Culture

Seeking Immortality In Racism

by

There’s a certain kind of man out there we’ve all seen who has a very predictable downward spiral personally and ethically.

He is aging. Perhaps swiftly, more swiftly than usual thanks to lifestyle choices and, ironically, attempts to extend his lifespan.

He starts to make very racist statements. This doesn’t mean he’s just become racist – indeed it is more likely revealing his beliefs and pathologies, and they’re often getting worse. He’s very concerned about other races and of course his. Almost certainly this person is what we’d call White – very White.

He becomes obsessed with genetics and fitness and pseudo-Darwinism. Again, this is perhaps more a revelation than an evolution. But suddenly he’s quite concerned, dare I say radically so.

He is obsessed with reproduction. His race (again, usuallyWhite) must reproduce, though what that race is doesn’t seem to make sense. Perhaps he invokes some kind of generic Whiteness, breathtakingly meaningless in its attempt to lump together people of many backgrounds. He might invoke “European” origins in some unitary manner, as if Europe hasn’t had a history of its people murdering each other in wars for ages.

Inevitably, his obsession with reproduction becomes creepy (or is revealed to be such). He tries to have children with many women. He discusses the fertility of underaged girls in obsessive detail. Perhaps he divorces his wife to marry someone that could be his daughter – or grandaughter. One gets the feeling that this is revelation of and justification of behaviors warranting not just consideration but investigation.

So let me propose that such a man – such men as we are all too used to – are seeking immortality in their racism. Racist they almost certainly are, but there is even more there in the pathology.

They are aging, aging before our eyes and theirs. They have lived life, perhaps being quite successful, but no one can bribe time, only live inside it. They may also be failures, looking back with regret, wanting something to look forward to. Rich or poor, famous or obscure, the flames of history slowly consume them.

So they seek something to give them a sense of immortality, of pemanance in an ever-changing world, and settle on something easily seized on by the pathological – racism. They invest in the survival of their so-called race, whatever bundle of bigotries and demographics they’ve latched on to. They become obsessed with reproduction, both theirs and others, hoping for the immortality in future generations of a specific race.

Of course, their own personal problems become our problems as we’re all to well aware of what fearful bigots can do. Perhaps we didn’t realize how bad they were, but as they got older they got worse, rotting from the inside. Now, many of them at their peak – in age if not wealth – seek to conquer time and they can’t, and it’s our problem.

When I see some White man, aging, obsessed with reproduction and childbearing and demographics, I see someone grasping for immortality and permanence. They latch on to base bias to give them some comfort as their hair falls out and their skin wrinkles. They want something solid in the world as they face the Reaper, and we all know the world isn’t solid.

There, in the end, is the cry of so many bigots – “I am afraid to die.”

–Xenofact

Thoughts On Spiritual Validity

by

I was discussing assorted spiritual issues with a friend during one of our regular calls.* We specifically discussed attempts by people to claim spiritual authority and out of the discussion two ways came to mind that I wanted to discuss. Now that I see them, I really see them, and thus I share my insights and the opportunity to call me on my bullshit.

The first is what I call the Ancient Tradition method. People claim their spiritual path is valid as it’s an Ancient Tradition. The endurance of said tradition over time is a marker of its validity. In addition, those who follow or say they follow the Ancient Tradition thus claim spiritual authority. It’s “old-is-good” essentially.

Of course there’s a few flaws with this method, the first and foremost of which is, if you’re aware of any systems or organizational theory, it’s that time is not a measure of validity. The ability for something to survive is a measure of its ability to survive. There indeed may be other valid reasons for its survival, and in cultural areas it gets fuzzy, but it’s not an immediate measure of actual truth.

But there’s more. The idea that there are unchanging traditions is on the face of reality, pretty laughable. People change, cultures change, ideas change, spiritual leaders change. What you see of a tradition today is not what it was a thousand years ago, or perhaps even ten years ago. Maybe said Ancient Tradition survives because it did change – which might give it more validity if you admit it.

And, of course, plenty of people claim to be the bearers of said Ancient Tradition that are liars, frauds, or self-deceiving. If you follow any “spiritual history” you’ve read about things made up of whole cloth more or less and treated as ancient. Ancient Tradition isn’t what it used to be in some cases, because it never was anything.

The other form of Spiritual Authority I saw was Initiatory Authority. Someone claims a direct revelation, often through great suffering, that granted them power and authority. In modern times, it took on an almost masochistic flavor.

The amount of people I’d see studying modern cults that claimed some horrific trauma that granted them a kind of religious or spiritual insight was disturbing. There was the usual “survivor of satanic abuse” story which was almost disturbingly pat. But there were also refugees from alien-controlled Secret Space Programs, or those claiming to have been mind-controlled by nefarious forces until they broke free. It was validity through suffering.

I mean you get the occasional people who just had deep revelations, but it felt like in modern times suffering was validation. This is why I honestly think some conspiracy theories and cultic behavior are substitutes and declaration of a need for therapy.

(Plus, note how these Initiatory Authorities often tie into Conspiracy Theories in modern times? That also seems to be getting a bit of Ancient Tradition going there.)

Either way, the idea of some kind of Initiatory experience or revelation giving someone authority was common, but also needed validation. Usually these days you just get charisma instead, or at least rage and sarcasm. But validation? Nope.

As we discussed these ideas, I felt I had a better sense of the modern (and perhaps not-so-modern) spiritual landscape. People were trying to claim authority from Ancient Tradition or some kind of Initiatory experience, perhaps both. In the age of the Internet Influencers these seemed even more amplified.

But what was missing was the thing that matters most – does the spiritual tradition actually help out? What good is it? What is it doing for you, for others, for the world? Are there useful techniques that make you saner, happier, calmer, provide insights and practical experiences? Does it work?

The people in charge, the authorities, the initiated, need to prove what they’ve got works. I wasn’t seeing a lot of proof, but I was seeing a whole lot of trying to claim it. Maybe because if you’ve actually got some spiritual goodness going on you don’t need to get flashy (says the Taoist guy).

This is where I get things like people joining religious traditions for community and support – theologically things may be questionable but the community is real. This is where I get why some Buddhists and Taoist practices have endured as they work – the Four Noble truths are helpful and Golden Flower breathing has results.

In the end, I’m interested in results. Those I can understand I can use. Sometimes they surprise me . . .

But when I see Ancient Tradition and Initiatory Authority pop up? I get suspicious. For good reason.

* If you and a friend are busy, or you’re physically distant, try a regular phone chat, like every two weeks or once a month. It’s very helpful and it’s not being on the computer (he writes, on a computer).

–Xenofact

The American Catholic Church?

by

In 2026 and I find myself asking if there will be a splinter American Catholic Church. I think this worth analyzing because of so many factors. The Pope outright takes on the Trump Administration in his preachings, social media posts, and actions. Catholics protests in the streets. Some Bishops disagree with the Pope, as do some prominent Catholics despite, you know, Catholicism. I could go on, but if you’re reading this, you’re probably interested in religion like I am and have followed some of this, even if involuntary.

In short, could a bunch of Conservative “Catholics” spin off their own Church?

Now I’ve been thinking this over for awhile, because an American Catholic Church would be a major cultural change, and because it’s fascinating to analyze. So let’s get to it – and be sure you write me back with your thoughts because this could be important – as well as interesting.

So first of all, let’s get to it – there are people in America that claim to be Catholic but also don’t seem to agree with the Pope or even some general teachings of the Church. The Pople in 2026 doesn’t seem to have any tolerance for this crap, but we also see Catholics (including some Bishops) sort of not listening to the Pope. Again, I mean you’re Catholic, the Pope is sort of your thing.

So I was thinking, what motivates these people who want to be Catholic but you know, not be Catholic. Some of them seem to be converts and opportunists, but there’s a chunk of Catholics that seem to want to be something else. So why be Catholic – either becoming or staying?

  • Catholicism is old and has history. People thus attribute stability, accuracy, and endurance to it. People assume old is right. I’d argue timeless is more likely to be right, but in their case age is good.
  • Catholicism has a reputation for organization. It’s got your ceremonies and your penances and stations of the cross and all of that. If you like structure, they’ve got you covered.
  • Catholicism also has class and style. You’ve got gorgeous churches, amazing relics, stately robes, great music, and more. I think converts and the like are getting into Catholicism because it’s classy and they get to feel superior to your average American Evangelical. Is it a class thing? Probably.
  • If you want to be selective you can find Bishops and thinkers and writers who will back whatever weird right-wing control freak beliefs you have.

Catholicism has it all for people who are into control, and you get to have all sorts of dignified and cool ceremonies and churches. Throw in the reputation, and yeah, a certain kind of person might gravitate to it.

Of course I think the various people gravitating to the church, the converts, essentially want to be Evangelical Protestants. That seems to be the mindset they’re coming with. It’s just there’s some people there ready to welcome them – just not this Pope.

So I think there are people who want to be Catholic but not BE Catholic and all that you inherit with it. A spinoff splinter Church in America sounds perfect for them. Think about what you get!

  • You get your own Church. You can basically band together some thinkers and bishops and congregations automatically! It’s prefab.
  • You can get ahold of some Church finances, probably. The Church seems loaded anyway.
  • You get to steal the reputation and rituals and fame of the church. Plus the controversy gets you more attention.
  • You can try to become a new rallying point for conservatives and religious authoritarians. All of the above make it easier.
  • If you help found this new American Catholic Church, you get a big halo effect. You get fame and attention and maybe the suggestion you’re guided by your god.

So there seems to be no reason for people not to try to create an American Catholic Church. I figure at some point between 2026 to 2030 there’s going to be a possible schism. More so if the Pope keeps going hard at American policy, and he doesn’t seem to want to back down.

Now is it going to succeed? Almost certainly not.

First, even if a split happens I have no reason to believe that it won’t be abortive or small. Any effort to do this would have to be organized, large-scale, well-funded, and well-attended to succeed and hope to have any impact. That takes time, organization, and willingness to risk because if it fails you’ve humiliated yourself, so people will only do it if they think it will work.

However, even if enough people do rally the famous people, the Bishops, and the money to pull it off, I don’t expect it to survive.

Bluntly, any attempt to create an American Catholic Church is going to be creating yet some other “Conservative” political interest group dressed up as religion. It will be home to a bunch of grifters battling with other grifters in the religion scene. The amount of corruption, infighting, and backstabbing resulting will ultimately be destructive.

Meanwhile, while people jockey for power in the American Catholic Church, there will be other authoritarian religious groups against them. They will want the power. They will want the influence. They also will probably draw on previous anti-Catholic sentiment. An American Catholic Church will have enemies within their own political sphere.

Meanwhile the Pope – the Pope – and Catholics around the world will look down on them.

So I expect if an American Catholic Church is created – enough of a possibility to consider – it won’t survive. It’ll fragment from grifting, loose people, find itself at odds with others, and so on. The result will probably be a shrinking denomination that merges into others.

Will it be a wild ride if it happens? Yes. It’ll also be kind of stupid and sad in the end.

So what are your opinions on the possibility of an American Catholic Church?

–Xenofact