Jim acknowledges that the secular PUA and Christian Reactionary communities do seem to get along quite well, due to them sharing a number of common core beliefs about the world:
You will notice that the Pick Up Artist Community and the Christian Reactionary movement get along mighty well, despite the fact that Heartiste claims to be a minion of Satan, and despite the fact that they are in total disagreement about ultimate ends.Whether the Bible is historically accurate or not, it is undeniable that it is to western civilisation what Confucius' Analects is to eastern civilisation, both works having formed the bases on which morality, culture, social customs and more have sprung up around. And considering both have produced civilisations that have had longer track records than our current crumbling so-called democracies, I'd wager that these "iron-age fairy tales" have a couple of lessons that we are already rediscovering in our day and age - one example popularised by the Game community being that of female hypergamy = the Biblical Curse of Eve. As highlighted by various sections of the orthosphere, it's an interesting commentary on the truth of various subjects such as societal structure, human behaviour, sex relations, and so forth.
To quote Thumotic:
Christianity is either a beautiful and resilient set of useful reactionary myths about the nature of the world, or it is the literal word of God. Either way, any true Reactionary movement will march under the cross.One does not quite argue that since the Hare never raced the Tortoise, and indeed since animals cannot speak or hold races, that Aesop's Fables have nothing to teach us or it does not hold any points to be discussed, does it? From the secular reactionary's standpoint, the Bible is true on a moral level, so the actual historical accuracy of it is irrelevant. But naturally, as mentioned before, the progressive's religion is progress, and hence "iron-age fairy tales" are dismissed because...well they're "iron-age fairy tales".
As a side note, please do not conflate "Christianity" with "Churchianity".
Hence, even though I do not adhere to the Christian faith, I can still recognise the usefulness the Bible (and by extent, any other reactionary text) has, and indeed, while there is some sort of argument as to whether the belief system of the Reaction should be strictly Christian, generally theistic or secular along the lines of what Jim proposes, there needs to be some sort of religion to fill in that hole in peoples' heads.
Because you see, nothing has really changed. God has been replaced with Leviathan, the Church replaced with the Cathedral, priests replaced with scientists who insist that the interpretation of the entrails - I mean, "science" - must be left up to them and a simple, watered-down version fed to the masses. We have shed Mass for Wal-Mart chants, ancestor worship for Japanese company aerobics. Atheistkult exhibits the same blind, dogmatic fervor and attitude, happily making them the modern witch-hunters.
Instead of believing in unprovable, intangible gods, we believe in unprovable, intangible concepts such as "equality". Wait, there is a difference. Equality is falsifiable - and is clearly so, which is why the priests must work double-time to crush all crimethink.
The world turns, and things stay the same. The religion of Reason is most unreasonable, and indeed, judging by the state of the world today, doing quite a poorer job of being a constructive religion than that silly bearded man in the sky.
Where western civilisation is concerned, since it sprang out of Christianity, it would make most sense for the Reaction - at least where it comes to the faith of the masses - to return there. We gooks...we'll sort something out; I've taken a liking to feudal China, but naturally it had its problems, as does everything else. I'd like us to go back to the Analects and The Way of Tao as guiding forces for civilisation, but there might not be a going back in that regard.
It'll be interesting to see how things play out.