Life in a Theocracy

In Saudi Arabia, getting caught with alcohol can get you the lash. Maybe. It sort of depends upon where you are in the social order and who is determining your guilt. In Iran, listening to western music can get you sent to prison or perhaps cost you a job in the government. Again, it all depends upon who you are and who is judging your violation. It can also depend upon who is accusing you too. This was true in colonial New England where accusations of witchcraft were arbitrary and the trials mostly based on things other than religious doctrine.

We have the image of theocracies as places with long lists of precise rules governing morality, public conduct, social relations and so forth, but the reality is always the opposite. Written rules can be debated by anyone with the ability to read. There’s not much fun in being a priest if anyone can read the rules and render a judgement. In a theocracy, the religious order educates the public, handles the violations of morality and makes sure the laws comply with the official religion. The result is a high degree of arbitrariness for those who live in the theocracy.

Going back to Saudi Arabia, members of the royal family regularly head off to Dubai to drink, do drugs, fornicate with women, fornicate with men and otherwise live like rock stars. Everyone in the Wahhabist world knows about this, but they like living more than they like Allah so they say nothing. On the other hand, if you are a foreigner, who can be a bargaining chip for the royal family, then you can get jammed up for some pruno. Anyone that is a nuisance to the government can expect to have the religious police snooping around in their life, looking for a reason to send them to jail.

Theocracy is arbitrary. It is this arbitrariness that encourages neighbors to spy on neighbors, associates to rat on each other and even children to report their parents to the morality police. Being a rat brings grace. You see that in this story about the George Washington men’s basketball coach.

In early April, shortly after his team celebrated a postseason championship, a George Washington men’s basketball player visited a campus Title IX coordinator to log complaints about Coach Mike Lonergan. Lonergan, the player believed, had created an offensive, intolerable environment, evidenced in his mind — and in the minds of many of his teammates — by the spate of transfers during the coach’s five-year tenure.

The first thing to notice are the code words for morality. Title IX has become holy writ in the Progressive faith. Like the Bible, it is a mysterious source of authority to the adherents. Most Christians never bother to open their Bible and few Progressives can tell you anything about Title IX. They just know it is the highest of law on the holiest of sites, the college campus. To be the Title IX coordinator is no different from being the mutaween in Saudi Arabia. This person is the supreme moral authority on campus.

Then we have the complaints lodged against the coach. Notice the vagueness here. On the college campus, “offensive” is the same as blasphemous. Any word or deed can be called offensive if it is deemed to have violated some tenet of the faith. Since these tenets are arbitrary, just about anything can be offensive, as long as someone in good standing with the religious authorities is willing to say they were offended. Again, you’ll notice that it matters who is accusing and to  whom the accusation is being leveled.

Read the whole 2400 word article and you struggle to figure out what exactly the coach had done to warrant being thrown off the roof by the PC enforcers. That’s probably why the writer resorts to quoting various shaman in the Title IX sect.

“They have an obligation to make sure the school is operating an environment where there is no sexual harassment,” lawyer Nancy Hogshead-Makar, a Title IX expert and a former Olympic gold medal swimmer, said when apprised of the players’ complaints. “He is sexually harassing both the athletic director and the athletes.”

Notice the language again. They never say who is obliging us in this quest. The God of Puritanism is now just a mysterious blank space, a void that can never be mentioned, but must always be acknowledged. In other words, if you know you are obligated to enforce the one true faith, you are an elect. Of course, the quest to which we are supposedly obligated is equally mysterious. What does “an environment where there is no sexual harassment” look like? How do we know we are in one? The answer is one of the priestesses of the faith will tell us.

“Priestess” is the right word. In the America theocracy, women run the cult. Take a look at the bio of Nancy Two Names in the Post story. The hyphen is the first clue. She is or was married to a cuck. People assume that hyphen indicates feminist, but it is a gang symbol within feminism to indicate the adherent has bagged and tamed a male. Second, her bio tells us she went from college into the order and has spent her life as a professional nuisance. Hassling men is her all consuming passion. It is what defines her life.

As with Iran or Saudi Arabia, the accused in the America theocracy often make the mistake of thinking they can beat the charges. After all, if they have done nothing wrong, what do they have to fear? In a theocracy, however, the unwillingness to submit and confess is proof of guilt. Coach Lonergan is a dead man, he just does not know it.  He will play by the rules, or at least the rules written down, but the Inquisitor is not bound by rules so the coach will be broken on the wheel and cast out of the campus.

That’s life in a theocracy.

34 thoughts on “Life in a Theocracy

  1. Pingback: What Comes Next | The Z Blog

  2. The only problem with this post is the implied notion that employees own their jobs, and that termination should be “fair”. They don’t own them. That means they can be canned for the most trivial reasons imaginable, including racist nonsense – and that is the way it should be. That’s life in the free market. Employment is a voluntary association that can be (or should be) terminated for any reason at any time (provided the employment contract is observed). If you get canned, just move on to the next job. Maybe that last boss was not someone you should have been working for, in the first place.

    I fully realize government intervention in the market has made finding another job exceedingly difficult – but that is a problem with government intervention, not with the free market.

  3. Z Man (the is the only form of address that works in the editor). I really like your unconventional insights that click in a re-framing flash moment: College Athletics as a Feminist Theocracy. Wow_! So true. But who thought of it that way before_? Certainly not me. But so obviously true today, at least from the current category leaders aspirations..

    But why stop there_? Isn’t the entire university system also an emerging feminist theocracy_? Evidence abounds that I will not adduce here, but you all know what I mean, and anyone can produce many instances.

    As I recall, there were also many discussions before the collapse of the USSR (and afterwards) about the true meanings of socialism & communism: A sign of a theocracy (easy proof redacted).

  4. The good (?) news is, the priesthood only doubles down on orthodoxy when major change is barrelling down on them. Strong, stable societies don’t burn witches. The Inquisition might rack a heretic here or there pour encourager les autres, but when the Church is supreme and unchallenged all but the most spectacularly unrepentant get off with penance. It’s only when the old order is breaking down — after the discovery of the New World in Spain; on the cusp of the Reformation in Germany — that every town green has its heretic bonfire. The Left knows big change is coming; everything they do now is a desperate attempt to appease their gods before it engulfs them.

  5. The religion of political correctness is not practiced only on college campuses or by feminists. Ask Brendan Eich , for one of many.

      • Or the NFL the most manly of sports. I puked when I saw players wearing “pink” on the field. I turned off the tube. Again, globalism run amok. Business doing everything including demeaning the players trying to get an extra percentage of viewers of the opposite gender. It is not enough that they are taking the sport to Europe and other parts of the globe. And just when did Breast Cancer become more important than say “prostate cancer” especially as related to a Men’s sport? Or just generically raising awareness for the cancer fight and the progress made but still more needed in many areas? Management of places like the NFL are “cucked” through and through. I would think the players unions would go on strike and say “Hell No!” but hey, don’t want nothing to interfere with the pay check.

        • @ LetsPlay – It seems to be an American fascination with supporting some sort of medical “issue”. We have nothing like your various charities for cancer, leukemia, muscular dystrophy, etc. I remember people coming around my office asking for donations to the United Way. When I asked what it was, everyone said under their breath, that you “had to contribute” or it would reflect badly on the annual performance review.

          I could never figure out for a country that is so rich, and so well off, that they needed charities to find cures for diseases despite the various Federally funded programs that already existed. Nothing against your medical system, but it does seem a bit of a double-standard that people were afraid of getting sick or ill because of the limits of their health care – meanwhile there’s a charity donation going around for AIDS or breast cancer or whatever the “disease of the week” happened to be. Odd.

          • A lot of the charities aren’t even in the business of finding a cure. They exist to “raise awareness,” aka, provide jobs for people working in non profits. I don’t know what the situation is in other developed countries, but here contributions to a non profit organization are tax deductible, and it’s fairly easy to become one, so we are drowning in them. Sometimes it’s sensible (if you want to run a recreational soccer league this is often a better, easier corporate structure than the other options available under our tax code), but we have a LOT of stupid charities out there.

          • Interesting that you mention United Way. I did a short stint with them as a “Loaned Executive” and got to see more from the inside about a lot of these issues. I found it a way to provide some “organization” to a lot of small efforts that would be hard pressed to do much good to local communities on their own. I liked the way their overhead was kept to around 12% and the rest went downstream to provide goods and services to target recipients. Granted, human nature being what it is, there were problems with corruption but exposed, they cleaned up their act at least for a little while. But never did they come close to the 80% overhead of things like the Clinton Foundation!

            Initially I was also judging things like efforts at helping animals and the environment as people “having their motives in the wrong place.” However, I came to believe that it was really more like an investment portfolio with many people and many interests requiring attention and the portfolio needing balancing to some degree.

            Now things are simply out of control with contributions being “required” and the cause du jour being all about political correctness. And of course, corruption, lying and theft is rife. Now, I don’t give to any organization. I give directly to those in need if I know someone.

          • At first when the “girls” appeared on the sidelines, you could tell they didn’t know squat about the sport. Now, however, they are pretty good, know the game, the players, the history, etc. Sometimes it looks like the guys need to step up their game. Competition is good on and off the field.

          • What no one will say is that Charlotte is happy to lose it. The pols thought it was a great idea, but businesses got wind of what happens when this thing blows into town and were against hosting it. It’s like inviting a riot into your city. The Soul Bowl in New Orleans is a similar debacle. Half the business in the city suddenly have a plumbing problem so they can close for that weekend.

  6. Title IX still has the potential to be the Party petard that hoists the priesthood. What is needed is a half dozen upper 25% of high school male basketball players to apply for female basketball scholarships at one or more Ivy league schools by claiming that they are transgender. According to the US DoJ that cannot be challenged nor the claimant “harassed”. In this day and age what drawback could there be to a full scholarship and degree from Radcliffe or Vassar. The men don’t have to dress, behave, or actually try to be feminine in anyway because no one can, by law, judge their level of sincerity and there are no verifiable clinical disqualifiers. They cannot be challenged if they like sex with females because then transphobia is compounded by the sin of homophobia, “Who are you to harsh my inner lesbian.” It is absolutely a win-win. Won’t let you on the Women’s Olympic Team; off to the ICC of ECHR we go. The only way it can be stopped is to erect “barriers” for transgenders, i.e. develop a testable standard and require all who claim to be transgender to get credentialed. The Priesthood is faced with the conundrum of blowing up women’s sports (the core justification for Title IX) or blowing up the protected status of the ultimate grievance group – transsexualism (which is odorless, colorless and tasteless; in other words not attached to the physical world in any sense except through political ideology).

    • Just to hit this dead horse one more time: they can renounce their transism upon graduation or ride it to new heights. After all grievance mongering, in the truest sense of the phrase, was the key to tenure for E. Warren and W.
      Churchill.

  7. My wife kept her last name- hey, it was the 80’s and I was (and perhaps still am) cucked. She asked me my preference, and I said- “don’t care, just no hyphens!”. I suppose there’s a hierarchy here, in order of increasing cuckedness … keep your name…, hyphen… , have the husband hyphenate, too…, choose a completely different name for both…, and finally the guy takes the girl’s name.
    One of the interesting things about Title IX is the assumption that IT AND IT ALONE was responsible for the growth in women’s sport. Of course it’s based on the lie that women are as interested in sport as men are. I do think that there are more women interested in sport today, than 40 years ago, but I think that fact is largely unrelated to Title IX. In addition to functioning as the Inquisition, it results in absurd outcomes like Northwestern being unable (so they say) to add men’s lax to go along with their very successful women’s team. Can’t do it- it would give the WIldcats Title IX problems. Of course the inquisitors blame football.
    As a side note “HILTRON”, as the 2 Kevins would say used to retail a story about her days as a HS varsity soccer player. No way, not in the early 60’s, was there a varsity women’s program in Park Ridge , IL. I’m shocked that she would be so disingenuous!

    • My own view is there are practical reasons for a women keeping her last name so it is a case by case thing. In the case of second or third marriages, there’s little point. There’s a feminist tinge to it, for sure, but a mild one. The hyphen stuff is pure estrogen fueled hatred of the patriarchy.

      • Or it’s not estrogen fueled hatred of patriarchy at all. Depends on the person, no? My last name is hyphenated. When I married 25 years ago, and yes I’m married to the same man all these years, I decided to hyphenate because I wanted to join with my husband, yet I didn’t want to relinquish my natal name. Hence the hyphen, which, btw, I did not burden my children with. All three carry their father’s last name. When I introduce myself as my children’s mother or in another family situation, I am “Mrs. Jones”, no hyphen. By myself, Mrs. Smith-Jones. There is no hatred behind it.

      • We have a set of friends. There are many biological sisters. Three of them have four sir names. It takes a while for them to introduce themselves. They are quite proud of the fact they can’t get along with anyone. I assume they married dunces. Again and again. A final question, if I may. If a woman introduces herself to a man: “Hi, I am Joyce Brown-Moss-Wigglesworth-Braun.” How long does it take a reasonable guy to get the hell out of Dodge? Best regards everyone.

  8. I spent time in Saudi Arabia in ’90-’91. I cannot even describe the weird oppressive, brooding atmosphere that seems to hang over their cities. It felt like an open-air jail and was the only time I’ve seen Soldiers and Marines happy to get out of town and back to the field or at least whatever military compound they were housed in.

    I can see how people dealing with that most of their lives want to escape and act crazy. Kuwait City a few days after the war seemed more normal.

  9. A good post, but I think the word hassle in the next to last paragraph is too mild. Nancy Two Names mission is to identify sinners and purge them of original sin, in the case of Title IX that would be men and masculinity respectively, by process of denunciations, public flogging, humiliation, contrition and finally stoning to death (if the sinner is a back slider). If the sinner is sufficiently important that it will elevate the credentials of the Inquisitor they will move directly from public prostration and repentance before the alter phase to being burned at the stake. It would appear that Nancy Two Names sees a real resume builder here. The coach is toast.

  10. The concept of the double-standard is well known and understood by every human being whether it’s in religion, sports, academia, or business. Personally I’m at the age where I become numb when this topic comes up regarding politicians. Their lives and careers are built on double standards and seem to know no bounds; actually expanding exponentially the longer they remain in office.

    The only thing worse are the lies they expect us to believe. That somehow in their elite superiority, we’re just too stupid or simple minded to fully understand or appreciate why it doesn’t apply to them as would to us. And the rationale they come up is often so oblique as to be almost entertaining. I find myself turning my head, like a dog when it hears an odd sound, at the things that come out of their mouths. It’s just amazing.

    • Hi Karl, the outrageous lies our rulers expect us to mouth back at them is their way to rub our noses in their feces. To say nothing of the entertainment value provided.

  11. Looking at the reactions of former classmates and coworkers on FB last night, I get the impression that committed liberals still think they can badger, mock and insult their way out of the Trump situation and this whole nationalist mood will just go away. There seems to be no awareness that a democratically elected Trump, constrained by what remains of our checks and balances, is a very mild backlash to the changes of the last fifty years.

    If Trump doesn’t win, I’m afraid we’re inevitably careering toward actual violence. And the right wing dominates probably 70% of the country’s landmass, including the most resource essential areas, the majority of the military, and they have most of the privately owned weapons. I live in NYC, but I’ve got no delusions about who’s got the better tactical base here. We produce, what, musicals and financial instruments? That’ll keep the lights on!

    • “Very mild backlash” pretty much nails it. As far as bringing this into relevancy with the above post, I’d go on to point out that much of the establishment is run in a theocratic manner and that we are just beginning to realize what the real source of discontent is. Like pre-revolutionary France there are pockets of poverty and there has been a decline in real income, but the most reliable measure of quality of life, life expectancy, keeps going up. Globalism and John Law style economics haven’t really hurt us in measurably significant ways as we have adapted to them and technological advancements and new sources of energy have softened the blow of policies otherwise inimicable to our well being. That said, we resent the power that the abbots running the monastic estates have over our lives and having to pay the tithe to people who despise us and our bourgeois values. And the king has done nothing but increase their power over us. His royal law courts (administrative law) rule over us arbitrarily and the parlements that were once our defenders are now impotent in the face of the monsters they themselves have created or allowed the king to make. Having learned to live without salt bought from the farmers general (AMA, gigantic monopoly hospital systems) we are now required by purchase salt. And the bishops placed over us purchase their offices with our blood and despise us all the same. No. They are not better than us. We’ll show them. The lampposts, the guillotine, and the rivers await. Let history repeat itself.

Comments are closed.