Naturalism and Its Confused Opponents

When life finds a way
By Rawan Ahmed

Naturalism and Its Confused Opponents |
Saturday – May 2, 2026

There is much talk of resilience in these times of individualism, both as a general concept but also within a larger and often overriding naturalistic narrative about the supposed "evolution" of the clearly manifest, not that most serious biologists would necessarily argue that life itself is good in and of itself, or rather that what is being manifested as life is merely a function of a kind of "survivorship bias", and really what is meant, seemingly, by "the survival of the fittest" is not that the mighty have a reason or a right to survive, but that they are mighty at the moment, remember that the medium of life exists within continual movement and change, because they are the survivors; at any rate, this is the more granular materialistic explanation for life, an explanation that most men indeed fail to ever understand, because they are stupid, read about "Democracy". I guess that a question that has to be raised, in view of the entire concept of resilience, is whether or not life is resilient? First of all, why do people and animals—of course humans are considered animals in accordance with the principles of the profane sciences—engage in sexual intercourse? The most common and accepted, yet incorrect, explanation for this is that animals, which they consider humans to be, "like" to engage in sexual intercourse, yes the word "like" has to be used in this context, because they want to "further" their lineage and because they have powerful hormones that they simply are unable to resist, and any attempt to encourage men to resist these urges is of course considered reprehensible, read "Celibacy". But the fact of the matter is, from the point of view of the profane sciences, that animals like to engage sexual intercourse because they like the feeling of it, not because they have in mind some kind of primitive sense of lineage, and of course the idea of lineage itself is actually a fairly modern concept tied to the establishment of civilization, and this sense is not only a human sense but actually a sense that often is quite segregated among humans, read "The Census". So, the fact that most animals like to engage in sexual intercourse has nothing to do with some vague and settled notion of lineage and the furthering of one family or the "bloodline", because again the concept of family as understood by most westerners is quite incomplete and far from universal, and so it would then be quite right, in view of the material fact that animals like to engage in sexual intercourse, to assert that because of the survivorship inherent in manifestation, particularly within the manifestation of sentient life, most animals, again humans included, should be expected to like to engage in sexual intercourse, as most individuals or prototypes that simply did not, here in the primordial and storied past, like to engage in sexual intercourse could not further this trait, or essence, but again here I am arguing from a profane point of view.

    This explanation is quite right and applies to the life of animals, and if you wish to only conceive of humanity from the point of view of the lowest form, then humanity should be considered animals, and it would be wrong, even quite cruel, to encourage men to control themselves, as they simply are unable to control their destiny, read about "The Nature of Providence". Again, why then are most people so incapable of grasping this merely material and profane explanation: why is it seemingly so necessary for men to insert some other motif within this narrative that is held to be complete? First of all, this bears repeating: most men are simply too stupid to understand even the most profane sciences, as they tend to be guided by no principles other than a kind of collective a priori devised to manipulate them—read "Ideological Indoctrination" and "What is Hatred"—and they are very easily manipulated and moved by empty platitudes and propaganda, read "Sentimentalism"; and secondly, since the theories of profane sciences always keep changing and since there are no real principles behind profane sciences, you should always be in doubt, which lends the mind to the malign influences of charlatans and other malefic elements, read "Sorcery & Mysticism". Of course, the theory of evolution and the explanation that this theory affords may, in the minds of some men, not be quite adequate and this would be understandable, provided that these same men refused to allow themselves to be so susceptible to manipulations of all sorts that play on the principles of naturalism and evolution, because while evolution as a theory is merely profane, it has a certain empirical value and it has certain principles, material though they are, that apply in a manner that holds true, within certain limitations, to the fidelity of "carried truth", read "Navigating the Informational Landscape", that clearly applies within a theoretical and completely corporeal domain; this fidelity to the "carried truth" is simply absent among many "alternative" explanations that still claim to hold some dominion over the material world, read "The End of History". Essentially, this last sentence should be understood as a criticism of fundamentalism and its many confused, read as well "Why I'm Not Conservative", proponents and adherents. What you arrive at once you attempt to derange and corrupt the principles of any system, of any doctrine, is always malefic, a kind of "dark magic" if you will, and this is essentially the problem in view of naturalism: people who claim to oppose these worldly and profane theories themselves lack knowledge and true qualification, which means that they essentially always default back to the very thing they claim to oppose – truly something monstrous.

    Men that seek higher knowledge of the world must raise themselves above the material; it is quite frankly not enough to simply oppose naturalism and profane science on the grounds of faith and then refuse to seek higher truths. What these confused people engage in is really something quite noisy – a kind of babble or drivel that in the end will prove unable to resolve the current crisis. Besides, the depiction of these people, the opponents of naturalism, as stupid is quite right – because they are stupid. Also, the point of gaining higher knowledge has nothing to do with opposing profane science; the point should be to raise the profane sciences.

Reginald Drax – May 2, 2026.