Time to read: approximately 22 minutes.
Fulfillment & Technology
It is important, for survival, that you live a life which is fulfilling. Lack of fulfillment is a sign that you live in an alien environment, in an environment that is unsuitable to you. Living in such an environment, for enough generations, drives evolution. The species or tribe will adapt to the environment. Genetic adaptation, evolution, is a kind of death, since it changes the identity of the species or tribe.
Many technologies cause this type of unnatural lack of fulfillment. For example, birth control, and the extremely unusual sexual dynamics that it creates. If you force yourself, though, to be fulfilled - in this case, to marry a woman or to fornicate productively etc - you will delegitimize, and disuse, those technologies that would cause your species or tribe to evolve into a type that is suitable to those technologies.
Take, also, the example of certain unnatural, mass produced, and very poor quality foods. The lack of fulfillment attended by eating these foods is a sign that the body is not quite designed to eat them. Continuing to eat them, for enough generations, would cause the body to evolve, and so change its identity, to be designed to eat them. By insisting on fulfillment, and thus refusing to eat them, you cause them to be disused, demanded less, likely produced less, and thus you preserve the current identity of the human body rather than allow it to evolve.
Humans are technological creatures, and technology is not bad. However, technology should maintain homeostasis despite a changing environment, rather than create a hostile environment. It is indicated to do the latter when it causes humans to be displeased. It is also indicated to do the latter, in the special case, of technologies that hijack the human brain to feel fulfillment or pleasure artificially. For example, overprescribed psychiatric medications which treat general human emotions like “anxiety” or “depression”. Also for example, highly photo-realistic video games. These things, used often enough for long enough, will replace mankind with a new species. It is not in your interest to allow that species to come forth.
An organism either succeeds within its environment, or dies. Whether it dies completely, or becomes a different type of organism, it dies either way. For an organism to create an environment in which it does not succeed is suicide.
Superior Adaptations
All adaptations increase one’s fitness in a given environment. This is the mechanism by which they work. However, adaptations may also coincidentally increase or decrease one’s fitness in other future environments. This is why it is possible for some species, and certain types of humans, to be categorically superior to others, rather than only superior relative to some certain environment. Categorically superior adaptations occur when the shaping environment is stripped down to bare reality-factors. For example, the factor of scarcity caused scarcity-adaptations in Northern Europe, and even the most abundant locations exhibit resource scarcity.
Mass Genes
Related to the first section above, the question arises why mutation is allowed to occur, if it can so thoroughly destroy an organism as to make an aquatic tetrapod into a human. The reason is, that contrary to appearances, humans share most of their genome with many other dissimilar-looking creatures. For example, 90% of the human genome is replicated in Abyssinian cats. This is true of many, many creatures. Thus, it is evident that mutations, even quite drastic in nature, are advantageous to this shared pool of genes. Looking at it this way, humans are merely one form that is utilized by these “mass genes”, as are cats, dogs, chimpanzees, mushrooms, etc. At a genetic level, mutations are disadvantageous to the genes that get mutated, because this represents their death, but can nonetheless be in the service of the remaining genes. Since it is apparent that the “mass genes” rarely change, it is evident that they, or some portion of them, have a resistance to mutation, whether due to their properties suppressing it or because natural selection decides they are highly instrumental in a wide array of environments. Whatever the case, mutation is for their sake, and clearly not for the sake of the genes that are destroyed and replaced as a result.
“Mass genes” are to be looked at as a force of nature that must be obeyed. That is, in order for you, the current form that you are, in its entirety, to continue existing, you must prove to the mass genes within you that you can adequately serve them, rather than some other form. It is impossible for you to defy them, since they primarily constitute you. You prove your worth, to them, by showing them that you are versatile, that you can master all environments, that you can destroy environments to make them accord with yourself, so that your mass genes do not have to destroy you to make themselves accord with a new environment. The way to do this, as aforementioned, is to live in the most pleasant and natural environment possible, since non-artificial pleasure is a reliable indication that there is no environmental strain. This can also be applied to individuals, and here lies political and social conflict. To some, it is pleasant to be conventionally “hedonistic”, to others frugal, to others striving, etc. It is best for all if these various tendencies can coincide, and work together within a common super-organism, but this is not always possible. For example, the natural hedonists are often at war with the dharmic natural puritans, who derive their pleasure not from short term consumption but long term dominance. When either one wins political control, they marginally (and sometimes greatly, as a result of persecutions) reduce the fitness of the other by instituting their desired system.
Every organism by definition acts so as to replicate itself. This also occurs, interestingly, and as you can probably reason from the previous dialogue, within different levels of a given organism. Genes replicate themselves, but so do organisms, and so do super-organisms. Your genes, it follows, can potentially be in conflict with you, since it is possible for the mass of your genes to pursue their interest while discarding the interest of a large portion of your genes that constitute you. You, it follows, can potentially be in conflict with your super-organism, since it is possible for you to pursue your interest while discarding the interests of the mass of the population. A super-organism, it follows, can potentially be in conflict with a super-super-organism (two or more insular populations that happen to cohabitate as part of one political and economic unit) if one should choose to gain by attacking the other. The larger organisms, however, cannot be in conflict with the smaller, except that they may deny them an opportunity for advancement. For example, you cannot battle your mass genes without also destroying yourself, except that you may deny them the ability to mutate you for their own gain. Your super-organism cannot battle you without also destroying a piece of itself, except that it may prevent you from living selfishly at the common expense. This one may seem untrue, but you have to carry the analogy faithfully: a particular mass gene is not actually singular within the body, but part of a copied “stock” distributed across various cells. So it is no matter if a super-organism sends you individually to die in a war. The point is, it cannot eliminate your stock without at the same time modifying itself. Speaking phenotypically, it could not send all warrior-types to die in a war, because this extinction would be a modification of its own properties, which are no more than a conglomerate of everything within it. Speaking genetically, it could not eliminate all the genes save for those you do not have, without destroying its own nature. This is what “you” means in this context, just as “gene” means all of the copies of a given segment in the previous case. To be most exact, speaking genetically, “you” means “all of the copies of all segments in all bodies that are represented in your body”. Just as you are mass genes and a little bit more, a super-organism is “you” and a little bit more, since you do not have all of the genes of everyone similar to you. This serves the same purpose for “you” that you serve to mass genes, which is to provide a certain amount of diversity and specialization.
Continuing further: A super-super-organism cannot battle a super-organism without destroying half of itself, except that it may deny one the opportunity to steal from the other.
This is all to say, the higher organisms can only be hostile to their constituents by maintaining order, while their constituents can be hostile to them by causing disorder. Although I should say, “cannot gainfully”, since it is possible for any higher level organism to commit suicide, usually by accident.
It follows, further, that lower level organisms have an incentive to cause disorder unless the higher level organism serves them. The nature of this service is different at different levels, which is why mass genes, organism, super-organism, and super-super-organism are not simply a hierarchy, but a set of qualitatively different things. The service you perform for your mass genes is to help them reproduce by mastering your environment and providing diversification from other species that share the same mass genes. Your super-organism provides this same service to you and gives you a homogenous mating pool to reproduce within, since sexual organisms cannot survive by breeding with those who are not homogenous. The super-super-organism provides both of these services to a super-organism (the second service aforementioned, insofar as super-super-organisms are founded by fusing one population to the next most similar population) and gives each a source of more-homogenous genetic diversity to draw from. A super-super-super-organism requires some additional explanation. It is not merely a super-super-organism with three super-organisms, but rather one super-super-organism fused to another, i.e with a lower level of affinity to that super-super-organism than to the super-organisms within it. For example England, Scottish Lowlands, and Normandy may be fused to Scottish Highlands and Ireland, the first being the English Channel super-super-organism and the second being the Insular Celtic one (here I am making the claim that Englishmen are on the whole more similar to Normans than to Highlanders and Irishmen, and that Highlanders are descended from Irishmen). At this point, the organism does not provide anything qualitatively different from the previous organism. This actually makes sense: there are diminishing returns to further levels of organization, which is why the level of symbiosis decreases, and the level of exploitative behavior increases markedly as we go beyond this level.
“True super-super-super organisms” can be divined by a long term study of national borders and population movements. For example, Ireland is not currently part of England, but it was for much of English history. Likewise America is composed (decreasingly so) of an English stock from prior population movements. Likewise England continuously received population inflows from Lower Saxony and Denmark. Likewise England continuously received population inflows from Northern France, when it was Gaul, and when it was Normandy. England did not, however, ever have intercourse with e.g Saxony-Anhalt, or Marseille, or Sweden, except very long ago ancestrally, which necessarily has less of an impact on current affiliations. Banking on fellow-feeling from foreign nations that are outside of this sphere, or controlled by a ruling class or democratic population that is outside of a particular related province, is not reliable. It follows that it is beneficial to liberate particular related provinces in otherwise unrelated countries, as if England took Normandy, since the natural loyalty of that province is otherwise obscured by people from Lorraine, Burgundy, etc. This would put a province like Normandy in an interesting position, since it may have an equal relation to both of the warring parties, so in that case it would do whatever was most practical and it would likely resent the attacker by default.
It follows, further, politically, that a nation per se cannot do otherwise than advance its tribal welfare, despite whatever ideology it may LARP, but that rogue elements of a nation can subvert it by acting against its interests for personal gain. For example, a politician may consent to take in a great number of refugees. It follows, further, that all national degeneration is the result of particular elements that must be expunged, since it is impossible for a nation itself to act other than nationalistically, and it can readily be observed that every nation has certain “bastions” such as the military and intelligence services that carry the tribal will of the nation per se. Unless, however, these services are appropriated to a “super-organism of high degree”, such as a far-flung empire without an ethnic ruling class. In this case tribes are deprived of these organs, and they begin to serve the personal interests of rogues rather than tribes. Imperial Rome came to exemplify this, and the United States begins to. I am afraid to say that this arrangement can last for quite a long time, as it did in Rome, although it is by no means a historical principle that is must occur, it just can.
It is interesting that organisms, from the standpoint of genes, are more similar to the economic unions aforementioned than to tribes. The genes within you do not have tribal fellowship with other genes within you (though they do with individual copies of DNA segments, which may produce some interesting results upon study - maybe they help each other?). Rather, they all work together to reproduce themselves symbiotically. It is likely, upon biological study, that some jockeying would be found between genes as they struggle to make their way into finite gametes. Genetic fellowship, from the standpoint of a gene, is to be found among other people, and from the standpoint of mass genes, other organisms. Since they partially comprise you, this is also partially true of you, in relation to how many genes you share with a person or organism, and here is the source of tribal loyalty between people.
Selfishness and selflessness are matters of individual strategy and circumstance. If you can take a hit to 10% of your genome (as a simplification. The real number would be far smaller), by dying, yet greatly advance 90% of it by advancing your tribe in death, then it would be worth it. But you would not throw your life away for society’s meager benefit. Nor would you voluntarily choose to become a banana, if your mass genes so decreed it, because this would be too much of a hit to your genome. You become a banana only if you lose, if you as an organism die, and your mass genes replace you with another type of organism. Your ancestors, ogres that they were, died, and their mass genes replaced them with you. You have to try to extend your remit indefinitely, and (I decree) there is a subset among you, which will be highly represented among Templists, that actually has the ability to do this.
This is certainly not impossible, and many species have continued on indefinitely since their inception. For example, horseshoe crabs have existed in their present form for 445 million years. Only, the subset of humanity that survives indefinitely will not only exist for millenia on Earth, but also have the capacity to transcend the environmental boundaries of the planet, going beyond Earth. This race may properly be known as homo galactica.
I must make the following warning for fools: the mass genes must always be propitiated, and never fought. Some idiots, reading this, may think, “I shall defeat my mass genes by scientifically inoculating myself to mutation!” While to a small extent, this may be beneficial, it is on the whole worse than evolution. For, if you evolve, at least your mass genes are preserved, but if you do not, then you just die. This is especially true because one does not immediately morph into an entirely different creature, but gradually evolves into something different enough to survive. Only an incredibly technologically advanced race could afford to do this kind of inoculation. It would bet: mutations in genes are rendered superfluous by my mutations in the environment, so I no longer have to pay the price, but make the environment do so! The ability to do so implies a great deal of virtue, and virtuous qualities go together (dharma), so let no one conjure the rebuttal of a fat slob who engineers a masturbation machine. That is not what would happen. The sort of person who derives pleasure from that type of existence will not accomplish it, rather he will die. I am talking rather about those who will refuse to use technologies that have unnatural consequences, who will terraform planets, who will insist that long term space voyages have trees and forests, who will conserve natural environments, who will decimate alien environments and populations that get in their way, etc.
To the strong organism, “evolution is imperative” does not mean “we must become better”, but “you should all die and I should replace you”, because evolution, I should remind you, has death of individual genes or whole organisms as its only mechanism. The struggle for existence means not submitting to death, but making someone or something else pay the price of change, death of its identity, when there is a conflict. It is unfortunate for you that lower order self-replicators, such as mass genes, have an inherent advantage, since they necessarily constitute you but you do not necessarily constitute them. Therefore be useful to your whole self or become a fraction of it. Be entirely fulfilled, an indication of high biological fitness, or your unfulfilled portions will change as you die or are outcompeted.
Self-Symbiotic Genes
As it relates to the above, some genes may be characterized as “self-symbiotic”. Not everyone has these. A self symbiotic gene, or a cluster of complementary genes that are together self-symbiotic, is one that derives its success by pushing an organism to strive for its own success. That is, its total success, maintaining all of its genes, not only the success of particular qualities. This type of gene would motivate someone to heed the previous advice, while a disposition lacking in such genes would render a person apathetic to it. Neither self-interested hedonists nor selfless drones are really advancing their self interest. The former short-termists are only called “self interested” because they appear to distinguish their interests from collective interests, but this says nothing about what consequences they actually reap. Defiance can be selfless, destroying one’s life as a heretical adventurer can open up new paths for one’s race as one pursues a personal fortune he never attains. There is a difference between serving one’s will and serving one’s biological self.
In the self-symbiotic-gene-having population, these are the same. They are the same with a high level of precision. Thus, the individual is conscious of his biological self and takes rather deliberate steps to advance it, such as by advancing a religious creed that does so. He is not a caricatured selfless man nor a caricatured selfish man, but does whatever is in his genetic interest. Almost every proper king has been like this. Neither selfless nor selfish, taking on personal projects and (literal) crusades that can not be explained by accumulative desires, but also reserving entire forests for himself to hunt, decreeing execution or castration for trespassers.
Did we not see, in the Iliad, this very dynamic? Did the characters who lusted for concubines and glory win anything, or did they die so that their race could win dominance over a foreign people? And which members of that race survived? The conscientious, sly, and humble fellow, Odysseus, and the wise and self-centered strategist, Nestor, survived, but all of the others suffered ruin. Would Achilles wish to have survived if he did not win glory? No, he would not. Hence, he did not have a self-symbiotic gene(s), but rather a super-organismal-torpedo gene(s), whether those genes caused him to frame the issue as “wanting glory for himself” or not. He died for Odysseus, he improved the quality of Odysseus’ estate, because Odysseus is marginally related to him. Why Odysseus? The super-organism has its own will, and the ability to set favored elements against others. It selects the self-symbiotic to survive, and the non-self-symbiotic to be sacrificed, because the self-symbiotic are deliberate biological actors and thus serve as venerable heads of super-organismal tribes. Just as, indeed, Nestor was said to be very old, and a wise folk-strategist he was, impelling Achilles and Agamemnon to die on his behalf!
But why does not a super-organism prefer to breed a Super-Organismal-Symbiotic character? One who would serve the race but also not himself. It does this also, but this type of person is not a leader. This is because leaders must first of all survive, or all is chaos. So the interests of the Self-Symbiotic-gene-having character are perfectly aligned with the super-organism. He himself knows this, because he cannot reproduce without a homogenous super-organism to sustain him. This is the mastery of the Merovingian race that has been throughout alluded to.
This is how Templists, by various philosophical means, are encouraged to view the world. Self-symbiotic genes, elitism, virtue, etc. The point is, fools and servants look up to their masters and die for them, and they are born again and again to do so, and their masters again and again to lead them for their own personal genetic benefit, and this arrangement works super-organismally. I am portraying it as point of pride for the self-symbiotic simply because Templists are that way, and because such people are usually more virtuous than the general public, but really each strategy works or it would not exist. But not everyone who is looked down upon needs to be utterly worthless. It is normal to look down upon those of inferior rank, as this is how hierarchy forms, and what it primally consists of. Pride and condescension are, to egalitarians, rewards for “being a good boy”, but to elitists, practical tools necessary to maintain organizational cohesion in addition to being rewards for “virtue”, as these (as I have repeatedly shown) occur at the same time within the same individuals. Not everyone who “validates his usefulness” needs to therefore raise himself to the highest level of egomania possible, so one can fully “be a good boy” and yet still respect the superiority of a commander, as Achilles to Nestor. This lesson of authentic elitism is repeated throughout the Canon and is highly important to the Imperium. Thus my glorification of the self-symbiotic is a further way of illustrating rank; Templists are taught by various means who is and who will be of rank. They are taught what the virtuous qualities are, how kings behave, etc, so that they know where exactly to apply their doctrine of elitism. Otherwise, self-professed elitists often choose “me”, of course, and “I” am usually some random idiot. They are taught who to obey, and who to replace (see below). We wish to do away with “I lead because the people chose me”, “I lead because God says that I must”, and to provide the framework necessary for a nation to say “no, you are not a leader”. Obviously, the Ideal Succession System spoken of in Kings greatly requires this sort of framework, as a minimum.
I iterate, also, that loser members of the upper class, who make their money on being nerds, accountants, technologists, and who spend their money to establish the Starving Children’s Fund For African Foreigners, are not leaders, but drones who should be beneath a real leader to serve their allotted functions on his behalf, that he may better confiscate their money and build monuments to himself with it, than allow it to be spent so ignobly. When a natural imperative that isn’t that of a leader leads, there is a lack of leadership. Selfless servants, logisticians, innovators, etc, are not leaders. You will have states designed to assist the poor, move quickly, and produce technology, respectively, but only leaders have the qualities necessary to sublimate all ends to tribal survival and most importantly their own.
Zeal
It is a frequent criticism of Templism that it is facetious, sort of like a parody religion, or a vain attempt at constructing that which can only be…(critics usually do not get any further, except that they make some vague noises about divinity, though of course all religions that come to exist were at one time constructed, and construction is not at odds with…something or other), and that it doesn’t take itself seriously. This could be assumed from a cursory view of the text, which says for example:
“Is The Author offering belief in the gods to appease theists, or are the gods offering skepticism about themselves to appease atheists? Both are examples of elitist pragmatism. Who is practicing elitist pragmatism, in the Templist Canon, is up to you.”
“Many aspects of Templism are lies for those who may require them.”
Etc, and also the lack of traditional legitimizing tactics such as the discovery of golden plates, the revelation in a cave, the direct connection to God, and so on.
Likewise, from the methods that Templists sometimes use to propagate the doctrine, such as the posting of memes, joking, making thinly veiled ruses, media stunts, etc.
But anyone who is not a fool can reason thus: that a religion that proclaims itself to lie sometimes is not wholly false, nor necessarily false in its divinity, and may be useful regardless. That traditional legitimizing tactics such as the discovery of golden plates actually have no relationship to divinity or truth, being as they are ruses, and being as truth does not depend on the existence of golden plates in the ground. That the use of jokes, or any method, to propagate an idea, does not refute the thing that is propagated, this being the converse case of the former. That it is evident from the quality of other religions, whatever they claim, that they are more false than Templism, yet they say they are true, which is an additional falsehood, while Templism appears from its quality to be more true, but even allows for its falsehood.
The question arises: why prefer jokes and other such methods to more impactful ruses? The answer is: because those who are initially attracted to Templism, its vanguard, are not supposed to be easily affected by ruses. Additionally, some traditionalists have underestimated the extent to which human understanding has genuinely advanced. Someone uneducated, malnourished, who only knows his locality, who knows how to work his farm and nothing else, knows nothing about whether the discovery of “golden plates” is actually plausible nor what it logically does or does not vindicate. People generally, now, do know these things, which is why genuine belief in such religious tales has fallen significantly. It is true that a more plausible legitimacy-narrative could be constructed for the sake of such people, but this would not suffice for the Templist vanguard. It is deliberate that the Vanguard are supposed to find Templism before anyone else, the initial Harbingers notwithstanding, so that it does not pay off to declare stupid nonsense, which itself would be harmful because it would make Templism less true for short term gains, in order to gain inferior followers before gaining the natural Templists, as then the vanguards would not be natural Templists, but Apostolic fools.
And yet, Templism is established by Templist Canon sola scriptura. But it is true nonetheless that the initial followers of a religion set a certain example, even if that example may not be canonical. More importantly, their efforts can make or break the religious movement from the start. Most importantly, their position as vanguards provides them with authority, which can be used to benefit them personally. Templism is designed to bring about the preeminence of a Templist-kind, of religious and political leaders who are of a certain type, who will band together to rule according to proper norms which include as a matter of principle their own preeminence.
What is zeal-inducing about Templism to its Vanguard? Nothing to do with the discovery of magic rocks, but because it is insightful, generally true, generally useful, sound in its arguments, able to provide arguments in the first place, clear, exhaustive, and that the arguments it provides for the existence, influence, and especially the necessity of divinity are sound, no matter if I also throw out “this might be false” for fools who can do nothing other than internalize statements to see the words “might be false” and so think “I am now skeptical”.
November 1, 2023
i like the way all your writing just ends, as if you had no plan to begin with or conclusion to come to and you simply got tired of writing and decided to stop there