Ethics are a system of moral values dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation. They can be highly personal, derived from your understanding of the world, but even personal ethics tend to correspond with public ethics. Every society has to have a set of unwritten rules that govern behavior. Otherwise, you don’t have a society. You have a collection of competing strangers. Those public ethics, the moral framework of society, must rest upon authority to give them vigor.
For most of human history, public morality was rooted in the stories and legends of the people, which described their gods and the role of the gods. At other times, the moral authority was the ruler, who took on a supernatural role in society. In Europe, after the fall of the Roman Empire, the Church filled the role of moral authority, along with the evolving social structure. The feudal system established roles and duties for people within the system. Those duties to your station were part of the moral order.
This connection between ethics and authority is what has always haunted atheism, which denies the most common source of moral authority. In fact, atheism is mostly a negative identity, so the atheist invests heavily in attacking the moral authority of Christianity. Oddly, they suffer the same defect in logic as evolution deniers. When they do try to conjure a godless moral code, they inevitably slam into the old problem of Hume’s law. That is, they try to derive an ought from an is.
The struggle atheists have conjuring a moral code without the authority of religion on which to base it gets to a more fundamental problem of western liberalism. A central thesis of liberalism is universalism, the notion that there is one set of rules that are the best for all people everywhere in all times. That means the moral code that comes along with the universal political order must also be universal and timeless. Such a code, of course, cannot answer the question, on whose authority?
This is the heart of the clash between liberal democracy and Islam. When the Mohammedan is told that homosexuals should be allowed to parade in the streets, he asks “upon what authority are you saying this?” The liberal cannot answer, as he acknowledges no authority other than a mystical will of the people. The Mohammedan in contrast has his religion, his imam and the traditions handed down to him. In order to accept liberalism, he must abandon his god and his ancestors.
This is the problem vexing the West. In a liberal democracy, no one can ever know who is in charge, as that runs counter to the basics of democracy. In theory, decisions are made by fifty percent plus one vote. When the vote is secret, no one can truly know who rules over them. The fact that powerful interests manipulate the system in order to get the results that favor them at the expense of society adds to the mystery. People keep voting, expecting a certain result, only to get the opposite.
Of course, the inevitable war on religion that is a natural part of democracy means the other source of authority is slowly eroded. The recent case of the Congresswomen holding orgies in her office is a good example. Otherwise sensible people like Congressman Matt Gaetz are baffled as to why this women resigned, because there is no longer a moral order in America to rationalize such things. In a Christian nation or even a Muslim one, Representative Gaetz would not so confused.
It is only through the shared belief in an authoritative common morality where custom becomes a habit of mind. You cannot have ethics without authority, so when custom and religion are abandoned, as required of democracy, you inevitably abandon any sense of a shared moral order. Eventually, the people, even their leaders, have no reason to support the basics of society. A world of atomized individuals can only be controlled with force and the cost exceeds the benefit
Of course, humans cannot live without a moral order. We have evolved over a very long time to be a part of a community. That means being part of a shared moral order. The void left by democracy’s obliteration of social and religious authority is filled by all sorts of fads and spasms masquerading as morality. It is how we quickly move from celebrating homosexuals as perfectly normal to demanding gay men put on sundresses and begin taking hormone therapy. Morality without authority is chaos.
In this regard, the crisis in the West is due to a lack of moral authority. Democratic systems rest on the assumption that everyone is in charge, which is another way of saying no one is in charge. Since there is always someone in charge, those holding power work to conceal this reality. Instead of powerful men standing before the public as leaders, they hire servants to run for office. Once in office, those servants do as their told, regardless of what they said to the public to secure their office.
The charade of democracy inevitably spills into the culture as a war on any institution that could provide a basis for moral authority. It is not an accident that as democracy spread in the West, religion collapsed. Then it was local civic institutions and then finally the family. The waves of vulgar depravity that have swept the popular culture meet no resistance, because there is no authority for resisting it. There is no answer to why this stuff should not be tolerated, so it spreads like a cancer.
In fairness, the cultural devastation that comes with democracy is more of a dynamic than a causal relationship. The West was already in decline when liberal democracy took root and it was that decline that allowed it to spread. The dynamic between politics and culture is both a symptom and cause of the decline. The fanaticism and insanity of the current age is really just the final spasms of a society that has been in decline for generations. Democracy is the suicide pill for a people out of reasons to live.
For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!
I find Z’s discussions of the legitimacy of authority and power fascinating b/c I think he is right but also b/c he, and I, end up in agreement with our spiritual arch enemies, the post-modernists. The post-modernists say there are only power relations. That may not be entirely true but it is probably more true than false. If no power has ‘true legitimacy’, whatever that means, other than that it has more power to do harm to you if you do not submit to it than rivals do, then there pretty much are only power relations.
This all fits very well with Darwinism. Men who are not atomized and choose to exercise it, have complete power over women. So that’s never going to be an equal relation. In the power game women are dramatic pawns, not players. And then we come to men’s relations to each other, as individuals or groups. Men are intrinsically hierarchical. They can make deals w equals but except submisison from inferiors and defer to superiors, b/c they know what happens if they dont.
To cut to the chase, whites are being scrapped by Darwin b/c we act like weak wimps and appeal to a ‘universal morality’ that never existed and never will. Getting our balls back is the only road to salvation. B/c, at the end of the day, there is no universal justice or ‘arch of history’. There probably isn’t much except power. You’re either at the table, or on the menu.
A very complicated analysis to a very simple concept:
God’s morals are unquestionable and stay a fixed as God is superior to man.
Modernism rejects God therefore morals must come from man. As they come from man the next man in charge is free to change the morals, That means morals in a Godless society will always be fluid and have propensity to change. Society will be adrift in the sea of humanism..
You say democracy has followed the decline of the west, which has been going on for generations: can you expand on this? When do you locate the peak/decline etc?
Much error in the first…
The very first question is whether morality is objective or subjective. Both Ayn Rand and Stefan Molyneux would say objective.
(see Natural law, CS Lewis Abolition of Man).
The question is “under what authority are you compelled to be ethical” (moral)?
Any human version is broken as it is hypocritical – we cannot obey whatever law we accept if it has some reasonable restriction.
“You cannot have ethics without authority” – the question is not authority per se but arguments, including argumentum and balaculum. Do it, or else… and insert the penalty here. It is not I will rationally demonstrate with evidence…
“Of course, humans cannot live without a moral order.”, technically a tyrant can slaughter those who cannot and the remainder can.
“In this regard, the crisis in the West is due to a lack of moral authority.”
The gods of the copybook headings…
It is not that “no one is in charge” but that they are evil employees,
I’m a 100 years after Ford, but he was dead on about the Protocols effecting the country around him.
Gaetz’s confusion perfectly illustrates the dilemma: “where do you draw the line once you’ve allowed the first transgression against our existing (Christian) moral order?”
Take gay marriage. Something like half of the states explicitly rejected it. Then Kennedy put on his “magic glasses” and spied something new in the Constitution!! “Lookie here, Sonia — here’s a Long Lost right that has been hiding in plain sight over 200 years!”
It’s not that x number of gay marriages hurt us – most people don’t care what they do behind closed doors. Some sort of formal acknowledgement of longterm gay unions for legal purposes would have been a reasonable and workable measure. But that isn’t enough for progressives – because ‘gay union’ doesn’t meet the “equality” standard they worship. As they repeat ad nauseum, equality is one of their religious ideals.
This SC decision “sanctified” the “belief” of the gay marriage construct wholecloth, by folding it into our existing Anglo (Christian) law foundation. Insisting that gay marriage is perfectly interchangeable with heterosexual marriage is what the left means by “equality”. So now the law FORCES the culture to accept this belief, whether or not Christianity accepts it or not. The abortion ruling came down in a very similar manner – and look what the left is doing to push the boundaries on abortion the last year. It’s a religious crusade to them, not murder!
If Gaetz is confused about the MeThree lady, just wait until Pete Buttigeig gets into high gear with his equality shtick! Pete is both a progressive fundamentalist and a shrewd marxist. He knows how to wage a holy war.
I’m not quite following how/why democracy axiomatically erodes religion and other sources of moral authority. Can someone help?
“ Cuz the volcano demon said so!” is a shabby foundation for morality if you ask me.
Different types of society have different central principles and the central principle of democracy is equality. The inversion of morality, rejection of higher authority, mania for freedom and an indifference borne of tolerance are inherent in democracy – after all, we’re all equal, so no one has the right to tell us what to do and what not to do.
Not surprising that religion is rejected or ignored because most do make moral demands on their adherents.
According to Plato in The Republic, Book VIII, democracy is inevitably followed by a tyranny. The central principle of tyranny is lust – people are a slave to their passions.
Something to look forward to .
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.idph.net/conteudos/ebooks/republic.pdf
Z….you’re truly amazing. How do you manage to crank out day after day this depth of thought. This post breaks prior benchmark. Thank you.
Z Folks….I am so impressed with your depth and intelligence. And the civility to deeply explore this intellectual dialogue. Am so grateful to “know” you.
From another angle: Having been raised by Trot Commies, I had no religion to inform me. The cultural capital of Christianity was still in the air so I absorbed morals-standards-values from school, people and institutions. About 15 years ago my hair lit on fire with the realization that without the moral authority of Christianity to set immutable morals-standards-values, the same said would be set by man and would be infinitely changing. When Man defines the rules, it quickly slides into anything goes. I realized this standing on the north shore of the big island at a site in which thousands of people were sacrificed to their religion.
Yes… and the realization from reading “House of Rain” that the earth religions devolve into fearful mass sacrifice to appease whatever gods, the rain gods, the earthquake gods, the climate change gods, you name it. I realized that if the pagans of Western Civ take over, the rules will be redefined so rapidly and devolve into something pagan horrible like i.e. once a year the Climate Change Authority demands sacrifice to the gods of one child per household to be BBQ on the mandatory Weber kettle. Reproducing more children is mandatory for yearly sacrifice. We’re going backwards in our terror of the climate and the sky is falling. Look at the hysteria from ugly Greta and her followers. If she had her way she’d have you sacrificed.
Religion goes good then bad, or just bad. Everything under the sun is part of the great cycles, either ascending or descending. Just look at history. Our chance for long-term stability at this point of historical time is a religion that espouses immutable morals-standards-values/Christianity. Politics by man cannot do this alone. Not perfect and slowly is changed but gives us a longer, greater stability not to mention meaning and individual/group identification.
So here I am, a former pagan, walking backwards like heyoka to root around in Christianity and nibble around the edges. Christians, don’t take offense. Glad you’re out there. Best I can do at his point in time. So be it.
Christian ethics are essentially Greek, far less so Hebrew.
Jesus was an Hellinistic Jew. You will also find them in Confucius now and again. Asked for a word that could serve as a principle to guide one’s life: Is not reciprocity such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.
Indeed. Loving your neighbor as yourself does not preclude making a judgment call, particularly a survival judgment to a lesser or greater degree, including my neighbor who is nuts as a bed bug and best to be given a wide berth. An emphatic judgment is allowed on the invasion people storming the border and The Range’s homeland. Remember He who turned over the tables of the money changers.
Loving your neighbor as yourself does
A suicidally insane commandment that has church ladies flocking to the Refugees Welcome-banners.
does not preclude making a judgment call…
Don’t you trust Jesus’ judgement call?
Church teaching:
“Secondly, Saint Thomas teaches that immigration must have in mind the common good; it cannot destroy or overwhelm a nation.”
https://www.tfp.org/what-does-saint-thomas-say-about-immigration/
“Catholic Teaching on Immigration. There is no scriptural injunction regarding immigration policy other than the Torah’s admonition to treat the resident alien living among you fairly. The Gospels and other New Testament writings simply adjure Christians obey the laws of the state and to be good citizens of the cities in which they live.”
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/rev-michael-p-orsi/catholic-teaching-immigration
When they do try to conjure a godless moral code, they inevitably slam into the old problem of Hume’s law. That is, they try to derive an ought from an is.
Of course, an atheist would say there’s no “is” involved in a religious moral code, since there’s no “is” involved in god, and that it’s the religious who are trying to derive an “ought” from an “is not”; you only think your weird and ambiguous allegories derive from a skymonster.
In fact, an atheist would say that since there’s no god, Christians must get their ethics from the same source as everybody else: evolutionary psychology. Observation bears this out, since the Bible has changed little in the last 1,500 years, while Christian moral norms have changed immensely.
And that’s before we even get into whether it’s a moral position at all to refrain from killing, stealing and lying only because you’re afraid to get tortured in the forevermore by a sulphur-shitting chthonic billy goat.
Such a code, of course, cannot answer the question, on whose authority?
Well, if your answer is “spaghetti monster” I’ll rather live without that authority and simply go by what my mom told me.
The problem with atheism, is that they think they can eject God and “be good” without god. But if there is no God, my “good” is not your “good.” Therefore all decisions revert to a Nihilistic ethos. So, without being hypocritical, pouring a bowl of cornflakes in the morning would be the same, morally, as murdering your mother and putting her in the freezer. There is no cosmic order to earthly decisions. But an atheist would say “society” has human norms. It does? Before Christianity, it was perfectly “normal” to sacrifice children on altars.
There is no norm unless it coms from a universal creator God, or even a Japanese style ancestor frowning upon you. I’ve looked at it from every angle, there’s no way to draw a moral line without being a hypocrite unless it comes from a spiritual authority. You can say as an atheist that all of the moral lines, murder, stealing, etc., exist because a majority of human beings say so and that is that, but that’s not moral authority, it’s merely the raw power of the collective, which over time is mercurial and subject to change. Is a return to cannibalism far down the road?
Mind reader! Post below overlaps your thoughts. Particularly this human sacrifice often overlapped with cannibalism. Happened all over the Southwest–Hawaii. What the earth gods demand the high priests are enthralled to enforce.
1. Cor, 14:34-35
There is no norm unless it coms from a universal creator God
Then there is no norm. I’m sorry that it’s not that easy, but there you have it: we’re imperfect beings, we live imperfect lives, and all we can do is muddle along and try to do right by our fellow man.
Is a return to cannibalism far down the road?
Well, the Catholics eat human flesh when they go to mass, so there’s that. And I’m doing Catholics the favor of taking their religion seriously, so don’t tell me it’s not actual human flesh and blood they use at the mass.
Before Christianity, it was perfectly “normal” to sacrifice children on altars.
And during Christianity – only 500 years ago – it was perfectly normal to burn people alive after having tortured them into confessing that they had carnal congregation with aforementioned billy goat or if they believed that there were other populated worlds out among the stars or wore gender-inappropriate clothes. They’d have burned Galileo too, had he not recanted his heretical views on cosmology.
Do you believe women should be burned for wearing trousers or for believing that the sun is at the center of our solar system? No? Then where did your universal Christian norms go?
And it’s not like modern Christians all subscribe to the same moral codes, they all have their own, personal Jesus, a Savior that conveniently just happens to share their mores and prejudices. You hate fags? Jesus probably hates fags too. Love your homo brethren? Jesus says live and let live, only God may judge. Hate the Jews? Jesus agrees, they’re scum, they renounced God! Love Jews? Jesus wants you to help our wayward Abrahamic brethren conquer the Middle East so that He may come back.
And just one more thing: what did Jesus see when he was at his uttermost, peering into the other side?
Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani?
Nothing! He saw nothing! How’s that for a death-bed conversion?
Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani – note that this is Jesus quoting Psalm 22:1.
You miss the point. Jesus died an atheist.
No.
Luke 23:46
Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.
I’m just trolling, but how about the actual points I made? That there are no eternal, Christian values, but that Jesus seems to roll with the changing times and customs?
Sometimes he’s pro slavery, sometimes he’s against. Sometimes he’s pro burning witches at the stake, sometimes he’s not. Sometimes he wants you to kill the heathen, sometimes he wants you to love him like a brother.
You’d almost think Jesus was a politician, but then, he was the guy that made flip-flops fashionable.
If you really want to know:
“Two things, it is now clear, the Catholic Church cannot and never will change: universal natural moral laws, and positive divine commands. But Christ did not attempt to make all the laws that would be needed by His followers. He left some things for His Church to do, and He gave her the power to obligate her members by the words: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.’ (Matt. 16: 19)”
https://catholicism.org/church-laws-changing.html
He left some things for His Church to do,
How convenient.
https://campycatholic.tumblr.com/post/183701247758
Atheists are always so simple in their gotchas. Re: that old cannibalism chestnut,
“Though Christ is substantially present—body, blood, soul and divinity—in the Eucharist, the accidents of bread and wine remain. Here it is important to define terms. When the Church teaches the bread and wine at Mass are transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, we have to understand what this means. The word, transubstantiation, literally means ‘transformation of the substance.’ ‘Substance’ refers to that which makes a thing essentially what it is. Thus, ‘substance’ and ‘essence’ are synonyms. For example, man is essentially comprised of body, soul, intellect, and will. If you remove any one of these, he is no longer a human person. The accidents or accidentals would be things like hair color, eye color, size, weight, etc. One can change any of these and there would be no change in the essence or substance of the person.
In the Eucharist, after the priest consecrates the bread and wine and they are, in fact, transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, our Lord is then entirely present. Neither bread nor wine remains. However, the accidents of bread and wine (size, weight, taste, texture) do remain. Hence, the essential reason why Catholics are not guilty of cannibalism is the fact that we do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. We receive him in the form of bread and wine. The two are qualitatively different. ”
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/are-catholics-cannibals
Atheists are always so simple in their gotchas.
Simple propositions, simple gotchas. Talking snakes? Get real! Santa is more believable – at least reindeer exist.
And I’ll gladly grant you all that woowoo about the Eucharist, but the idea that magic power is conferred by ingesting the flesh of dead people – symbolically or otherwise – is no different from that of Polynesian savages.
You have the intelligence to understand the underlying meaning, yet you insist on a literalistic interpretation. Also, Christians do not believe Christ is dead.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/do-you-read-the-bible-literally.html
Do you object to the notion that “magic power” or something indistinguishable from it, is transferred in the Eucharist?
Because as soon as you go beyond it’s a wafer and a cup of wine, you’re in cuckoo territory.
Supernatural power is fine. Faith, a supernatural virtue, is required.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/faith.html
… supernatural…
There’s our problem, right there! I don’t believe in the supernatural, and neither should you. It’s sort of implied in the definition of the word: it’s not real.
Welp…
https://news.yahoo.com/most-atheists-still-believe-in-the-supernatural-new-study-finds-200207721.html
I only believe in science…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=apNn2kMg7uY
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
I don’t care if I’m using the quote out of context, if you want to split hairs. It’s true.
https://amaguqetmachina.blogspot.com/2011/04/there-are-more-things-in-heaven-and.html
“Yet the mainstream modern high status elite view is that all such [supernatural] explanations and conclusions are false: all such – every single one of them – and this is known for sure and without any need for investigation or debate.”
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2014/05/disbelieving-in-supernatural-as-matter.html
America does have a religion with a moral code. We, the Sheeple of the United States, are meant to worship Mammon. Pay our taxes; buy SUVs and the very latest I-phone 1x; be subliminally motivated by the pozzed advertising sponsoring our sportsball and episodes of The Bachelor; and above all, STFU about tedious topics like morality or demographic replacement. Our leaders, the ayatollahs of U.S. dollars, have everything under control. Nothing to see here. Just keep consuming. There’s nothing a credit card or a new, miracle pill from Big Pharma can’t solve. All is well.
“Democracy is a suicide pill for people with no reason to live.”
Damn, that is brutal.
Replace Democracy with Secularism and Z’s argument makes more sense. The fact is the more secular a people become becomes the weaker they become in terms of morality and you send get to the point where anything goes since there is no moral authority outside of the courts who now become our moral arbiters.
This is what we have in the U.S. To be fair the U.S. isn’t totally secular like Britain or Sweden but we are ruled by a class rabid secularists who hate Christians. As one pundit put it – we are a nation of Hindus ruled by Swedes.
This is how in a few short years we went from keeping abominations like trannies in the closet to having them compete in women sports and teaching children. It’s not what the people wanted but what a handful of secular elites decided for us.
Same thing with that cake baker who refused to make cake for some dykes. It was his right not to provide a service if he didn’t want to. But the courts don’t it that way.
I prefer the term materialism to secularism, although perhaps secular materialism is the best way of describing their “god”. It isn’t just that they deny higher authority, they place their uber eats, pumpkin spice lattes, fag parades, and sodomy as being the highest good.
Denying one of the privileged classes a desired material thing is deemed a grave offense. Denying a religious person the right to live according to their principles and faith is “the cost of doing business”.
Demotic government represents the third phase in the cycle outlined by Spengler. An entitled wealthy spoiled people abandon the principles that got them to their height in greedy (like a greedy algorithm) pursuit of material dominance. This has never failed to occur, except in cases of premature civilizational death.
The grand dream of philosophers the world over is how can we escape this cycle of death and rebirth at a civilization level? We do not know, however at a minimum what we here as individuals can do is try in our own way to live according to that which we believe. Your individual telos is your prerogative; the telos of our society seems to have it’s own mind.
We’re so accustomed to translating mythology as “falsehood” today that we’ve lost the original vital meaning of the word, encompassing values, tradition, and the mytho-poetic animating narrative of a race, ala the Iliad and Odyssey for the Greeks and the Sagas and Das Niebelung for the Nords. I recommend Colin Cleary & Joseph Campbell for some healthy re-framing.
Mythology, religion and ethics are the legitimizing flesh that allows a population to view the musclar machinery of might-makes-right authority as something human and natural rather than mechanical and tyrannical. Like the android Ash in Alien, once we’ve seen the bare machinery beneath, we can’t ever look at the elites the same way again. They are forever separate from us.
The only thing melting in Israel Zangwill’s famous pot* nowadays is our American mythology. At the low cultural temperatures necessary to keep most of the White frogs from leaving the stewpot, alien roots remain tough and impossible to swallow no matter how many generations they simmer.
But the cheap red white and blue glaze on the Wal-Mart melting pot is starting to flake into the stew, and like the knockoff-brand greasepaint on one of Zangwill’s stage performers, the camouflaging platitiudes of Second Founding America are sloughing off in the tepid heat. Those Whites who care to see can now get a good look at the fellow-white bones of the hands stirring the pot and the mechanical eyes scanning for any frogs still lively enough to jump.
For now, the death of our mythology is an asset, promoting Noticing and threat recognition. However, in the future we’re going to have to create for ourselves a new more honest and organic mythology to legitimize the new elite as part of Us, not an alien and oppressive Them.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Zangwill — physiognomy, oh gawd!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Melting_Pot_(play)
Yes, to mythology. We could try to bring the old myths forward with new metaphors, symbols of our ideas & our peoples. But J. Campbell noted things were changing so fast, nothing has time to become mythologized anymore.
I really like your idea that the death of mythology has a temporary benefit of increasing awareness…
Too much of our existing/surviving Christian mythos is based on holding indefensible exoteric positions that science can skewer with ease. Using fundamentalism to fight modern science is the theological equivalent of fighting in line formation with pikes against guerillas sniping you from the trees with rifles
This does faith a disservice. The truth is deeper and more subtle than the literal myths passed down from antiquity. Buddhists have seen their faith undergo a number of “turnings” (four or five depending on who you ask) which kept the core beliefs but revised and revitalized the details and interpretations to address challenges presented by moderninzing perspectives.
If you’re into painfully dense reading, check out Ken Wilber’s “Religion of Tomorrow.” Amid the self-promotional complexity worship and show-offery, there are some useful ideas for how to analyze and honestly re-frame an existing faith.
I could write a modern myth from old metaphors. How about a story of a people’s hero, a story how the hero sacrifices himself to fight for a peoples and their ideas, as a corrective force of the Universe, against an elite caste of rulers who are a non-human hive, soulless worshipers of the god of materialism.
That would be a fun tale to write. All I need is a real human hero to go first, to pick up the hero’s adventure today, as the anchor of my myth. If he succeeds but dies in the end even better according to another ancient truth – “things teach best when they are dying”
Perfect Post, and perfectly ended.
I thought Congresswoman Hill was a perfect representative for this state, and for the country. I can’t think of anyone more reflective of “who we are,” as sitting naked with a strap-on, showing a little german cross tattoo next to your crotch, while inhaling a bowl like it’s scuba equipment. It’s called Friday night in Santa Clarita. The illegal Latina housekeeper shows up the next morning to clean the place up. It’s pure debt fueled hedonism. The last days of Pompeii.
JR;
Excellent, brutal summary. But you left off the ‘blaming others for the adverse consequences of your own stupid, selfish decisions’ part.
Consequences of N wave feminism in one episode.
Excellent article. I want to know if the basic sense of morality can overcome the political ignorance of the democratic masses. The best example here is the how parents respond to pedophiles, child traffickers, and other assorted evils that directly impact their children. I mean, when will the perversion finally wake them up?
They may never wake up. There is a race between waking up and redefining deviancy. Church authority fades, secular authority—whatever that is—fills the void. I remember when it was fair game to “beat up fags”, not that I hold to that opinion—then or now. But now we (society) celebrate/support such lifestyle and promote it. In time will there be anyone left to “woke”?
In other words, in a generation or two, will we read of parents bragging about how their young son has met a wonderful “older” man who is taking him under his wing and guiding him through a sexual awakening during this difficult period in his adolescent life.
Hell, we are reading about this type of nonsense with transsexuals, and those choices are permanent.
Okay, but even the most uneducated person has a powerful feeling once they become a parent, and that I believe is an obvious biological trait that makes even the dumbest beast want to protect his/her offspring, and to give said offspring the best that they can so “the kid will have a better life than I did.”
We all sense this and see it in others. Sometimes the miracle of birth can change a person, and I am only hoping that the deviancy will be rejected by the persuasion of biology. I mean, if you stand up in front of a group of kids and tell them to strip naked, they are going to stop and think about that. Where does that come from? I am counting on that so-called divinity that we allegedly possess to reject the deviancy and the deviants, via childbirth. Now, what shatters my argument completely is feral reproduction by feral males and females, in public parks or trashy housing complexes.
Compsci: Catamites cannot continue civilization, this will eventually decay and collapse. Unfortunately the ones who push this stuff seem determined on bringing all of us with them into this living hell that will be the new dark age, where math is racist and sodomy is a virtue.
Thank you for fixing VPN posting block issue.
In considering throwing down the old order or replacing it after collapse do consider history.
1. Normally it simply replaces the administrators.
2. Even after total revolutions the new order resets to the old one; see France, Russia, even China. Even in its own strange way North Korea (which was a slave plantation already when the Japanese, never mind the Communists took over).
3. The old Gods return as well. See above.
4. In America that means either a) The Republic aka Constitutional govt, or b) replace the administrative state with new administators, or c) both- so what we have now with new people in charge.
Further you cannot ignore current tides of a vast and aroused *armed* people who want “democracy” and especially their country back. Nor the millions sworn to defend the Constitution who actually mean it.
Some good news; a catholic threw the earth goddess into the Tiber.
https://youtu.be/XmnBEdMKJsM
Joe Biden refused communion in SC over abortion.
We.may.not.be.finished.
Oh to see the day we throw heretics into the river.
If no one mentioned it we’ll need a God too.
It wasn’t just ‘moral authority’ that kept the West coherent, but the willingness of the authorities to enforce morals, often by execution. However, the upper class often escaped punishment and *that* is what lead to today’s broken morality. In the Ancient Regime, the lower classes never aped the manners of the upper classes, most of them didn’t even know how to do so. However, the emergence of the bourgeoisie created a class of people who *could* ape the manners of the ruling class and, since that ruling class was often immoral, the immorality of the ruling class became the ‘morality’ of the bourgeoisie, bringing us to today. In the contemporary era the ‘morality’ of the ruling class is communicated via media 24/7 and this ruling class *is* willing to enforce their morality via speech codes and the politics of personal destruction. While not all ‘moralities’ are the same over the long run, all moralities have the same social effect in the short and medium term: To display the power of the ruling class.
” . . . the immorality of the ruling class became the ‘morality’ of the bourgeoisie.” HT, you mean like teenagers following Bill Clinton’s tomcat practices once the Lewinsky saga hit the news media? I think we will find similar trickle-down lawlessness if none of these Deep Staters see striped sunshine for their crimes against Donald Trump.
Democracy can only work when it decides questions of very limited scope. When 99% of your morality and politics are already agreed upon and thus not up for debate.
For example, my co-workers and I vote on where to go to lunch. Works OK.
But if the scope were expanded to the point where we could vote to have co-workers we don’t like murdered, and then we get to repossess their house, wives, and daughters–well, people would call that madness.
But that’s essentially the IRL democracy we’ve got now.
The ridiculous thing is that cuckservatives would probably go along with it.
“Well, boys, the 51% voted fair and square to have us murdered. That settles that. Well played to them. Let the history books show that we went to the gallows like men!”
Ben Franklin supposedly said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
We’ve discussed the grim future Whites are facing – of being a despised minority in our own country – but cucks are fine with massive, third world immigration and our subsequent subjugation as long as the immigration is legal.
Few people raise the question of why we need immigrants at all in this day and age?
That which works. persists. Ancient wisdom is the verbal distillation of what works and needs to be passed down between generations in a successful society. History teaches that religion has been a very effective means of propagating wisdom between generations. The demise of religion gives birth to social chaos and degeneracy, leading to collapse of trust and cooperation. History also teaches that such societies will balkanize and resort to hot conflict until ancient wisdom once again is valued and propagated.
Implicit in the chaos Z described is the problem of different and competing moral systems.
Just an example off the top of my head: judges. You have one old-school white judge whose central value is equality under the law.
But somewhere else you’ve got a POC judge whose central value is hurt white people any way you can.
How can that work?
My working definition of “nation” is racial/tribal. But you could argue that a common moral system (such as religion) is also a necessary (but not sufficient, CivNats!) condition to nationhood. There are plenty of historical examples of racially identical peoples splitting apart because of morality/religion.
Common race + common morality/religion = real nation.
Of course, we don’t have either.
Thus what we’re really in is (1) a race war and (2) a sort of anarchic religious war at the same time–with the potentially unlimited viciousness that religious wars entail. And the two wars partially but not perfectly map onto each other.
That, my friends, is the recipe for a shitshow.
This country was founded by two distinct groups: Religious fanatics in New England and Pennsylvania versus British citizens who wanted to live as they always had. These two camps can be split again. Yankees, and today’s liberals, are the product of religious zealot Puritans and suicidally liberal Quakers. Southerners are Scotch-Irish white trash (my people so I have N word privileges) and slave owning Cavaliers who recreated a fuedal society.
Today, the Puritans wish to abolish the evil white people for their sins against the Cavaliers obsolete farm equipment. POCs are their preferred weapon. The failure of America was baked into the country at the start. The Puritans won in 1865 and their ideological bastards, Progressives, won again in 1965.
Scots-Irish — at least 1/8 my people, too, so I have upvote privileges.
One of the Alt’s weak points is relating everything back to evolution. You don’t have to be a Christian to think evolution a failed theory. We non-believers are used to reading blah blah blah during otherwise interesting articles, but in the back of our minds Is the thought this person has discernment problems, as they re not recognizing that the Theory is not scientific but religious (or do, but have their own agenda), beware.
When I first read the title I thought it said “Ethnics” . Maybe that would be a good one for another post.
“A collection of competing strangers”
That would make a good title for the last chapter of A History of Western Civilization
Extreme affluence enables a society to function (albeit temporarily) as a collection of competing strangers. Bring back real hardship and existential threat and cooperation will once again become a moral and survival imperative.
And now you understand why I am against all forms of government run welfare – and Federal Reserve generated funny money.
Hardship brings humans closer back to honesty and reality. A human can live a productive life with extreme affluence , but only if they understand right down in their core how that affluence is generated.
And welfare checks in the mail will never do that.
You are so right, Calsdad. The Fed castrated the male breadwinner, driving down the present value of the dollar to three cents in 1913 numbers at the same time that materialism became a religion. With their workplace porn, feminism bolstered womens’ desire for things that money buys, convincing them that butting heads and suffering the lash of an incompetent supervisor 8 hours a day was one long orgasm. Sometimes I think both men and women are too exhausted from working to contemplate religion. At the same time, church parking lots have in some instances become a place to measure self-worth. Does my SUV measure up to Jason and Heather’s?
I found a wallet on the ground as I was putting groceries into my car the other day. I took it into the store and left it at the customer service desk, but as I returned to my car I devoutly hoped it was a White person’s wallet I had found and returned. I’m utterly out of Fs to give regarding kindness to and cooperation with alien parasites.
Based on what I’ve observed over the last 45 years or so – I have never thought of our “democracy” as one where ‘everybody is in charge’, but rather one where the worst people somehow get to have their views legitimized – and the people who the biggest mouths get to shout down everybody else and force their views down our throats.
It’s why I subscribe to the view of some of the founders of this country – and think that the government should have as minimalist powers as humanly possible. If the local Catholic church has a priest that is diddling boys – as long as they don’t have enough power to force me to become part of their club , my boy’s butthole is far safer. If the local Episcopalians are run by women – I can avoid them as well.
If the government doesn’t have the authority to tax rape me and redistribute the money , then it’s far easier to control the diversity , because they can be kept under control with measures such as just starving them out.
Looking back it seems to me that I have spent decades avoiding one leftist inspired tiger trap after another. And if I’m an atomized individual – it’s because I recognized a long long time ago that it was the only way to live a somewhat moral life – in a world full of fallen people – and thoroughly corrupt institutions.
I would ask if that may be an incorrect mindset? The institutions are neither your friend or your enemy. Sure, you can protect your son from the predator at the church. But what about the one that runs the local Boy Scouts club? Or the minor hockey coach? Or the teacher at school? The left is now trying to mainstream pedophilia the same way homosexuality is. Exactly as the non-pozzed churches said they would.
In addition, it is not just your son’s rectum they are after – it is his mind nd soul. What happens when your kid is indoctrinated by the schools and media and community leaders that degeneracy is beautiful and wonderful and should be accepted and tolerated?
We have lost three generations to this poison and entire communities and states. I would not congratulate you on your escape just yet.
Are you kidding me?
Institutions are not my enemy? Name one single institution that is not a problem in the current day – including the Boy Scouts.
As child and young adult – I found it extremely hard to give my mind and body over to institutions that failed to live up to their stated standards on a regular basis. The easily discovered hypocrisy turned me away. When all of the allegations about the Catholic Church and it’s pervasive butthole invading ways came to light – the best way I can describe my reaction is unsurprised.
As I child I consumed as much history and literature on WW2 as I could get my hands on. But I also grew up watching the Vietnam War on TV, and was old enough to understand the after-effects on the country when that war ended. So when the 90’s came around and the memory hole kicked in and everybody started instinctively wrapping themselves in the flag and signing up to make the world safer for Israel ….. I was unimpressed.
When the advertising on TV is suddenly making every couple a white man with a black woman and mystery meat children……. I don’t buy it. When globohomo media tells me that everybody is really gay inside , I don’t believe it.
I saw the poison DECADES ago. I think my attitude is just fine. It’s “institutions” that have spread this degeneracy , but I also think the problem REALLY is – in the end – the utter inability of the individuals what make up those institutions to pull themselves out of them when they veered hard left into full bore globohomoism.
Obligatory Sun Tzu quote:
If you know your enemy and you know yourself – you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.
How many people in the “Christian” West – know THEMSELVES any more?
I think the spread of transexualism, homosexuality, and just leftism in general means the answer is : NOT VERY MANY. When you convince a male that he’s a woman despite the penis hanging between his legs – I think you’ve got person who can’t even acknowledge the most basic things about himself.
You think institutions that depend on that level of self-deception are going to somehow fix themselves?
I don’t.
How do you think you’re going to save the West – thru people fixing themselves – or by somehow capturing the institutions back (or alternatively burning them to the ground and building new ones) ?
Which do you think has the higher chance of success?
Any society , like anything else in life – is built from the bottom up , not the top down. White society was successful – because down at it’s foundation it had white MEN.
Until white men fix themselves – nothing else is going to get fixed.
And the current day institutions are almost universally – the direct enemy of that.
Forgive me – poor choice of words. The institutions are neither your enemies or your friends. It’s the guys running them that are – and my point was that they are no longer confined to the institutions. They are infesting every aspect of life… even the family.
Keep your little one close, CD. The institutions have institutionalized villainy… and it is everywhere now. They got my daughter and nearly destroyed what was left of my family. Best of luck to you and your son.
When the “institution” defines itself and it’s mission with laws and deeds that destroy people – then the institution is my enemy.
Yes – they are made up of individuals who at all levels are likely corrupt, but in the end when they band together and call themselves an “institution” – you’re not going to fix the problem by giving them a pass by saying that the organization is inert.
Burn the institution. Burn the individuals. Burn them all.
The institutions hide behind their evil ways by saying ” it was one bad seed”. The bad seeds hide behind the institution by saying they were just following orders.
Burn them all to the ground.
Name one single institution that is not a problem in the current day
That hallowed institution, “The Z Blog.”
What is the source of moral authority? A devoutly religious person has his answer. The rest of us must look elsewhere.
I observe that the different peoples have different racial personalities and priorities. Northern Europeans find private property inviolate. Gypsies, Arabs, and Africans, not so much.
Morality is an expression of a racial personality and we must separate. But it is not so simple as white=good and non-white=bad because there is a strand of Northern European Puritanism that demands that egalitarianism and homosexuality must be imposed. They must leave us alone.
“C.S. Lewis once pointed out that the moral law does not describe what humans do; it describes what we ought to do. As such, the moral law is not discernable, scientifically or otherwise, from actual human behavior.”
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/can-morality-be-grounded-in-science
If a moral law results in human misery, degredation or extinction, we can discern that it’s unfit for humanity. Lewis was wise, but not all-knowing, and he was speaking from within an implicit cultural framework much more common-sensical and grounded than today’s.
Like America’s founding documents, much is left unsaid because the speakers thought saying things like “don’t starve your own children to send money to Israel & Africa” didn’t need to be said.
Starving your own children to send money to Israel and Africa is not a Christian teaching. People not be learnin’ they catechisms.
There is a lot of ruin in a people.
That’s a huge weakness in Islam – elevating the tribal code and self-serving wishes of a 7th Century Arab warlord into a universal religion. Ultra Orthodox Judaism is also highly regimented.
Christianity is far less rule-bound, offering a lofty moral code and leaving it to believers and communities to put the principles into practice.
“Democracy is the suicide pill for a people out of reasons to live.”
Or as King Crimson has it, “confusion, will be my epitaph.”
But we are still alive, and our children…so the question becomes, “what comes after?” I think that is the question a lot of people reading this blog are trying separately and jointly to answer. Not there yet but I live in hope.
Hmmmmmm.
Do you really need religion to reject homosexuality? I mean, when you see degenerate behaviour and the consequences of it… you don’t really need God to point out what is intuitively obvious. Consider the gay bath houses and their rampant problems with HIV and other STD’s. We may be able to argue with atheists and SJW’s on whether or not God hates faggots… but it is crystal clear that Darwin and Murphy hate them, and will happily kill them if given the opportunity. How many messed up children do you have to see before you equate single motherhood with failed children? Even before I accepted my faith, I saw this stuff for what it was as do most of the people here. Actions have consequences and most of them are entirely predictable. The moslems are actually right about queers.
I’m just spitballing here, but worshipping false gods will put you n the fast track to ruin faster than democracy. Political correctness is the new religion. Because of genetic realities, merit is the new demon that only favours white men. We need lunatic theories like intersectionality to put a scientific spin on why people of uterus and colour are more worthy than the new demons that oppress them.
The church did not implode for no reason. The grifters, the television evangelists, the holy rollers, the kiddie diddling homosexuals…their exploits became very public very fast, and to my mind, the church got a well deserved chit kicking. The same thing is happening now with fake science and wokeness and they will do the same thing they did to the church. They’ve already done it to the mass media, the colleges and universities and the courts.
They will be destroyed in the coming reckoning. The dissidents must focus on what they intend to replace them with.
Do you really need religion to reject homosexuality?
Empirical data suggests the answer is “yes.”
Perhaps it is only a statistical blip. but:
https://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2019/10/did-shaming-single-mothers-work.html
Clarey’s hypothesis is interesting, but hard-to-prove. It’s a pretty short-term (so far) downturn that is nowhere near returning to 1940s levels, and it also coincides with a huge economic downturn. Maybe it simply got too expensive for a lot of women to have out-of-wedlock kids.
There are so many factors affecting peoples’ behavior in the real world that I distrust any simplistic explanation.
The upturn in single motherhood pretty well follows spread of feminism, availability of birth control, availability of abortion, no fault divorce, availability of government welfare programs for single mothers, etc. as well as diminishing influence of religion.
I expect there were also a lot of factors involved in the downturn. The very youngest Boomers are aging out of their prime child-bearing years. Housing, fuel and food are all notably more expensive despite the fact that inflation is supposedly low.
But let’s say shaming did play a part — I hope so. Where did the morality that encouraged the shaming come from? Was it simply pragmatic observation of the effects? That actually supports and reinforces traditional morality. A legitimate moral code is not arbitrary. It exists because it codifies what works best.
A moral code based on God’s law presumes that God, being God, already knows what works best and saves us the trouble of reinventing it. The entire Bible is literally the story of people figuring “Nah, the big guy doesn’t really know what’s best. I’m gonna do my own thing.” and then getting kicked in the teeth by life (or God) for doing so. So, yeah, today’s young atheists do all the hard work of figuring out what moral code works and … surprise, surprise … it’s the Christian moral code. Maybe there’s a lesson there?
It would be very interesting to see that graph broken down by demographics. I know that to this day, border-jumpers are advised to have a baby as quickly as possible to secure their residency.
As a nominal Christian, my sense is that Christianity had strength and vigor when things were “just so, that’s why” and “don’t ask too many questions”, all backed up by the trappings of the thing and the deep roots into the popular culture. Somewhere along the way, Christianity rotted from the outside in, and also from the inside out. From the outside, the competing denominations began to go for popularity instead of truth, so trendy things like femininity from the pulpit and the embrace of homosexuality became the things, rather than a stern “daddy” role that every culture needs, and, in our culture, the church traditionally provided. From the inside out, the priestly pedophilia, the limousine ministries, and the fascination with things like ecology instead of faith did things in.
So, here we are, with Christianity as some sort of cafeteria, where each one can help himself to what he wants, where faith means that God just happens to support every last thing you support, and hates every thing you can’t stand.
The main problem, as I see it, is that we have gone to “God supports us in what we want and need to do”, whatever odd thing that might be, instead of our getting down on our knees and trying to discern what God demands and expects from each one of us. We don’t do that, because we might not like the answer we get. Prayers need to be “what do you, God, have in store for me, and what is your will?”, rather than “please do this and please do that”. This reflects our culture now as one of takers, users, and consumers, not givers and providers.
The demise of Christianity? No expert here but the Church’s monopoly began to disappear before the Reformation when the papacy went bad thanks to the Borgias. It was known as The One True Church, but when you make that claim you’d better be bulletproof, and Luther created rivalries to TOTC above. All of John Chap 17 is a lengthy prayer where Jesus, as founder of this Church, asks God the Father for unity among his followers. We were divided, and then we were conquered–at least as an institution. You can be a Christian and a light without the dammed leaders and the institution, but it sure helps to have both. There’s safety in numbers.
Amen.
“just so, that’s why” and “don’t ask too many questions
The Internet killed that for good if the printing press didn’t before.
It’s hard to promulgate a belief system when anyone can see another with little effort. This is of course why the Left is censorship crazy but even in our current society, information on Christianity and over other option is plentiful and cheap to free.
If you want a stable society, it will have to be rooted in place and in custom.
This means a person will have to be able to be born, live in. marry, raise children and die in one location among the same people.
This means heavy duty economic regulation, immigration control and a culture that encourages slow over fast.
No way will the Capitalists allow that and they’ll fight to the last drop of mercenaries blood to stop it.
Fundamentally unrestricted capitalism isn’t Right Wing at all which is why we can’t shift right, In a very Orwellian sense we think what’s Left is Right and lack even a basic vocabulary or notion of something else.
Destroying tradition destroys the family and society just as the Communists thought but where they were wrong is it also stops fertility.
In the end, we stop money cucking and lay down roots and build tradition or we die.
If the Bible and the CDC agree that homosexuality is bad. Dont do it.
Has The Bulwark penned “The Conservative Case for Bisexual Adultery” yet?
“Democracy is the suicide pill for a people out of reasons to live.” Your best sentence ever.
I miss Valiant Comics
Zman is just borrowing the idea from John Adams: “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/49810-i-do-not-say-that-democracy-has-been-more-pernicious
“There are no new ideas. There are only new ways of making them felt.”
–Audre Lorde
This comment has been percolating in my feeble brain for a while, and is probably the appropriate post for it. It’s not going to be well accepted but it needs to be stated.
One of the things that people on the dissident right are going to have to confront is that Christianity is a failed religion. Christianity is dying, both in a doctrinal sense and in a literal sense. Fertility rates collapsed long ago in the nations that were historically Christian nations, and now family formation rates are collapsing. Much of the Western world previously defined by Christianity is simply going to fade away into oblivion. Societal death is the hallmark of a failed religious belief system.
Vox Day makes a sharp distinction between Christianity and what he calls Churchianity to criticize modern Christian churches, but this ultimately sounds like the same apologies given by Communists or Socialists, i.e., it’s not that our belief system is flawed, it’s just that nobody has implemented it correctly yet. These apologies don’t hold water. The simple fact is that, when confronted with modernity, Christianity crumbled in a way that other faiths have not crumbled. You don’t see butch lesbians leading mosques in the Muslim, Hindu, or Buddist faiths.
I know there are a lot of Christians who read this blog and post here, and this comment is not going to sit well with them, but this issue needs to be confronted. Any attempt to try to reinvigorate an ethics system based on Christiany is doomed to fail. The right needs to accept that.
The idea is not completely misplaced. So you get perhaps your one and only thumbs up from me.
As an evangelical Christian… I actually… agree?? with what you’re saying? Deep down I might just agree with you.
The religion is just too weak and effeminate, even when interpreting the Bible literally. It seems to be designed for a people who have common sense built into them. “Love your neighbour” is a great concept, when your neighbors are similar to you. When Muhammed moves in and wants to kill you, do you still love him?
The main thing with Christianity is that it comes from voluntarily buying in. It’s a personal faith that comes from within. Which is the most powerful kind of faith, but now that external factors “fill” this need… the religion is useless.
We should also add though that Christianity has endured hundreds of years of attacks from progressives and our (((friends))). No other religion has, so it’s not clear that Islam or Buddhism would even do this well in our place.
But, I’ll keep going to church because I found a conservative church, and I enjoy the community aspect, and I can take some useful information away from the sermons. But I’m not fooled, I know evangelicals are stagnant (at best) and every other Christian denomination is in a death spiral.
Eventually we will have to come up with a new religion. Something like “Christianity for white people, islam for our enemies”…
When “Survival of The Fittest” returns from its temporary suspension, Christianity – albeit a much more muscular version of it – will return as well.
When Muhammed moves in and wants to kill you, do you still love him?
Christians of the 11th (First Crusade, Kingdom of Jerusalem), through 17th (Battle of Vienna) and 19th (Barbary pirates) centuries didn’t seem to have any problem answering that question.
That’s what’s been lost. The moral courage to fight for what is clearly right. Liberalism has infected most of Christianity now to the point where they lack the conviction to continue existing.
UFO
DUde- join me sometime at the Catholic Latin Mass.
It is the OPPOSITE of effeminate.
That is why Jorge despises it so much (wishing to destroy it, which he can never do…) and why Benedict worked to expand it.
Carrie, agreed. And the SSPX priest who delivers the mass is neither effeminate nor vapid. The sermons are theological and uncompromising. Unfortunately in my area it’s one priest driven down from 120 miles away by volunteers and the venue has been moved from a church to the chapel of a mortuary. It’s clear the Papacy despises SSPX and would love to see it die on the vine.
I gave it a thumbs down – even though it is a fair comment. I just don’t like it even if it is possibly true. No offense meant. I may disagree:
The church is in a quandary. The same people that are undermining the church are the same ones destroying the mass media, the universities and the courts – the homos/pedos, the narcissists and psychopaths, the wahmen, the vibrants, the socialists etc.
For any recovery, those types will have to be purged and rejected. There are sparks of that afoot already in the church. At mine, one of the wahmen wanted a spot in Sunday services for a woman in the pulpit. Her proposal was politely but firmly rejected. When she tried to make a stink about it – she was politely but firmly ignored. She left a short time later and hasn’t been seen. Every month though, a few new faces trickle in and stay. Some drag their families with them. Funnily enough, it is the young women that seem to be driving that. I wonder if that ties in with an observation just made by Captain Capitalism – the rate of single mother births has declined sharply in recent years.
Creepy Joe Biden was just recently refused communion by a priest in South Carolina because of his stance on abortion. By contrast, I was raised atheist, in a pozzed family of shitlibs… and here I am, going to church. I admit I struggle with some biblical mythology and dogma – but the morals and ethics all ring of truth and of our Maker, and I accept them without question or reservation. It’s good stuff, and I was stunned to learn that atheists have been lying through their teeth about Christians and the faith. As far as I can see… the church is the only institution making an effort to clean out the rot. I believe they will succeed. They’ve done it before.
John;
Be of good cheer, you have found the way, the truth and the life.
One of my favorite aphorisms on the subject of the survival of The Christian Church Universal (not just the one HQ in Rome) despite 2000 years of opposition is, “The Church is the anvil that has worn out a thousand hammers”.
So what is your proposal to replace what you think has failed…
Find the modern mystics of faith, the guys who’ve been to the other side, people inspired to greatness and miracles, and put them on the stage rather than slick-talkers, lawyering theologians and Oprah-fied shrinks in cassocks.
An inspired street prophet preaching muscular, assertive Christianity based on a vision he received in a trailer would be more animating and legitimate than the entire faculties of Notre Dame, Georgetown and Liberty College are today. Jesus was a carpenter without a degree but he had something to say and he moved men who heard him speak.
Exile;
The people you are looking for are all over if you look in the right places, just not in Big U or big media.
By the way, Jesus was not *just* a carpenter, though he was indeed a ‘tecton’ (greek for builder, type unspecified): He IS God_!
If you seek to find and get to know Him, you will find those people and much, much more.
Muscular assertive Christianity already exists. It is called the Latin Mass.
(Not to be confused with the many cucked “Traditional Catholics” moaning and pearl-clutching about Jorge.)
One need only watch Ann Barnhardt’s video of the koo-ran burning, complete with bacon and everything.
Jorge & the Lavender Mafia are an enormous problem for Catholicism – legitimate Caths need to focus some of that Koran-burning fire on Rome and burn down the cabal of child-groomers and tikkun olam conversos that has been allowed to wormtongue their way to the thrones of the Church.
A faith that demands respect for a heirarchy of perverted degenerate ephors is a house divided. Find how to unite it and cast those pederasts and cryptos into the Tiber. Call it “Tarpeian Catholicism.”
This was not addressed to me but the answer is nothing.
Once a religion stops having a hold on enough people , it stops working as social glue. You’ll no more be able to reignite Christianity as social glue than the Romans were able to reignite the Religio Roma.
Usually what happens is either a competitor comes along , Christianity the last time or more commonly religion becomes a folk matter. Each family/clan/household culture has its own ways.
I suspect the West has already entered the later stage and folk religions not Islam will be the default as we enter catabolic collapse. Now for Americans , this will include a fair amount of Christianity of various strains so there is that.
The only way to reverse this moral course is raw power. If you have enough troops you can impose a Christian value set by force. This would require an interregnum of at least 40 years to set in and cost a fortune.
The time is manageable since Christianity is fairly normal to our society , resistance costs are lower. However the massive economic costs will be there and Americans care little about anything but money.
I was going to guess a lot of people at least dabbling in the Old Norse religion as the world crumbles. It doesn’t offer hope or salvation – but we’ve lost hope. It is the religion of my forefathers and it offers battle, which is the only way we’ll survive.
I’ve met people who have had prayers answered by the Norse deities as far back as the late 80’s.
It’s why i think if deities exist, Pantheism is far more likely than Monotheism. Its historically more common and answers big questions at least as well as Monotheism
It’s also perfectly useful as social glue not that we are going that way as a society yet.
Heathery though must be noble, virtuous and honorable to to work though.
This conundrum is why Wicca which mixes folk tradition, ceremonial magic, Crowley’s morality and sex cult in differing doses tends to get degenerate and is not as “good” as it should be.
It’s not terrible but it needs work and lacks any way to ensure a functional sexual morality. Lacking that you have no civilization.
Ahhh my Brother you really need to get out of California… Christianity will be around til Christ returns even if it’s just a remnant…
FWIW I grew up in the Rockies not California and I live in a highly religious Red part of the State
While I agree about the remnant. After all there are till people in Greece and elsewhere who worship Zeus despite Christian efforts as well as growing numbers who sacrifice to Odin and Thor.
I’ve seen sacrificed animals around here too from either folk magic or Santeria.
There are even belief in new minor gods such as Santa Muerte passed off a part of Mexican Catholic tradition.
This doesn’t mean that any of them will make a visit in our lifetimes, any of the myths or faiths are objectively true or most importantly that any of them will serve as the foundation for a social fabric.
Now the US will be pretty Christian for a long time but this makes sense, It has a growing population of 3rd worlders , a 3rd world system of government and was formed in part by religious nutters.
Europe OTOH ? Well it won’t be Muslim or Christian .
This is fine.
I think one moderate issue in the Dissident Right is that huge numbers of us are NOT religious at all and the Deus Vult Right is as are many of the Militia Right .
A lot of people simply don’t want your old tyme religion , have their own, or think “oh great another century of middle east entanglements.” or may simply not believe any more.
I’d suggest most people these days certainly aren’t moral and are if anything quite libertarian these days enjoying freedom to screw, porn , strip clubs drugs and even guns to some degree.
Trying to check the chaos that hedonism and materialism creates with wokeness or t.e.p.i.d. (Tolerance, Equality, Progress, Inclusivity, and Diversity) is stupid at best but telling people to roll it back to 1980 much less 1680 is not going to happen readily if at all.
Not dumb, just impractical
You may not have the ability to do that and once a revolution starts you have to assume everyone is as dangerous as you and as well armed. You may not for example be able to force people to get married and stay married and if you don’t get a decent economy, well you’ll get a counter revolution toot sweet .
Separation is one way to deal but there may be others.
How our thing handles this may be the difference between success , failure and/or separation.
Christianity, as originally practiced, appears to have been a bottom-up reaction to the Roman rule and Jewish Old Testament religion of the day. Christianity seems to have meshed very nicely with the rise of the modern West over the last few centuries (until about the early 1900s or so). But all of this may have been a bit accidental. Keep in mind that the Jewish roots of Christianity, themselves, arose out of an intense tribal battle with the other religious practices, back in the day. Judaism came out of monotheism defeating the polytheists, and also overcoming the myriad of other religious practices, all to become a sort of precursor to Christianity. It could have easily gone all differently, and yet our having ended up in roughly the same place, religiously, today, but with different books and traditions along the way. So I see Christianity, as we practice it, as the adaptive result of a religious evolution and competition. The religious roots we need were always there. The specific practice of it is a bit accidental, IMHO. And of course, in my mind, the actual practice of Christianity today is often a simulacrum of what being religious is all about, as things have strayed so far in the popular culture.
One of the most important aspects of religion is that it propagates ancient wisdom, and consequently, it’s adherents tend to be more robust due to the advantages conferred by utilizing that wisdom in daily life. Once upon a time, Christianity promoted fecundity as ancient wisdom. Be fruitful and multiply and opposition to abortion are examples.
You are right, but Christianity has been a dying religion from day one. In fact it has died many times and been resurrected just as many. It’s true that things look bleak now, but they also looked bleak on Holy Saturday, then during the Arian heresy when nearly all the Church denied the divinity of Christ, then at the Fall of Rome, and many times since. All through its history prognosticators have proclaimed that the Church is finally worn out and done – and common sense agreed that they were right. But as Etienne Gilson remarked, the Church always buries it’s undertakers. Will this time be different?
It’s true that Christianity has suffered from stasis and dogmatism since the Middle Ages. The modern version is stuck in limbo between ritualism and therapeutic assimilation. Jung was onto something in discussing his pastor father’s hollowness of faith and lack of real transcendent experience — and that was 100 years ago.
We’ve needed inspiring tales of modern saints and heroic acts animated by faith but since the Enlightenment we’ve been cruising on fumes. The last burst of inspired myth-making and apologetics died with Chesterton, Tolkien and Lewis. I’m with you on needing to confront this head-on.
The modern system we live in has no use for Christian values and in fact promotes 5 of the seven deadly sins as virtues. To quote Lewis Mumford: :”pride, envy, greed, avarice, and lust-into positive social virtues, treating them as necessary incentives to all economic enterprise; while the cardinal virtues, beginning with love and humility, were rejected as ‘bad for business,’ except in the degree that they made the working class more docile and more amenable to cold-blooded exploitation.”
As a side effect it’s created a corrosive atmosphere that Christianity can no longer thrive in. Islam can because it views our system as evil and merely uses it to further their own ends.
It is also anti-family. Try parenting when your job keeps you away from home 12 hours a day(factoring in commute and OT) you can’t. You end up outsourcing parenting to public schooling and the TV/Internet). All you end up doing is producing another biological cog for the system to use up and spit out.
We need to get rid of the current toxic system before any real change can be effected.
Christianity is not a failed religion, people are failed Christians. Christianity is still the world’s largest religion. Yeah, it’s in sorry shape right now, down but not out.
Europe is growing post Christian and in that continent the most Christian nations often have lower fertility than secular social democracies.
The US is oscillating but only drop outs and some very devout people are having kids. They won’t sustain modernity.
You of course are more than tie your fate to Africa and South America , though the later too is entering low fertility.
Frankly I’ve met many people from those regions, many of whom I like. They are not however my people and no amount of religion would change that.
Only the people of Europe and their diaspora truly matter to me and they are growing less Christian.
Back to basics I guess. Sacred groves, sacred trees, sacred rivers and well , household altar all that Hopefully we can avoid human sacrifice though.
I’d rather be the last Christian standing, than Judas to my faith. Think Alamo, there, you have it.
If a faith contracts into a more condensed group of the faithful, so be it. A heroic man of the cloth finally denied the apostate Biden the Eucharist – something cowardly Caridinal Dolan could never do in terms of his Emperior Caesar – Cuomo. Funny, the name MOREY seems to be the heroic name as of late – standing up to power.
What is the root of the surname “Morey”? Of course my inquiring mind wanted to know:
*****Recorded in various spellings including Morey, Morry, and Moorhay, the name originates from the Olde English pre 6th Century words “mor” meaning a marsh or swamp and “leah” describing a fenced enclosure or farm, a place suitable for agriculture, to give the farm by the marsh or similar.****
To FENCE IN THE SWAMP – and make into land that can be tilled. Fertile. Who says there is no God and He does not have a sense of humor?
What churches are left mostly seem to be glorified rock concerts, Dionysian if you will. You would think that might get the fertility thing going again, but, no. Too many women are frying their ovaries with birth control pills from 9th grade on, and, to my knowledge, no booze is being served, although I look for that to start happening any day to bring in customers.
Lefties:
1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
– Iowahawk
Most churches have been gutted and are now fronts. I’ve been in enough churches the last few years to recognize the lefty parading around in the priest / minister mask.
The problem with organized religion is, it’s organized. The people who I know who are practicing Christians meet in small groups. And practice. Well.
As a Christian, I am not offended by the argument that Christianity, in the west, is dying. I wholeheartedly agree. In each age of the “church”, the church embraces the zeitgeist, the spirit of the age. The current zeitgeist is consumerism, materialism, prosperity for all. The church, that part that professes to be Evangelical, in the U.S., in particular, has fully embraced this spirit. This is why you see the mega-churches, with their rock bands and light shows, leading “worship” and their charlatan preachers strip mining their congregations of their money while vastly enriching themselves. These charlatans give wonderful lectures, espousing wisdom, embracing each new decadent thing, and yet it is utter foolishness, garbage, and non biblical. And here is the kicker: and the people love it so. When one mega church falls, they flock to another.
What you are describing is something that the bible describes. The church was always supposed to be salt and light to the world. Instead, it has embraced the world, repackaging it with Christian jargon. In doing so, the salt has lost its ability to preserve and its light is all but extinguished.
There are true, bible believing Christians in the west. There is a remnant. There is always a remnant in each age.
But true Christianity? Where? True Christianity exists, as a corporate solidarity, ONLY – I repeat, ONLY, where it is undergoing intense persecution. The freedom Christians have enjoyed in the west is a historical anomaly. For most of its history, true Christians have been persecuted for their beliefs right up to the present day. Persecution of true Christians is coming to the west, in fact, in some small measure it has already begun (bakers, wedding photographers, etc.). Christians, prepare accordingly.
Yet the Eastern Church seems not to be so afflicted.
You are correct, that Christianity has fallen. But so have the universities. Do not confuse the institution with the content. The current state of Harvard doesn’t prove that universities as a thing are invalid. The Post Office is an institution: it can be used to spread freedom pamphlets or to surveille east German dissidents.
And “the church never did nothing” ignores everything from the 11th to 17th centuries. That’s like saying monarchy doesn’t work, except those 800 years in England, or those 500 years in France…
Also, Roman paganism fell as Christianity is falling now, and Daoisim fell to communisim, Buddhism fell to Islam outside of Han China, Egyptian worship fell to Islam, Islam and Judaism fell to Catholicism in Spain, etc.
So where does that leave old St.Peter? Well, look at the current pope: pro gay marriage, pro abortion, pedo apologist/enabler, spreader of the false God of global warming, literal false idols put in the sanctuary, blah blah blah. I’m no papist, but the Lord he serves has a forked tongue and goat horns.
How do you solve that? Auto de fe; let him feel the flames of his master before he meets him in person. Maybe things go back to working. The Senate had one or two good centuries after Caesar? Sometimes institutions can be reclaimed, purified, and restored. It’s worth a shot.
In the old days, authority wore a crown and suit of armor and rode a high horse, so everyone knew who was in charge. The invention of guns put a stop to that; authority now hides somewhere deep in the bowels of Washington bureaucracy or Harvard University.
Which is why they want to disarm us. Those nasty guns make us too equal.
Oh, we have a moral authority. It is the church of the campus and it reigns supreme.
Why just the other day one of its high priestesses at the New York Times informed the world that when two Indian boys attack a black girl then white people are to blame.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/nytimes-columnist-blames-whiteness-two-indian-boys-racially-abusing-black-girls-new
Sure, it sounds absurd, but so did transgendered washrooms 10 years ago. In ten years this too will be moral gospel since our universities are now one-party states.
The high priests, like the New York Times editorial board, will always spoon-feed the latest academic sermon to the masses, Oprah, Hollywood, and the rest of the mainstream media and pop culture will ensure the little church ladies are falling over themselves, just as they are, to be seen repeating the new cutting-edge sermon, and voila! The latest “morality” becomes de-facto law, and anyone who objects will be crucified.
You don’t need a god or an official church to have a moral code. Just a population seeking popularity, acceptance, and a lust to persecute sinners. We have that in abundance today.
I am persuaded by Da Booby. If what he says is true, that academics and media owners determine our morality, then shouldn’t we exercise direct control over who occupies those positions?
I can think of one guy who took this point seriously and said you can’t let your enemies control these institutions.
The counter argument against this position is that your enemies will follow your logic and impose their leaders on you. But aren’t we at this point now?
Some of you guys are ace historians. I am wondering if we are not seeing an historical repeat?
Aren’t there other examples of the intellectual class betraying their society – and then getting wiped out in retribution? Didn’t the Chinese periodically purge their intellectual class?
I do love how they try to put sinister spins on dissidence. When they do something they sing the praises and say it was driven by popular opinion. When you do something they don’t like – it’s populism… or white nationalism… and it is something to be Deeply Concerned About…
You have to remember that a large portion of our intellectual class doesn’t – and never did – consider themselves a part of our society. They were – and are – a different tribe living in our society. They were simply doing what they felt was best for their group.
And, frankly, they have a very long history pushing against their host society and then getting wiped out in retribution.
Grammar NAZI (triggered!) says “Ten demerits for failing to capitalize “Tribe”.)
Show some respect, dammit!
The counter argument against this position is that your enemies will follow your logic and impose their leaders on you. But aren’t we at this point now?
This is largely what the Zman’s post is about. Either you acknowledge openly that whoever is in power imposes their leaders on you, or you engage in elaborate theater to pretend it is not so.
It’s ironic isn’t it that people don’t want to attain power because then the other side will want too never making the correlation that the other side is way ahead in that attaining…
If the Booby can stress one thing it’s that the 60s really were a revolution, not just metaphorically. Few noticed because it happened largely on campus. Not everyone who took part in it was a white male-hating, Mother Earth chanting, Marxist-neo-Marxist scumbag, but they were the ones willing to take the most violent and extreme measures. They also hid behind real grievances that ordinary people had, which gave them popular protection. I mean, who want to be pro-war or anti-worker?
Not everyone who took part in the Russian revolution was a Bolsheivik, nor everyone in the Iranian revolution a Khomeini follower, but they were the most violent and the authorities either could not, or were afraid, to take them on. Same thing in the 60s. The Kent State backlash is telling.
The revolutionaries of the 60s campus were rich white kids, so the authorities didn’t dare crack down on them for fear of that kind of backlash. Thus, the far left took over. There were no crowds with pitchforks or Bastille’s, just campus riots, sit-ins, burned dorms, and so on, which a sympathetic media rationalized as anti-Vietnam rage. It wasn’t.
The revolutionaries took power of the one institution that is more important than legislatures. They now train our bureaucrats, our lawyers, our judges, our journalists, our schoolteachers, etc. PC and SJW are simply the post-revolutionary reign of terror that any radical new government assumes to keep the rage alive, and to deflect attention from its own totalitarian behaviours.
Just the Booby’s two cents.
Yeah Booby, so much about the cold war – like most wars really, has been scrubbed, stripped, and re-scripted such that is now merely an epic poem of the evil empire standing in the way of Global Progress.
The dovetail of campus commie twats agitating for critical theory and the destruction of universal moral authority with the boogieman of USSR really played into their hand.
Be afraid of the Commies over there while the commies over here take your schools and steal the minds of your children.
We can spend six gorillion dollars and send thousands of our boys to die far away in a tribal skirmish but the homeland culture falls to the enemy.
So why change what works for them? We have commie muzzies and failed state POCs like somalis that must be dealt with over there or else terrorism, because they hate rainbows and 401ks, but we must also celebrate the democracy gods for bringing those same people here where they now take seats in our schools, civic chambers, and now our sacred government Legislature.
Winning.
I need to start drinking whatever Da Booby is because it produces some deep clarity of thought. To extend your allegory of the post-academic revolution as the Jacobins’ Reign of Terror, I look forward to the Robespierre analogue’s appointment with Mme. Guillotine.
Booby;
I was there at the time and can confirm your assessment with the adjustment of adding the outsized role of NE originated Red Diaper Babies. They were able to use disaffected elite spawn as stalking horses. Had it been just them, I suspect that they’d have been dealt with.
At the time, the non-U authorities were also coping with class/labor antagonisms, actual war on several fronts and burning cities. They considered Big U to be mostly like they were pre WWII, that is, rich-kid polishing-up playgrounds (hence relatively inconsequential). And so they were just glad that campus unrest went away along with the draft.
Thus did the poison get injected via future faculty.
Your favourite whisky is all a man needs to gain some clarity.
We all fell for the anti-Communist BS our betters uttered to some extent. The Booby still believes containing the USSR was a good thing… to some extent.
Problem is, the West spent a lot of blood and treasure fighting abroad to supposedly stop the Commies while the Commies had already taken over in our countries. Those wars were really just wars for empire, and guess who runs our empire now? It ain’t us.
For those of you of fighting age, or with sons of fighting age, the Booby urges you to think twice about dying for the ruling class we now have:
https://theredfootedbooby.com/2019/10/29/in-the-news-trump-caves-to-the-military-establishment-time-to-start-thinking-about-yourselves-fellas/
Yesterday’s post by the Z man makes that pretty clear, too.
The MSM is dead. The internet had it on the ropes, and Trump delivered the death blow. Look at how those idiots had the apologize for ISIS leader obituary. That would not have happened in the past — go read the glowing obit the NYT gave Josef Stalin. It’s disgusting.
No doubt, the educational system is still a huge problem, though.
Max, you may think it is dead, and it certainly has taken a huge hit to its credibility, but can you name another institution that so (still) effectively controls our habits and thought patterns? We may not believe them like we used to, but the media (news, entertainment, etc) still controls what we talk about and how we think about things.
You have to respect the left. As mentioned above, they took control of the academy, then the media (or was it the other way around?). They also did this at the same time everyone was pushed to go to college and media expanded to permeate all aspects of our lives.
Now if Trump can pivot the fake news skewer toward the lizards of ‘the internet’ we might just have a chance at maintaining some civility of information.
The fetishIzing of technology as some kind of magic pill for a disease not yet invented or as not just a fast track but the only track toward utopia must be pulled down from the pedestal. Tech should be viewed with skepticism like big pharma, a necessary mess full of costly tradeoffs. Not the defied can do no wrong of tech.
Mainstream media is worse than worthless but the age of the algo is even more dangerous.
Things like ‘net neutrality’ and other legal and regulatory measures, when stuffed with existing policies around PC, thought crime and pre-crime, and ‘hate speech’ will all but hand over the reigns to zog.
We already have going on two generations that have no qualms about putting their trust, faith, and (lack of) privacy in the hands of the enemy.
Their arbiter of truth is Google and Wikipedia. Their versions of CNN fake news airport stream is in their hand all day long and they are all-in.
As for schools. Apparently common core is great but a truly ‘good school’ will put Ipads in kids hands by first grade because Technology!
” Look at how those idiots had the apologize for ISIS leader obituary. That would not have happened in the past — go read the glowing obit the NYT gave Josef Stalin.”
You post is self-refuting: it did happen in the past.
Yeah, yeah sloppy syntax. What I meant is that they wouldn’t have had a right-wing Twitter army to shame them into correcting it with regards to Stalin’s.
“You don’t need a god or an official church to have a moral code.”
You may not need an “official” religion, but you do need a religion. You also need a way to disseminate that religion to the masses and a way to enforce that religion’s moral code (as determined by the church elders).
Our current religion is the Church of Equality (CE). Its intellectual origins are the Enlightenment. It’s “official” founding was on the college campuses of the 1960s (heavily organized and led by the complimentary religion, the Synagogue of Jewish Retribution Against White Christians – J-Hate). The CE was disseminated via the media, particularly by J-Hate, and colleges, whose ranks were infiltrated by CE zealots.
One CE and J-Hate gained control of the media and campuses, they spread their religion to the children of high classes, giving them future church members in law, media, finance, schools and politics, i.e. the commanding heights of society. They also teamed up with J-Hate’s financial wing – J-Fin – to monetarily support these young, bright apostles.
(J-Hate and J-Fin aren’t actually members of the CE, but they share many of CE’s conclusions about gentile whites and society so can often function as one.)
From the late 1960s to around the 1990s, the CE’s primary ability to enforce its moral code was limited cultural pressure via the K-12 schools, colleges and, particularly, the J-Hate’s media.
However, by the 1990s and certainly by the 2000s, the CE and J-Hate – particularly bolstered by J-Hate’s dominance of the media and J-Fin’s money – had gained enough control of political arena to, finally, give them control of the state and federal governments’ massive police forces.
At the same time, the CE and J-Hate recruited another powerful ally – J-Tech – which had come to to dominate communication.
We now find ourselves in a situation where the CE and J-Hate are nearly in complete control. Soon, they will take over the presidency and, with it, destroy any final judiciary resistance, small as it is.
At that point, we will have a true theocracy. The CE – like all dominate religions – will need to dispense with democracy, which, of course, competes for power. It will also punish non-believers.
The CE’s long march to power is nearly finished.
Unfortunately, for the CE, it’s a more a suicide cult than a religion, so, ironically, the more power it gains, the closer it moves to its own demise.
The university now comes with its own inquisition: endless conformity tests (shit tests) where you must…must take part in…otherwise you will find yourself on the outs.
The vibrants, especially the females, seem to have a natural calling in playing this role. The frizzy haired 95 IQ mulattos are the most animated but it is the Indian females(●) that are the most vicious. As always, the little hatted stage manager stays behind the curtain directing and inciting the drama.
_____
If you missed yesterday’s TDS you’ve missed a good one. It was a dive into the latest battle about to we waged on whites: the Tulsa Negro Uprising. I’ve noticed scholarzzz sporting Tulsa garb in recent weeks.
I live in Tulsa and have been dreading 2020 for just this reason for years. Our city government is now controlled by liberals, so it is going to be a year-long white guilt hootenanny. I dread 12 midnight, January 1, as I would dread a comet strike, which in contrast would be mercifully over in a few moments. Funny thing is, most blacks here are not that radical about the goings-on. It will be the SJW midtown whites rending garments, self-flagellating, and screeching for 366 days. Wouldn’t you know it’s a leap year.
You’re probably in for one long continuous nightmare. Tulsa is in for endless well-funded pilgrimages. The locals will be the least of your problems. Challawood will do its utmost to amplify the tension…
Maybe this on top of the volatility of the election and the greenlight Pelosi recently gave impeachment is when the balloon will finally go up.
A perfect storm.
I can see it now — CNN camped out all year in the downtown Civic Center parking lot. I guess if the natives aren’t stirred up by now, they will be by the time this circus is over.
By the way, it’s now called the Tulsa Massacre, instead of the Tulsa Race Riot. Nothing like the healing process, huh . . .
The current progressive liberal orthodoxy states that no human being has any moral agency. All “people of color” are oppressed victims and have the innate quality of being only good and cannot commit an act of evil. So when “people of color” commits a crime against another “person of color”. the only way the prog can square the circle is to postulate that the evil miasma of “white privilege” overwhelmed the unsuspecting “person of color” and allowed the demon white racism to posses him and force him to commit an act of evil.
“You don’t need a god or an official church to have a moral code.”
Respectfully disagree.
Man only respects a power higher than himself which can hold him accountable for his actions. If morality is created by Man, then that morality is neither universal nor immutable therefore Man can change his own morality at his whim. Morality is ultimately a transcendent concept which cannot be reduced to purely materialistic terms. Otherwise, it’s a gnostic (in the sense used by Voegelin) and plastic morality that as Z-man points out must be imposed which I may add, by tyranny.
“Just a population seeking popularity, acceptance, and a lust to persecute sinners. We have that in abundance today.”
This is a result of the present gnostic morality leading to nihilism as not only has the moral authority of the churches been broken but the churches themselves become infused with the current social justice zeitgeist.
Again, with Man created morality, the members of the ruling class and the elite have no power above them to hold them accountable for their actions therefore they may persecute or grant privileges to those beneath them at their own capricious whims. Most of those below will bow to their master’s way of thinking and behave in a way to please their rulers to gain favor including persecuting those whom their master hates.
Agree. But thus far, the moral majority – i.e. spoiled white college kids and bourgeois white women – seems perfectly content to believe that its faith in progressivism is, in fact, a higher authority. Nothing will shake this faith save for a return to the jungle, figuratively speaking.
Of course absolute rulers don’t need a higher authority if they believe themselves to be that higher authority. For that same reason they believe they can hammer everyone else into conformity by whatever means necessary. We also call it tyranny.
The moral majority obviously believes it is a higher authority and believes it has the right to use the state to hammer everyone else into conformity.
So far the state seems perfectly willing to abide them.
I no longer think the argument that Democracy itself is responsible for much of the decline in the West is over the top. The Progressives worship democracy and correctly view democracy not as a system but as a “vector with an unmistakable direction” (Nick Land). Recently, some Remainer was asked if she would support Brexit if there was another referendum and it won by an even bigger margin. Her response was that no, she wouldn’t, because she “believes in democracy”.
It can make a weird sort of sense or at least some form of consistency when looked at it the way progressives do.
The progressive remainer doesn’t understand the word democracy according to a dictionary definition but according to a vague emotional connotation she has towards it being a “good” word. So “democracy” can be used any way the prog wants even if it contradicts the true meaning of the word. The prog believes that all centrally controlled, top-down managed states, even transnational states to be good to the point of a religious fervor where the state takes the place of a benevolent god who can create a heaven on earth. So the scriptures of the remainer’s god who acts in the best interest of all takes precedence over what any pack of ignorant proles may or may not want.
But on another point, it isn’t democracy that fails as concepts written on a piece of paper have no moral agency or ability to physically compel people to act or obey. People have moral agency and may choose to obey rules or laws or not to. Therefore the failure of democracy is the failure of the human component in the system not the words written on a piece of paper.
I held onto a belief in Democracy, until recently, as well. The Brexit charade has killed it. I still like Democracy in principle, but in practice it’s failed. Perhaps it can work for a ethnically homogeneous city-state.
It did not work for them either.
Religion is just another form of control, plain and simple. To say that all atheists lack a moral code (or “proper” religious moral code) because it hasn’t been believed to come from god (any god, pick one) seems extremely simple minded. To question the form of control stemming from government while just blindly accepting the forms of control stemming from religions is very inconsistent, or possibly intellectually dishonest. Perhaps willfully inconsistent and dishonest.
Where do your rights come from? You see, my rights are different – and more important – than yours.
All hail Dear Leader….
I like that. It’s pretty funny. Why do they have to come from somewhere? I exist. Because i exist i cant just have rights with no strings attached (tithing to a church)? Can i call my rights natural rights, or does that term solely belong to religious conservatives and libertarians?
You absolutely can say that but so can everyone else and that’s why we’re dealing with chaos right now. When there’s no truth all of the sudden you have 7 billion truths
What’s one more “truth” added to the pile? Don’t get me wrong, the historical lack of morality by liberals is a clear issue that has been taken to new levels in the past 2 decades. I’ve mentioned it before, but putting all atheists in one basket of amorality is wrong. That’s not how atheism works but many just group them all under one stereotype. This may be a false choice, but which would you choose: today’s modern liberal or an atheist with very similar morality to your own without believing in a god.
The occasional atheist is no problem. But the mass of people are neither strong nor philosophical enough to generate their own moral worldview. They adopt whatever view has the most cultural authority. When that view is an atheistic one that denies any moral authority transcending the individual, then the mass of men become demoralized and chaos results.
“They adopt whatever view has the most cultural authority.” It sounds nice, but i don’t think that’s how most atheists operate and it seems like that’s just another blanket assumption by religious people. I certainly don’t adhere to whatever the current majority cultural authority is. I would guess amoral liberals are extremely likely to just go along with the current cultural authority and there seems to be quite a few examples over the last 100 years of that. I can be persuaded you might be right, so do you have an example of when this mass of atheists has directly caused chaos?
The French Revolution and Stalin come to mind …
Touche. But those developments originated from govt. And by what we see today, modern liberals are starting that up again. But my point is: I dont see a large percentage (or any percentage) of atheists advocating or leading the liberal fight. It is just simply wrong to say all atheists have no morals. That’s my only point and it’s being missed.
The French Revolutionary and Soviet governments become god.
When the Soviets first took over, they promoted “free love” – easy divorce and abortion, decriminalized homosexuality and even indulged in a serious discussion about whether or not marriage should be abolished. Didn’t work out, so the Soviets backtracked and by WWII, the official culture was quite puritanical and remained so even in the 1980s. But their “morality” was grounded in, at best, pragmatism.
That’s why you need a god….
i’m talking about the mass of men. They don’t have a thought through philosophy and may not be explicitly atheist because they aren’t that reflective. Nonetheless, they adopt dominant cultural attitudes, which may be explicitly atheist and self-conscious in university professors, but become an unreflective individualism when it trickles down to the average man. The result is the destruction of civil institutions like the family and a generally increasing corruption.
What’s the point of continuing this charade – if the mass of people are neither strong enough or philosophical enough to generate their own moral worldview?
You might win a temporary victory – but in the end , your institutions will be taken over again – and used for the ends of the elites (again) – and the cattle will be led to their slaughter (again).
I’m never going to claim to be any expert on Christianity , but I’m pretty sure that if you cut your dick off and run around calling yourself a woman , it’s going to be YOU that has to answer to God – and not any “institution”.
“My Boy Scout leader told me to do it” – isn’t going to be a legitimate excuse.
Good point. Agree.
With its reach and ease of access, television became the cultural authority. Tradition and religion never had a chance against the blue light. There is no going back as long as it is omnipotent and controlled by those who would dismantle the West. I turned it off and homeschooled, but I don’t expect a majority of Americans will do that. They’re too hypnotized by sports and the moronic shows that pass for entertainment.
It is definitely a false choice; here’s why: Any given atheist lives in total amoral freedom to hold or not hold any given set of morals. Further, that Atheist is free to modify, without notice, those moral principles in order to be more compatible with a current “situation” – hence situational ethics are not abjured since the atheist starts off with no ethics at all, having rejected all moral and intellectual authority which is not himself. The atheist is, by default, the personal authority for both moral and intellectual concepts, a title he has pinned on him/her/xer/xis/xip/zip – self. The atheist is an autonomous island whose ethics du jour cannot be known by non-islanders. And that is why atheists are not trusted by anyone beyond the trust afforded to rapists and child molesters, whose moral principles actually can be known.
Disagree. One truth and 7 billion lies. Nothing new under the sun.
Pretty simple. As an American, my rights are codified as being inalienable, and from my Creator. Go ahead, move to ChiCom, or some other such place and see how right differ, based on whom issued them.
Now that said, while IMO this confusion of where ‘rights’ emanate from is just another disingenuous, throw-away internet post from some nose-picker – rights have to “come from somewhere” – unless you exist as an animal, ruled by the Law of the Jungle. Or in Chicongo – same thing. If you’d rather they come from the King, Idi Amin — or more likely your Mom calling down the basement stairs … so be it. Mine come from the Founders, and my Creator.
HomerB, That is the supreme argument: when rights are not derived from a truly authoritative source, then they are not rights at all. When the atheist is the sole author for his own rights, there is nothing to prevent that self-endowed person with the right to determine your and my rights. The atheist steps directly into Nietzsche’s antirationalist Will To Power as the source of rights as well as intellectual concepts which are approved.
Are you thoughts, or are you that which is aware of thoughts? Are you sensations (body), or are you that which is aware of sensations? Are you perceptions (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching), or are you that which is aware of perceptions? Are you the taste of tea, or are you that which is aware of the taste of tea?
Reflect on the nature of “that”, and you find a spiritual presence. It’s everyones experience, all 7 billion of us, but we overlook it because our mind’s fascination with the world of objects
See Cleary and Campbell as I suggest below. Religion is something you volunteer for. The idea that it’s a cynical control mechanism for savage rubes is a shibboleth of unrooted Bugmen & libertarians.
The “control mechanism” of Christianity inspired Notre Dame, the Sistine Chapel and the founding of America. Greco-Roman and Norse paganism inspired the Golden Age, the Germanic transformation of that same Christian faith and journeys of exploration, trade and conquest from China to Newfoundland.
The atheistic culture of bugmen has given us Communism, brutalist aesthetics, hippies, feminism, trannies, cape shit and e-girlz. Next up – bugburgers.
Clearly you have studied, and in studying you must have also learned about the original popes of the catholic church running brothels and murdering anyone in their way. War and sex (for them not for you). Sounds perfect and suspiciously like today. I’m sure that more than offsets the beautiful artwork and architecture of the age. The Sistine chapel is absolutely beautiful to see, but i also couldn’t help be be disgusted by all the pure gold lettering high above the Vatican basilica. Surely their morals should imply they scrape that off and spend it on suffering people around the world instead of telling parishioners that their sins aren’t forgiven unless they tithe? Hypocrisy is everywhere if one chooses to see it.
“Hypocrisy is everywhere if one chooses to see it.”
So is beauty.
The idea that “their morals should imply they scrape that off and spend it on suffering people around the world instead of telling parishioners that their sins aren’t forgiven unless they tithe” comes from the tortured straw man of “Judeo-Christianity” a made-up creed used to crucity goyim on a cross of impossible beliefs ala Alinksy’s maxim of making the enemy live up to his “own” rules.
In this case, the rules were supplied by Alinsky’s tribe, a mash-up of Talmudry like “tikkun olam” and selective “critique” of traditional Germanified Christianity.
Pre-Holocaust non-Judaified Christianity sought to give comfort and draw meaning from suffering, not to cure the world of it. The Chuch was often guilty of greed and rank hypocrisy – it fueled the Reformation, but it never saw its mission as comforting people “around the world,” That’s a (((modern))) modification.
Prior to the 20th Century, Christianity was an undisputable net positive. The post-Scofield Bible version we’ve increasingly been saddled with since is a changeling faith that amounts to a suicide pact for everyone but its cynical re-engineers behind the curtain. In this case, “no true Scotsman” is a fact, not a fallacy.
That’s a lot to think about. You make a good point on Alinsky’s maxim. I’m not going to argue a net positive effect on the world, that’s certainly true. Comforting people around the world is a modern modification (i had not thought of it that way before) but it isnt the only one and there seems to be quite a few modifications made. Someone else on these replies might have suggested it, but at some point modern Christianity can no longer function with all these new modifications. So when do people start to see Christianty is done and we need something new?
As usual, I try to bridge the gap between the two groups. Christianity to survive has to adapt to the challenge of modernity.
I think ethno-centrism is an important part of that, a natural application of practical localism vs. the “fix the world” dilemma. This is one way in which Christianity can and should change – not entirely new, not entirely revivalist or trad, just a re-emphasis and change of perspective blending past and future.
There’s obviously a tipping point where the end product is no longer “Christian,” but I don’t think that kind of change is required. What’s most important is to re-personalize and re-mystify the faith and stop trying to out-science the scientists ala Roman Catholicism. At the same time we need to maintain a high tone of elevation, transcendence and aesthetics. Most evangelical forms of modernization ala prosperity gospels, therapeutic deism etc… have proven a wrong turn.
The Orthodox provide the best example I’ve seen so far for this, rendering unto Caesar and Darwin while protecting their own sphere of influence that lies above and outside the arena of positivism and empiricism.
“Pre-Holocaust non-Judaified Christianity sought to give comfort and draw meaning from suffering, not to cure the world of it. ”
I am neither enough theologian nor historian to know if this is a novel statement, or your own thing, but either way, exceedingly well said.
My personal problem with atheism is like the joke about vegans.
Q: How do you figure out if someone is a vegan?
A: You don’t have to do anything, he’ll tell you in the first 30 seconds.
Same goes for the majority of atheists. I have no problem with atheism as such. But lots of atheists are loudmouthed assholes about it. As bad as the most aggressive religious proselytizers. (and NO, I’m not implying that applies to you, “O Gangster”) Author SM Stirling addressed the issue of atheism humorously but truthfully by having one of his characters say something along the lines of: “The devout hold their god or gods sacred. Atheists believe there is nothing. So does that mean that nothing is sacred?”
In the interests of honest disclosure, I am agnostic. I have exactly ZERO religious impulse — religion, any religion, sounds literally insane to me. (But I’m not exactly proud of this, it may in fact be a personal defect, like color blindness. Given that the majority of humans seem to have some sort of faith in the unknown and ineffable, maybe I’m merely colorblind or tone deaf.) Now that said (or admitted), I am increasingly of the opinion that a sober and self-aware Christendom may make for better society than the other alternatives.
Oh, and to echo or amplify Exile’s comment above. I reject the term “Judeo-Christian”. While I believe that Christianity was at its root a Judaic heresy, it is distinct from the other two major Abrahamic religions. Not sure why, but I suspect that the idea of The Divine having suffered on our behalf is key — the resentment therefore should be purged from our personal experience. Whereas the other two Abrahamic religions seem to feature resentment as a key — or central — component.
The entire Spanish Inquisition murdered three thousand souls, a day’s work in atheists regimes. It is a strange thing when we rightly loath an ancient wrong and ignore the modern atheist catastrophe sparked in 1917, currently in remission.
If you wish to exploit religious catasrophe go no further than the century of European religious civil wars, which killed a third of many populations and created one million witches.
Today’s point is authority, good or bad. With no authority, the authority is behind a curtain. It is better to have a bad ruler than that one because at least we know who he is.
Who says the Spanish Inquisition was an “ancient wrong,” and is that modern moralistic revision based on the outlawed financial and political powerbase of ykw being the target of said Inquisition? Do you really think Romans in the 200’s bc had “vomitoriums” to throw up after eating too much and had incestual omnisexual orgies? Do you think Catherine the Great really debauched herself with a stallion? A lot of the titillating gory details of “history” just happen to be from modern historians of a (((certain tribe))) discoursing about people who joined the 109 Club.
Torquemada did nothing wrong. The Spanish had/have the right to remove all non-Catholic non-Spaniards from Catholic Spain. If they didn’t want to be Catholic Spaniards, move to Antwerp.
Denigration of the human church has no bearing on the self-endowed supremacy of the atheist who determines his own morality as his own morality-giver. Yes, the church of Rome has been and continues to be a non-avatar of Christ’s example for behavior. That only proves Nietzsche to be correct: without true moral authority the powerful become corrupt and evil.
So what? That subtracts nothing from the hundreds of millions of torture deaths administered by the moral authority of atheists.
Perhaps not control, but organization? Frankly, anyone who thinks that organized western religions are run by useful idiots doesn’t understand much. The Catholics and the Jews have been debating, altering, and advising for thousands of years.
Both religions have fantastic advice for every day problems within the societies they serve (not rule, usually, influence only, mostly). LIFE IS SHORT; you don’t have time to figure out the answer for every one of your mundane problems; WISDOM IS NOT FOUND ON GOOGLE, ever. Organized religion have plenty of good insights for those who subscribe to the same beliefs.
Lots of plusses for organized religion inside of a unified cultural framework. Not so great for a globalist society, where you can pick and choose everything (as long as it fits the globalist agenda, or else).
Did you even read the Zman post? I’ve never understood why athiests have such a hard-on against organized religion. Just quit your church and enjoy your new freedom.
It only bothers me when the organized religious make illogical assumptions and become guilty of the same things they accuse the liberals of doing. Most of the time, i agree with nearly everything else on this site and i look forward to reading the posts every morning.
O Gangster
Did you have some horrendously negative religious experience in your youth that led you to these conclusions?
Maybe even The Faith. (Note use of capital letters implies the definition.)
Sure, I grew up a Catholic. I’ve always questioned the power and authority of that church from a very young age. It wasn’t until I started moving from the Reagan right to the extreme right, that I began to really dig into my thoughts on religion. (I do hate the false paradigm of left and right)
Actually, religion requires that one exercise SELF-control.
That may be where the Boomer generation went haywire – being the first generation that did not NEED to grow up, did not. (largely – not everyone of course)
Flaunting old norms in the service of all sorts of instant gratification (refusal to exercise self-control) became the new norm and we haven’t really looked back since – or had to.
Hmmm. So if 2nd Wave Feminism “freed” women from “serving” the “Patriarchy” … just so they could slave away in cubicles, commuting long distances to serve the corporate masters … what does being “freed” from religion do for one?
Let’s say you and yours are part of a 2000+ year faith tradition. Read, hear and reflect on the issues affecting mankind going back 3,000 years and codified in a certain well-known Good Book. Having a purpose for one’s life, no confusion. A path, being part of something. Being “freed” of all these things leaves time and mental space for exactly what? What does a self-described ‘high minded’ person do when they are “freed” from the burdens?
I do not “blindly” accept anything. Did not need POTUS Trump to reveal the liars behind government, the media. I already knew. Same for other parts of my life – the faithful ARE the faith – not the leadership – same for our Nation. WE are the Nation – not the politicians.
And look what they do with the “freedom” they have, provided by power and money.
I don’t remember exactly what age my son was, but it was in the single digits, when he asked,”Who is the boss” and kept on with a bunch of “Yeah, but.”. Basically, he wanted to know who was, “Il capo di tutti capi”? I kept saying that there isn’t one. Being essentially non-religious, I didn’t resort to God.
Umm that would be you as a Father you’re the boss…
Cause God says so!
And what age did you get him out on the driveway to do his first oil change on his Mom’s car? How old when you hung the heavy bag from a tree and taught him the ropes? Age when first taught to split wood?
So, ok, using your premise, “no God” – so I assume you have other methods of passing on manly values that do not include getting butt out of bed on Sunday mornings and trucking the family off to church, mayhaps discussing the meaning of the Scriptural readings, afterwards.
Not to troll “you” – as you are not the audience for the post – just the catalyst. But “you” may as well answer – “what age” you son was. when….
Ethics comes from either biology or theology.
The more biological and theological diversity you have, the more ethical diversity you have,
Ethical diversity leads to ethical conflict, which leads to cultural conflict, which leads to political conflict which is where we are today.
Short version
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-2F_iHS6BLtGJb2ad/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb_djvu.txt
Long version yet abridged
https://www.amazon.com/Social-Cultural-Dynamics-Pitirim-Sorokin/dp/0875580297/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?keywords=sorokin+pitirim&qid=1572355611&sprefix=soroki&sr=8-3
Good YouTube version of Glubb’s “Fate of Empires”:
https://youtu.be/SBLPDfu8XGQ
Another prescient badthink book, a sort of bare-knucked American 1984. It’s a lot different from what [people] would lead you to believe:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/GBPSGBknZbyS/?list=watch-later&randomize=false
Let’s lighten things up a bit. Personal theory is Rep. Gaetz was getting a little “bi-partisanship” on the side.
That tweet was bizarre. There may be a nuanced argument for maintaining a strong separation of private and public in this case. Twitter is not the place for nuanced arguments.
I’m not familiar with Gaetz’s sense of humor, but he could just be asking why one would think she is different from most Congress critters.
There is a great old John D. MacDonald line…”Never hump the help. They get uppity”
I’ve heard “conservatives” say “I don’t care what someone does in his private life.” The idea that you can separate private virtue from public virtue is of recent vintage and entirely self-serving.
As Ross Perot said of Bill Clinton, “the man that will cheat on his wife will cheat you.” Virtue (not just sexual), like charity, begins in the home. You can judge a person by how she treats her spouse, family, employees, etc. If she mistreats them, how do you think that she will treat you?