The View from Yuggoth

Welcome, students, welcome! Please find a place to rest your legs, claws, other appendages. Today’s lecture: “Memetic Metrology of Religions of the Homeworld of R’yleh”, a planet sometimes known as Earth.

All of you should be operating your learning devices … good. In a moment I shall project charts. These charts show four attributes of Earth systems for organizing human behaviors — usually known, of course, as religions.


Our first chart is for a system — religion — called “Islam.” Note the extremely high “Zeal” metric. Islam is a simple religion, perfectly crafted to assume control of a planet. The only remarkable feature of the religion is its maniacal insistence on universal expansion by any means necessary, physical or memetic; the other moderately low scores represent the minimum superstructure needed for the long-term transmission of beliefs. Islam has one purpose: to conquer. Yes, from a distance of three billion miles it is quite fascinating to contemplate.


The second chart provides a nice contrast. “Judaism” is a very low-zeal, high-piety and ritual religion. Therefore, it does not spread promiscuously, but it does survive, even under the most extreme selection pressures.


This next chart is for a religion known as “Buddhism”, in this case the variety practiced in the largest grouping of humans. Yes, I see an appendage has been raised?

All features of this religion are scored low, instructor. Is this religion competitive? Why has it not been replaced by another religion such Islam?

Ah, a good question. I will cite two reasons why Buddhism is stable and indeed optimal for Chinese humans. Millenia of peasant servitude shaped the Chinese into docile, compliant, hard-working citizens. A high-zeal religion like Islam would be alien to them. It brings to mind the old saying, never put a Dagon tiara on a Shoggoth. It ruins the tiara and annoys the Shoggoth.

Another point: the Chinese are so numerous that they have attained cultural permanence, even supremacy. Thus the interests of the Chinese culture reign supreme over that of the Buddhist belief system. Self-preservation and conservatism must be the rule of the day; what would be the point of the Chinese trying to become more Chinese?

Those learning devices are a pleasure to use, aren’t they? A human from a place called England had a go at one earlier this year. I am afraid the experience improved his respiration but not his central nervous system.

Our next specimen is somewhat of a historical curiosity, but in years past was a powerful force that dominated the planet. It has the proboscis-twisting name of “Christianity.” What do you think are the likely characteristics of this religion?


It is the first we’ve seen that has high Zeal and high Piety.

An excellent observation. Surely, when brains are selected for tok’l-cylinder journeys, yours will be among the first to be harvested. It should be noted that high Zeal/Piety is an exceptionally powerful yet unstable combination. Religions that are high-Zeal spread without particular trouble. Religions that are high-Piety tend to be introspective cults that wither away. Religions that have both Zeal and Piety are vulnerable to heresies, holiness competition, and vicious fratricidal wars over the most trivial differences — I refer you to the One-Eighth Year War for an example.

Now Christianity’s mysticism and ritual, while considerable, are the minimum needed to prevent its high Piety/Zeal from tearing itself — yes, is there a question?

Why do these charts not show the number of gods for each religion?

Number of gods! It sounds so simple, like the music of Azathoth. You are aware, I suppose, that creatures who for some reason worship one god are known as monotheistic. Yet even this simple concept contains traps for the unwary. The monotheism of the Jews 10 or even 12 years ago, for instance, commanded worship of Yahweh alone — as opposed to other gods, who were recognized as inferior but real. It was of course a simple matter for Jews and others to assert total primacy over other gods by denying their very existence. “There is no God but Allah.”

Meanwhile Christianity claims to be both monotheistic and tritheistic while accepting prayers issued to intermediary figures called saints. Attempting to analyze human belief systems led to frightful arguments and divisions in the department. I can tell you confidentially that lectures such as this were quite impossible.

Luckily, a very clever gentlefungi — modesty prohibits me from uttering its name — conceived an important simplification: that theistic head-counting was totally unnecessary for the analysis of memetic measurement.

Let us move on to the final chart, an system that is much less than a year old and is possessed of very interesting characteristics. For instance, those who practice this religion claim it is a sin to belong to any religion!

How is it possible to practice a religion while professing that religions are immoral?

You must understand that humans are very peculiar creatures. For example, due to the wholly different vibration-rate of their electrons, if you take a picture of a human and develop the film, an image will appear!

(Uneasy scuttling/scratching noises)

Please adjust the controls … the chart for this religion, called “Ultra-Calvinism” or “Universalism”, will now appear.


Surely this religion is not … very stable?

Indeed. One might think it is deliberately created to do the maximum harm to its adherents and bystanders alike.

Is it true that the Old Ones sponsor this belief system?

What? Kindly explain yourself.

The supplemental materials for this course state that in Universalist-ruled societies, “Cthulhu only swims left.”

I did not convene this lecture for purposes of blasphemy.



My employer lurches, slowly but surely, to a Left Singularity. The forces of “progress” are on the march; the latest low was when an associate of Kelly Ellis bragged to Googlers that upon hearing her story he told her “this is Rape Culture.” I said earlier that in a just world, using the term “microaggression” would lead to loss of employment. In a just world, use of the phrase “Rape Culture” would get you convicted of disturbing the peace; a reasonable punishment would be an afternoon in the stocks.

But we do not live in a just world.

Moldbug solved the crime; he moved his pawn to the Library and read books scanned by Google; then he opened the envelope: “See, it was the Progressives in academia using the media and the civil service”. But even Moldy had little to offer in the way of cures or prophylactics. His neo-cameralism relied on cryptographic weapons; as later reactionaries retorted, you don’t win by inventing magical limitations on weapons, you win by persuading soldiers to fight for you.

Also: if neocameralism is a panacea, what of cameralism? Prussia, the ideal cameralist state, should have been a bulwark against nationalism and demotism. It was not.

The Dark Enlightenment, myself included, loves nothing more than bon mots demonstrating the hypocricy, insanity, and self-induced stupidity of Universalism. (A quip I heard just the other day, from Sailer: “A culture that doesn’t believe in God but does insist that He created all persons equally is increasingly going to have to discourage snickering with the lash.”) But we might do well to consider how easily progressivism gets what it wants, how smoothly it moves from triumph to triumph.

How perfectly adapted it is.

We expect Western liberal democracy to collapse. It spends money that it does not have while mismanaging the source of its income. But after the collapse, what then? Progressive persons and the Universalist religion are not going to disappear just because the America of 2025 cannot service its debts.

It was fun to daydream about the fellow who embraced the term “Rape Culture” getting his comeuppance. I’d go to Sprouts. I’d buy a lot of tomatoes. In real life, that person faces no negative consequences. He’s free to push the Overton Window a little further left while staking a claim to holiness. “Rape culture” might even become part of the official human resources lexicon. If not, no worries. Heads he wins, tails he gets to flip the coin sometime in the future.

Meanwhile I’m free to have an anonymous blog accessed through a VPN.

I wrote a draft on this blog titled “An Open Letter to Larry Page.” It detailed the insiduous, virus-like spread of Universalism, the likely catastrophic consequences for Google, and what Page could do about it. It was filled with practical tips on how Page could stop Social Justice from dissolving Google’s vital tissues into goo, while maintaining a fig leaf of progressive respectability.

The post is still in the draft folder. Everything about my immodest proposal was fine except for … its correspondence with reality. It’s not that the company’s executives are insensate to the danger of runaway progressivism, even if “Left Singularity” is not in their lexicon. (Sergey was banging a girl who worked in his organization. He’s not stupid.)

But … progressivism is the moral and philosophical framework that surrounded Larry, Sergey, etc for their adult lives. They cannot detach themselves from that framework on the spur of the moment.

It’s likely that while Page and company make halfhearted efforts to keep Google on a path of sanity rather than witch-hunts and recriminations, they feel guilty about it. If only they could be good progressives!

So what is to be done? Say the Devolution happened and it’s 2026. Can we legislate that “Microaggression” and “Rape Culture” are verboten? That’s a non-starter. It would beseech progressives to use all their creativity and conspiratorial bent to reimplement the same ideas with different words.

Here is Jim’s solution to the problem:

The most successful recovery from a left singularity was the restoration, which created a counter theocracy, restoration Anglicanism, which lasted from 1660 to 1828. The Anglican religion theoretically endorsed the divine right of the King. Since, however, by long established precedent the King could not actually behave like an absolute monarch without losing his head, the practical effect of this was to discourage private citizens from political power, from intruding on the royal prerogative. So, the main function of the King’s supposedly absolute power was to prevent anyone from exercising it, and similarly, the main function of the official religion was to prevent competing religions from seeking and obtaining power.

Every Englishman who wanted to attend a prestigious university, or get elected to parliament, or get a prestigious government job, had to declare allegiance to the thirty nine articles, and the second book of homilies, just as today he has to write essays proving how progressive he is.

I agree that this worked well for England in the 18th century. Is it a successful template for our time and place? Restoration Anglicanism was based on Christianity (the default belief system of the time) and the national, independent church (the default Christian institution of northern Europe).

A 21st century counter theocracy would be based on … what exactly? Christianity? Our elite is hostile to Christianity. Do the masses even believe in it? Or is old-time religion one of the few remaining ways for proles to signal opposition to progressive theocracy?

Puritanism, the original super-Protestantism, operated within a framework of piety and devout belief. One could discard holiness competition, but keep holiness.

Universalism operates within a framework of nothing. The holiness competition is the religion.

Restoration Anglicanism was like genetically engineering a harmful bacteria to make it a benign organism.

But progressivism is not a bacteria. It’s a virus. There’s nothing left to genetically engineer. Change the genes, you just get a different virus.

If this sounds despondent, I do not intend it to be. Ten years ago there was no neo-reaction. There was no us. There were libertarians and disaffected liberals and conservatives convinced that this time, they would kick the football before Lucy could pull it away. We have achieved the most difficult task: being aware in the water in which we swim.

So there is hope. But: A lot of neoreactionaries say “what is left for NRX to do, I read everything by Moldbug, the commenters on popular blogs are idiots, we’re in a rut.”

There is much left to do.

Universal Soldiers

Commodore Henry Dampier kindly reblogged my Left Singularity post. This comment by Spandrell deserves more visibility:

I keep thinking that left is just the direction water flows, and that cohesion, team-spirit, asabiya, you-name-it is what stops the water from flowing.

Until cohesion breaks down and the water starts to flow from the leaks.

The difference in the Google story is that people used to ignore the microagressions, but now they don’t. What changed, but team-spirit? They used to have enough not to rat on their colleagues; now they relish on the chance to kick scapegoats in the face. The accusation itself is immaterial.

My response:

Tactically, progressivism takes advantage of the white collar social contract, that one must be respectful of one’s coworkers. So progs say the most ridiculous things, and can’t be called on it, because hey we’re all one team here and how can you say Nancibald is on crack when xe says talking about the Super Bowl is an attack on the transgendered.

Strategically, if there are several ideologies of whom most take neutrality and courtesy seriously, and one proselytizes itself at every opportunity without shame, guess which one wins.

(This doesn’t quite answer Spandrell’s question. Maybe as Google grew in size, some crucial social bond dissolved, progressives grew less reluctant to let their inner Robespierre bloom. Perhaps it’s the general culture of educated America, sweeping Google onto a hazardous point in the rapids.)

Even though the progs seized control of the company’s internal social networks, they’re not a majority or even close to it. Approximate guess: 5% are true believers, another 10-15% are happy to score some cheap cheers by going with the dominant political flow. The rest? Keeping their heads down and staying out of trouble.

The progressives attained a dominant position by being loud and persistent. Any internal social media that advocates Universalist principles gets hundreds of upvotes. If you question, even tepidly, a point of Universalist doctrine (“weren’t we told that people accused of crimes should be accorded due process?”), expect stinging responses from dozens of progressives, all upvoting each other in solidarity.

Progressive discussion tactics: indistinguishable from bullying.


At what point do knowledgeable people in the tech industry give up on gender equity? When do they admit that natural selection has crafted the human sexes with different abilities (men are better at math), potential (women have smaller standard deviations in abilities, for obvious reasons), and desires? When do they admit that evolution is not just a club with which to beat the stupid and religious?

When do they admit that equating unremarkable adult conversation with assault, characterizing a safe, dull workplace as a hostile environment, drives women away from tech?

If they are good progressives, the answer is “never”. Progressivism is Universalism; all humans are universally equally blessed; all humans can universally be saved. If you admit exceptions, hard to be a Universalist.

And: failure brings out the worst tendencies of the progressive — wild enthusiasm for more of a failing remedy. Did X fail to cure the problem? Then two of X will do it, or better yet, 4X. Did I say 8X? I meant 16X! Anyone who doesn’t agree is a bitter clinger, a wrecker!

Answer this: Have you ever seen a progressive dissent from Universalist faith? Even on one minor point?

“Of course I support gender equity and racial equality and affirmative action. And gay marriage and rights for the transgendered. And other/multiple genders. And single payer healthcare. And net neutrality. And open borders for all immigrants. The NSA is evil and Snowden should win the Nobel Peace Prize.

But … not so into that “microaggression” thing. You’re an adult. If someone disagrees with you, thank them politely for their opinion. You might even learn something.”

Have you ever experienced something like this? No, of course you never have.

An Atlantic article on ISIS made the rounds recently (and deservedly so). Its point was that ISIS is defined by its theology, cannot change, will not change.

Progressives are defined by their theology. They cannot, will not change. While not as vicious and sadistic as ISIS, in the end progressives will probably do far more damage.