Logos and Agape: Civilization’s Foundational Theology

Theology: to most of us who’ve suffered from a modern Education it sounds like “Philosophy for the superstitious.” In reality it’s far more than that.  Theology isn’t some discipline intended only for the musings of celibate priests, any more than Economic Theory is something that only Professional Econometricians ought to understand – it’s so foundational that not only do our morals derive from it, but so too the very heuristics by which we judge morality in the first place.

Quite frankly, it’s Theology that makes up the ideological DNA of all Memetics.

Throughout the Manosphere and the Alt-Right there is a core Theological premise upon which we all agree, whether we know it or not; irrespective of whether we call ourselves Atheist or Christian (or Hindu, or Buddhist), this one principle unites us, and explains why staunch Atheists such as Aaron Clarey can use the word “Evil” un-ironically.  It is a simple binary which delineates the difference between Angelic and Demonic, between Christianity and Churchianity, between Right and Left, between Civilization and Barbarity.

It is the question: “Which comes first?  Logos or Agape?  Reason or Love?”

The Bible is pretty clear on the matter:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
~John 1:1

Jesus talks a fair bit about love and forgiveness, but the very first premise is the Law.  Reason, mathematics, the coherent universe – only once this has been established does love, can love enter into the equation.  Contrast for a moment to the Hippy ideology we were taught growing up: “God is love!  The universal spirit is love!  Love all mankind!” Or as that degenerate John Lennon put it, “All you need is love.”

Ann Barnhardt (a relatively sane woman) puts it thusly:

It’s actually quite simple. All of the Marxist-homosexualists are always going on and on about how giving people free stuff and letting people do whatever they want is the message of Christ and His Church, right? There is no sin, there is no hell, I’m okay – you’re okay, do what you want and give people free stuff because … wait for it … God is Love. And love means free stuff, never ever having to say you’re sorry, and sex.

The problem with this is that love PROCEEDS from logic and reason. Look at The Last Gospel. It’s right there in the very first verse. In the beginning was THE WORD. Verbum in Latin. Logos in the original Greek. Logos means logic and/or reason in the Greek. John identifies God NOT as “The Caritas” (Latin for love, which is the root of the word charity) or The Agape (Greek for the ultimate self-sacrificial love). John does not say, “In the beginning was the Love…” No, no. John identifies God as THE LOGOS. The Word. Logic and reason. Existential Reality.

The Greeks had three main words for Love; Caritas, Agape, and Eros (erotic love), and that just so happens to be a perfect way to break this down.  So lets go through these one-by-one to help demonstrate how we on the Right consistently use our intellect to guide our emotions, while those on the Left start with their feeeeelings and use the rationalization hamster to explain why other people need to tolerate it.

Eros: Erotic Love

1. Game

The very premise of Game is chock-full of Logos.  It presupposes that there primordial, evolutionary psychological reasons for why women choose certain men over others.  Game has two primary stages.  First the study of what works, the trial-and-error of field research, the hypothesis-experiment-theorizing of the scientific method.  Ten years ago we had Ladder Theory – just look at how far we’ve come since then.  Second there’s the application.  Letting your balls drop and overcoming approach anxiety; developing inner game and growing into the sort of man who deserves a top-notch woman.  Becoming well-read, becoming successful, and learning how to touch her inner core so that she swoons.  Logos first, and then Eros.

What sort of advice do those whom the SPLC finds acceptable offer? “Just be yourself!  You can’t argue with your heart!  Love happens when you least expect it!” – and let’s not even get started on the Fat Acceptance Movement.  They start with the Eros, “Oooh, he’s a drummer in an indie band!” and use the Logos to justify it.  No responsibility, no forethought, just blindly bouncing through life like a malformed billiard ball.

2. Marriage

Dalrock has already put it best in his post Lovestruck:

What nearly all modern Christians have done is place romantic love above marriage.  Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage.  This inversion is subtle enough that no one seems to have noticed, but if you look for it you will see it everywhere.

“Oops, it just happened!  We woke up next to one another after getting hammered at the bar, and then eventually we got married!” While getting married at all is a pretty stupid idea nowadays, marrying a girl whom you haven’t thoroughly vetted, simply because it’s the first time you’ve gotten your dick wet in six months and are suffering a bad case of oneitis, is the height of foolishness.

Furthermore, look at the reasons for dissolution of marriage: traditional marriage came with mutual obligations from both parties (Love, Honour, and Cherish versus Love, Honour, and Obey), and while there were justified, at-fault divorces back in the day, the basis of the divorce was Logos – Reason – that is to say, one of the two had broken the contract.

Nowadays?  It’s ’til death do us part… or we fall out of love.  Feeeeelings come first, and it’s up to the courts to sort it all out.  ‘Nuf said.

Caritas (Charitable Love)

1. Aumann’s Agreement Theorem

Throughout the Alt-Right you’ll find dozens of opinions and ongoing debate; we’ve got Libertarians, Monarchists, Anarchists, Reactionaries, Austrians, Goldbugs, Bitcoiners, Minarchists, and plenty of others I’ve neglected to mention.  Unlike Left-wing diversity – where people look different but all say the same thing – we’ve got a real diversity of opinion over here.  And yet all of us – every single person on the Right who’s picked a horse in the race – bases their opinions on logic and reason.  Gut instinct plays a role in telling us what to research, and none of us have yet discovered Solomon’s Key, but at the end of the day it’s facts and provable theory that guide us.

That we agree on so much is a testament to the fact that we’re doing something right.

Contrast to how the Left organizes – Feminists, Democrats, and even Neocons – they start with a feeling, a Caritas attitude about loving your neighbour and not judging, and yet they can’t agree on anything.  They form their little cliques, support groups for the amygdalae deprived, with extreme out-group/ingroup viciousness, and yet their beliefs are incoherent.  There’s a party line which they all toe, but if there’s one thing writing about feminism has taught me is that it’s as variable as the weather.  Sex-positive sea-cows, vs All Sex is Rape lesbians; and yet somehow they’re all on the same side.

Our allies are those whom we respect and trust; theirs are whoever makes them feel safe.

2. The Wealth of Nations

When it comes to matters of industry, economics, and charity, once again, us on the Right use our brains first.  Oh, there’s debate – there’s plenty of debate! (the funny thing about the Laffer Curve is that you can never know where you are on it) – but our approach to the matter is tough and fatherly, enabling intelligent conversation.  For example, take the following statements:

  • Raising taxes may be necessary, but it will stifle business
  • Large companies and vested interests shouldn’t have too much regulatory power
  • You want the input from major players when you write regulations affecting them
  • Some people – through misfortune or inability – will require charity
  • Welfare naturally breeds dependence (people respond to incentives)

Though we all agree on these premises, they result in hours-long conversations, full of facts and historical examples, where everyone involved learns a thing or two.  But though we’re all trying to figure out the best result, none of us will shy away from doing something that’s uncomfortable, so long as it’s necessary.

Do I even need to talk about how the Left thinks about matters economic?  I think this lady covers it well enough:

Feel-good outcomes are the premises they start with; Helicopter Bernanke will take care of the rest.

Agape

This is the big one; selfless love.  Your love of your fellow man, and your willingness to forgive those who trespass against you.  For a civilized society to exist we must be more than vengeful brutes, and though the Manosphere loves to advocate Randian selfishness, this is mainly a response to the misandry which holds us guilty for everything; quite frankly, it would be more accurate to call it enlightened self-interest.

Those who treat us well, we treat well.  We don’t hold others up to standards which we don’t hold to ourselves.  And should anyone show true contrition, we would be willing to forgive them.

Maybe this is all too obvious.  Let’s look at how the left behaves, instead.

Their version of selfless love is White Guilt.  A perpetual mea culpa, opening their arms wide and refusing to judge any of the masses who rush in.  Did somebody murder your daughter?  Forgive them – even if they didn’t plead guilty, or make any effort to apologize.  Hand over your economy, your country, your physical body for their usage-

Let them kill the goose that lays the golden egg.  Because you love them.

Love yourself, too, and take whatever is needed for your benefit – after all, isn’t mankind one big happy family?  Is this word a giant pot-luck?  Eat whatever you want, protest whatever you want, sue whomever you want, and fuck whomever you want – with no regard for yourself, for your children, for your country, or for what the future consequences are.

Don’t judge, just live!

And always be true to yourself.

Conclusion

All of reality boils down to a simple theological distinction – which came first?  Truth – or Love?

Those who answer Love turn the world into their oyster – no action is questionable, no lust immoral. “Do what thou wilt, and that shall be the whole of the law.” Inevitably, every society is infested by a few such creatures, but seldom before has an entire civilization embraced such a system.

The early adopters get 1969, and never suffer for it; the single mothers get to blame patriarchy, the AIDS patients get to blame homophobia – and besides isn’t pain just a different perspective?  But over time, when the whole society rejects Truth and Natural Law (whether it be morality or economics), degeneration is inevitable.

That’s the world we live in, Men of the West; a rampant orgy of violence and drug addiction, mortgaging the future to pay for the present.  A world without reason – a feminized world – a world of feelings.

But some of us – many of us – have always held Truth as sacred, deep in our souls, and despite all of their brainwashing they couldn’t tear it out.

We bear the Light of Civilization, Men.

You’ve heard of animals chewing off a leg to escape a trap. There’s an animal kind of trick. A human would remain in the trap, endure the pain, feigning death that he might kill the trapper and remove a threat to his kind.
~Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam, Dune

Share Button

Davis M.J. Aurini

Trained as a Historian at McMaster University, and as an Infantry soldier in the Canadian Forces, I'm a Scholar, Author, Film Maker, and a God fearing Catholic, who loves women for their illogical nature.

You may also like...

11 Responses

  1. Bert says:

    The Greeks had philia, eros, and agape.

    Caritas is a Latin word.

    Also, caritas has different connotations than philia.

  2. will says:

    An explanation to the meaning of Agape:
    http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatlove.html

  3. will says:

    Without truth there is no Agape. For Agape can only be Agape when Justice is meted out. When Evil the Source of Suffering and death is minimized. And the maximization of Good: All that is Beautiful. All that is harmony. And all that brings about joy and happiness in the end. Growth and prosperity. Spiritual and physical. All the good gifts that come from God.

  4. Sean says:

    Well done. (slow appreciative clap)

  5. Chevalier de Johnstone says:

    This is gold, especially in combination with your video regarding the problems with the poorly-named “anarcho-capitalism” (which implies that you can have a market system without the enforcement of, say, contracts.)

    So many in the Reactosphere fail to understand that the only viable alternative to the pseudo-religious belief system of progressivism must be an alternate belief-system. As you say, “We are not merely economic agents.” Agency requires intent, and intent requires teleology, purpose. Maximizing individual liberty is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

    Stating this as a choice between Truth and Love, Logos and Agape, is a very intelligent means of explanation. Of course this requires an agreement on what “Truth” is, but that’s the point. The opposite of progressivism is voluntary progress, a communal (not the same as communist) choice as to what is the purpose of society — this is the foundation of civilization. Progressivism leads always to authoritarianism (but not autocracy, otherwise known as monarchy) because the maxim of “Do what you want” leaves progressives open to having someone else decide what it is they ought to want.

    This is why it is vital that we, who oppose this involuntary progressivism, decide on and communicate what it is that we want; what we believe to be the purpose of human society, in other words the foundational truth or logos on which proper moral action is based. Then and only then can we design and implement a system which helps us achieve these goals. The system is not the goal, it is a tool for achieving it.

  6. dg says:

    The interpretation of “do what thou wilt” here, for better or for worse, is the shallow one used by many wiccans (and some other neopagans). Looking at alternate contexts, it’s not just “do whatever you want to do” but a statement that will is the guidance behind action. Reworking what you “will” reworks your own behaviors. At even a non-supernatural level, “magick” is learning to mentally rework your assumptions and thought processes to change behaviour and results. Also – with maturity comes the recognition that this concept applies to EVERYONE (and the universe at large is highly impersonal). That you have to operate in a universe where someone else may wish to react “badly” to you doing whatever the hell you want. Especially if the consequences affect them.

    Sadly, the vast, vast majority of so-called “Wiccans” haven’t done any heavy reading into the origins of their (mostly made up) religion, or the philosophies behind it. They’re getting away from christianity, and mommy and daddy’s “repression” and don’t seem to realize that while “do what thou wilt” can be a good focus tool to fight scarcity mentalities as well as to learn to rethink assumptions, they don’t even WANT to recognize boundaries, physical or social or other people, on what they can do. They’re all too often still children in grown up bodies playing make-believe. And they don’t want anyone to tell them “no”.

    The asatru are a more interesting crowd as honor/duty/etc. as concepts tend to run heavier through that community and there’s a lot less chance of interpreting a statement like that as “do what you like with no consequences..”

  7. dg says:

    … and thank you for this, and the last video, which wonderfully explained all the reasons I could never buy into “Capital-L” libertarianism as an ideology or a party to ally myself with despite many agreements in general principle.

  8. Boehme says:

    Very well analysed and written, Sir! Having some theological background, I have often thought about how love and law/reason relate to each other along similar lines. This perspective of course happens to be that of most of traditional Christianity from St Paul to C.S. Lewis. I may not, however, as clearly have seen how fundamental this dicotomy is and how well it can be equated with a right/left perspective of society.

    The woolly religious liberal may of course claim that “God is Love” and that God is the origin of things. Well, what could be called love may well be the force in shaping the universe, or a society or a marriage. But “the Word/logos was God” as well, and at our humble dwellings, it is necessary to build marriages and societies on law and reason in order to create a space where love can survive and perhaps even thrive.

    But leftists at least since Foucault also incessantly talk about oppressive “power structures” that have to be demolished (“deconstructed”). This makes good sense, since the left is the chaos force of society, though most of them are too stupid to realise it.

    But since there is no obvious reason to assume that leftists are more unintelligent than others, how does this stupidity arise? There is either self-delusion or self-hatred at work here. Or simple hate, which blinds people as well. (A recent Swedish survey showed that people who vote to the left are more unhappy than others). And hate of reason (“the male logos”) and structures is a sign of immaturity and/or perverted feminity.

    I don’t know if the sadly defective view of love that you have outlined above is the biggest driving force in dismantling traditional society or if it is hate of tradition and reason, but they reinforce one another.

  1. May 17, 2013
  2. May 17, 2013

    […] has a piece up that includes the following […]

  3. May 21, 2013

    […] and Agape: reason comes before love. Related: Some people need civilization beaten into […]