you walk or jump. You can force people to drop on their knees and say what you want them to say; but you can't change habits enforced by decades of repetition. And repetition is the point; the point of pronouns is that they're very frequent, and gendered pronouns have almost equal frequency, which is why they still exist. Evolution can be seen in the natural world but it is most obvious and easy to see in language. The grammatical patterns which do not work over time disappear. You won't get people to remember a pronoun they only use while in university and when meeting 1% of the student body.

So yes, everything is socially constructed. But social constructions are evolved. And evolution follows the rails that Gnon set up. It follows our innate brain structures. Which are themselves the product of evolution, if biological, on another timescale. The social constructions which work remain in place; those that do not work disappear. And often they take the people with them. You can play with language; but it will not stick. You can play with signaling; but you may end up killing your own babies. You can play with family; but you can kill a whole people if you get that wrong.

The only way to see which social constructions follow the Will of Gnon is to look at history. To look at what existed, where it existed, and for how long. What Moldbug called "slow history". Only there you can find the Old Truths (H/T AlfaNL). Which is why Gnon's church has no priests. Only historians and biologists. And motivational speakers on tour.

[…] Gnon Theology […]

Of course this ties also in with patchwork/neocam as system of government. States tend not to die, even when they massively screw up, thus inhibiting the evolutionary process in systems of government. Lots of states exit = shorter lifespans, shorter feedback loops, more iteration, greater success for good ideas and greater failure for bad ones.

"Everything exists because it works, certainly it worked until the present day. Now you may not like it that some things exist. You might want to destroy them. But before you do so you should stop and think about the evolutionary process that made them exist in the first place." As much as I like screwing with spergy jews, I realize they aren't going anywhere. The question then becomes, how do we get along? Or were we never meant to? Excellent blog post, and thank you for introducing me to this man's lectures. I'll be listening to them for sure.

[…] via Gnon Theology — Bloody shovel […]

Outstanding.

[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]

> But caring about objective truth makes no sense, either in philosophical or evolutionary terms. What’s important is to be evolutionary fit. An intelligent animal must be able to form plans and evaluate these plans against their likely outcomes. Doing this requires having a model of the world which is "objectively true" on the relevant dimensions, in that it can accurately approximate the utility of an action when the utility depends on input from Gnon. It is true that evolutionary fitness pressures might distort our representations away from objectivity, especially by making us ignore irrelevant dimension. But evolution does favor an animal having an objective model of the world, for activities as small as planning muscle movements and as large as life planning. It's less clear whether this mental model corresponds to what a human means when he talks about what he believes. But in many circumstances evolution provides a pressure for language to convey objective truth. For soldiers going into a battlefield, it is a great advantage to have accurate information about the terrain. An army that is incapable of propagating accurate information among its units will lose to one that is capable of it, ceteris paribus. In an environment highly isolated from deadly pressures, like the West for many people, then there isn't so much of an incentive for language to be accurate, and it can be used for pure social signaling. But in generally there certainly are incentives for language to be true, and for animals to have accurate mental models of Gnon.

This post is remarkable, because it's not just incoherent, it's incoherent on several levels, and the incoherence of each level supports the others. From biggest to smallest: 1. You want to start a new religion, but successful religions present a key set of principles which can be boiled down and transmitted easily. Even prog religion does this. If your adherents have to ingest this kind of mess, you're really limiting your reach and appeal. 2. Also, religions live and die by whether people are willing to sacrifice meaningful things for them. That goes from donating five bucks a month all the way to dying and killing for them. Who's going to be inspired by this mess enough to give five bucks? 3. Every one of your religion's truths as you describe them was a core principle of late 19th/early 20th century Progressivism, as espoused by the Fabians, Beatrice Webb, Galton, etc. If your revolutionary innovation is the return to the Progressivism of 100 years ago, this is not very innovative. It is really no different from Fox News desiring to return to the Progressivism of 70 years ago. That stage led inexorably to this one, so why return to it? 4.If you believe in the deity of nature, great. Everything natural exists for a reason, so everything can be spun as good. Flourishing (mid-Roman Republic, mid-19th century America) exists as a natural function of societies. Decay also exists as a natural function of societies. Flourishing leads to decay which leads to flourishing. Patriarchy leads to wealth and security which lead to decay and atomization and sexual chaos, which lead to collapse, which leads to patriarchy. If you have a naturalistic religion, not only do you have nowhere to stand when it comes to saying one of these states is inherently better than the others, but you have to say that any attempt to freeze this oscillation in one of these states is foolish, doomed, cursed, against nature. 5. "The brain has no ability or inclination to capture objective truth" || "Our new religion is based on objective truths like evolution" These two are mutually exclusive. Pick one. 6. People do NOT do and say what they're told. The harder you squeeze them, the more they rebel. Communists put down tens of millions of people, from the Baltic to Siberia, for exactly this propensity. If you make it hopeless for people to rebel outright, they will rebel subtly but constantly. The entire Soviet Union was comprised of people getting over and NOT doing and saying as they were told, in every sphere of life. 7. Human sacrifice is not peculiar to Phoenicians. It is a feature of practically every idolatrous society which believes its own propaganda, from pre-Columbian America to ancient Mesopotamia to India and Africa through most of their history to the modern day West. The latter both has implicit mass infant sacrifice (in the form of many millions of abortions performed at the request of women who hope to propitiate the modern deities of wealth, education, etc.) and apparently less veiled explicit human sacrifice (as hinted at in the Pizzagate scandal.) This is not some weird historical thing done by Carthaginians. It's a built in feature of human nature, which is expressed in the absence of monotheism. It does not depend on the intelligence of the sacrificing people, or their sophistication or belief in science: stupid 7th century Muslim Arabs found it abhorrent and eliminated it wherever they found it, while apparently modern-day CERN scientists do not find it abhorrent: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3746669/Human-sacrifice-ceremony-Geneva-s-CERN-laboratory-involving-cloaked-men-stabbing-woman-night-investigated-chiefs-world-famous-science-centre.html Noticing that different groups of people have different average abilities and inclinations neither requires a theory of evolution nor scientism (the belief in science and scientists as the source and arbiters of ultimate truth in all spheres of human existence.) The question is, now what? If our framework is scientism, it will take you right down the road we've taken. Fabian Socialism, with the Gates Foundation and other groups of select wealthy intelligent people, guided by science, rationally planning human existence and using the means at their disposal to create institutions to force and seduce the rest of us to conform to the plan, for our own good and that of the whole. In that case, you can only complain about the particulars of the current state of affairs, but not the general principles.

Watch the damn videos before going on yet another tirade in defense of your hostile tribal cult. And give me a fucking break. This is a blog post done overnight slightly intoxicated. I'm not publishing a bible. I'm not collecting people's money. Stop being so much of an ass or I'll stop bothering with you.

In order to act you need to have reasonably good information concerning the environment in which you are doing that particular act. You don't need nothing as big as an "objective model of the world". People believe contradictory things at the same time all the time. A progressive can believe blacks are as intelligent as anyone else (your model to act socially) while taking your children to a white-only school (your model as a parent). Point being that models are generally ad-hoc, nothing world-scale. You're conservative about what you know best because you got a pretty close to objective model of that thing. The rest, you're barely capable of pulling that off.

I thought neoreaction was libertarian computer programmers doing politics. Have you read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity? He refers to the Dao, and argues Christianity as a religion is closest to the Dao, that's why it's successful.

Well it isn't very successful these days is it.

Awesome post. My only quibble is that I find Jim a better prophet than Jordan Peterson, but I guess history will decide.

If Jim gave video lectures I'd link to them too.

That kind of causative reductionism has to be one of the stupidest things on the far-right. What is for sure is that "excessive" evolutionism and belief in innate inequality most certainly wasn't the reason why we ended up where we are now. In fact, it was the religious impulse that led us where we are. It wasn't atheistic social darwinists that were the backbone of the Progressive movement 100 years ago. It was schizoid protestants.

Have a look on the wiki page for religion, then scroll down to the section on definitions. You will note the reference to Westphalia. Then go to the etymology section that makes reference to Japan and the imposition of western secularism. If that makes you curious, then read "the myth of religious violence." Can you explain any of this? Now, I contend that you, Peterson and Jim have no idea what you are talking about. none at all. Neither does anyone who talks about "religion" - this includes practically everyone in the world. "Religion" appears quite clearly to be a category created by the state structure to shovel the Church and everything associated with it out of power. Here is the "religious" area that must have no connection with governance. It is private, spiritual and comprised of book X, Y and Z just like Protestantism - so the state sets up protestant "religions" everywhere, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, and here is the "secular" area which is not religion and has all the power, hence why "Atheism" is so popular and stupid shit like Darwinian Evolution is celebrated as if it is something groundbreaking and shoved in everyone's face (evolution is not a new concept, and Darwinism doesn't make a great deal of sense, again, read the wiki page for Darwinism with your bullshit filters on, tell me it doesn't honestly smell to you.) I don't know about you, but this looks like a spectacular fuck up occasioned by divided power to me. So if you talk about making a "religion" what you then mean implicitly is lets have a secular state with a pet protestant like thing called a "religion" (divided power) unless you want to incorporate it into the state, which means it is not a religion anymore and you have undivided power - no more fedora atheism and no more religion.

lol

Humans, or "peoples" whatever that word means, rather do not have to believe in objective truth indeed, the Greeks had a word for this, they can very well be coerced through either physical violence or intense psychological terror, that is what the Humanities currently under control is, an instrument of terror, so proficient that the target organism(s) can be made to self terminate over a long enough time period, to believe that 2 2=5; i.e. a modern absurdity, however the trouble with such a belief is that complex computation become impossible, infrastructure becomes impossible beyond the most primitive domicile, much less a crude crossing, and everything, mostly resets to the base. Which I suppose is hunky dory to the Progressive, since the current set up is "not fair", whatever that means. I know, I know, no one believes 2 2=5, yet, but I was using that as an example, you can fit any Progressive pet theory into that scenario and the outcome is the same. Stifling, naked, ignorance, darkness, desperation and death, This of course has somewhat do with HBD, and somewhat to do with Gnon, but mostly it has to do with Philosophy, which some in Neoreaction are attempting to flee from. Aristotle laid the ground work for this, others expanded upon it. I thought we moved beyond this, it is fine to have Gnon in the corner as the guy who brings in the stool to sit on. Civilisations/masculine can be made to learn things, only societies/feminine troublingly can be made to unlearn them, but Philosophy is your coach, without it then we are animals stumbling from one catastrophe to another, and if a certain people wish to exist in the future, past say 2050, they would do well to remember this. HBD can only get the ass to the well, but can it make it drink?

Spandrell, not one of your strongest posts IMO. Love your work though. You've had a tendency lately to fall back on concepts like "natural" or "signaling" which are too broadly defined to be really applicable to the specific phenomenon being described, and they're also not succinct enough. Your older posts were more insightful as a result. For example, this post could be described succinctly as: "There are rules a society must follow in order to flourish, which can be seen across cultures and across different historical periods. Once a society disobeys these rules, they inevitably devolve into chaos, corruption, and failure. One of these rules, shown over and over again, is that patriarchal societies are a required component of a society's success, and the weakening of this institution is a strong signal of it's impending downfall." What's all this ridiculous talk about Gnon as a God? Stay rooted in the real world, please. With all due respect this lofty and unclear verbosity was the mark of late stage Moldbug.

Gnon is staying. But yes, I'll try to be more brief when I flesh his out later.