Democratic Theocracy

Posted on October 15, 2024 by thezman

Iran has been in the news lately and one of the interesting things about the coverage is Western media rarely talks about the president of Iran. In fact, almost all Iran stories skip the president entirely. This is highly unusual as Western media is conditioned to personify countries that are out of favor. The bad country becomes the ruler of that country and that ruler is always some form of Hitler. The closest they get with Iran is using a picture of the supreme leader in the copy.

One reason for this is Iran is a complicated place and Western media struggles with anything more complicated than the good guys versus bad guys narrative. Despite what most think, Iranian politics has factions and parties, with the winners being picked by the voters at fairly normal elections. Those factions and parties argue about all the usual things, including foreign policy. The current president ran on a platform of improving relations with the rest of the world.

The funny thing about Iran is that it has avoided what has happened with all prior revolutionary societies. They did not have rounds of purges or a great terror in which a strongman consolidated power. There is no cult of personality in the way most communist societies evolved. They are not dogmatically attached to a narrow set of economic policies. Instead, Iran has evolved into the world’s first explicitly democratic theocracy based in its form of Islam.

At the top of Iranian society is the Supreme Leader. He is appointed by the Assembly of Experts, who are elected to their positions. The Guardian Council approves all candidates for elected office, including those nominated to the Assembly of Experts, so the gatekeepers of politics are the religious authorities. The result is a political system that can debate and argue over public policy, but within the broad religious framing of the Islamic authorities.

This is why the West often talks about Iran as if it is a medieval society. In medieval Europe, the Church set the boundaries for secular government. The King had to be in good standing with the Church, but the Church needed to be in good standing with the king as he provided security. From the perspective of “secular” societies in the West, the Iranians have recreated a throne and altar society, something the West abandoned in favor of reason and democracy.

The interesting thing about the criticism is it comes with some envy. The managerial class of the West, especially in America, would probably prefer the explicit relationship between the moral and the practical. In Iran, if Islam forbids it, it is simply forbidden and that is the end of it. In America, banning the discussion of crime stats is forbidden for an extensive list of contradictory reasons sprinkled with magical thinking about the reality of the human condition.

This may be why Iran avoided the cycle of violence and authoritarianism that we expect to see with revolutionary societies. From the start, the morality of the revolution had been resolved. The main task was to first remove the prior regime and the Western influences that emanated from it. Once the old regime was gone, there was no void where the old morality existed, so there was no battle for who would decide how to fill the void and with what to fill it.

This may explain some of the convulsions of the West. Christianity and the carryover from it provided the moral center of the progressive ideology. That slowly gave way to opposition to communism in the Cold War. Once the great struggle had been won, there was no longer a moral purpose to the progressive ideology. What flowed into it was whatever was kicking around the institutions. Fringe lunacies suddenly had a clear path to the center of the progressive moral universe.

Once again, we see that Marx was right about politics. At the highest level, it is about the battle over moral questions. Once the moral questions are answered, there is no need for this sort of politics. Instead, politics is reduced to debates about how to address the mundane practical issues of governance. For thirty years Iran has only had to worry about defending itself from the West, while for the last thirty years the West has been searching for a new god to replace the old one.

What you see in Iran is something the West cannot reconcile and that is the limit of reason, which is the moral. The ideology of the West rests on the assumption that all moral questions have a reasonable answer, so all moral limits that cannot hold up to reason must be invalid. Iran does not struggle with this dilemma, because the moral limits are beyond question and they are right there in the Koran, as interpreted by the religious authorities.

Put another way, what Iran has in excess is the answer to the two most important questions for any society and they are “who says?” and “why not?” The answer to both questions is well known to everyone in Iranian society and therefore the questions never need to be asked. In the West, there are no answers to those questions, so the closest we get to an answer is the jungle of rules against discussing anything that challenges the sensibilities of the managerial class.

What we see with the contrast between Iran and the West, particularly America, is a contrast in two forms of democratic theocracy. Iran starts with the issue of morality as a settled matter and implements democracy as a means to sort practical ends. In the West, democracy is a moral end in itself, but the result is endless debates over what will be temporarily viewed as timeless truths. Iran is the mirror of American in terms of the relationship between the moral and the political.

There are other reasons why Iran is what it is, not the least of which is that it is full of Iranians who can date their society back to the ancients. Islam also has a vastly different view of the natural world than what evolved out of Christianity. Even so, the fact that Iran has survived as a democratic theocracy provides a clue for how American progressivism could survive as well. Otherwise, it shakes itself to pieces searching for something to fill the void that lies at the center of it.

If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at

sa***@mi*********************.com

.

Jesus Hates Immigration

Posted on September 16, 2024 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door I have a post about the demographic collapse playing out in the workforce, a post about how the Tenet Media case looks like a political op and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.

Would Jesus hate the cat memes that have spread across the internet in response to the Haitian problem in Springfield Ohio? Some people think so. Progressive cranks have responded to this by claiming it is your Christian duty to welcome these people into your homes. Granted, these people are not sincere but people who claim to be Christians of some sort often agree with them. They claim Scripture requires the faithful to treat everyone equally, as God’s children.

This is the official position of the Catholic Church. The Pope is a big fan of open borders and mass immigration. It is not just for theological reasons. One argument is that the migrants from the global south are Catholics or could become Catholic. Protestant churches make similar claims. Immigration is seen by main stream churches as a solution to their empty pews. Some claim that the Haitian migrants have revitalized the churches in the Springfield Ohio area.

Of course, the people making these claims can find in Scripture what they need to support their position as the morally correct one. Ephesians says, “you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people.” Leviticus says, “You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself”. Hebrews says you must show hospitality to strangers and modern Hebrews say you should never notice this.

The most popular and probably the most effective argument from faith used in favor of open borders is that all men are created in God’s image. Since we are all God’s children, we have the same duty to cat-eating Haitians as we do to the Irish guy who drives the UPS truck and helps coach the local football team. Since immigration is an issue because it is the movement of nonwhites into white areas, it is a racial issue, and the Christian is prohibited from seeing race.

The obvious counter to this is that Jesus was fine with slavery, so he surely would not oppose the deportation of illegal aliens. This never registers with the Bible-quoting immigration enthusiast because much of what makes up modern Christianity in the West is cherry picking verses from Scripture that just so happen to support the secular morality of this age. For the most part, what passes for Christianity in the West is just a loyal servant at the foot of neo-liberalism.

That still leaves the question as to whether Jesus would be on the side of the people important pet-eating Haitians into your town or on the side of the people making AI-generated memes of Trump defending the house cats. The logic of Christianity says that Jesus would be pumping out those cat memes. He would not be making overtly racial claims about Haitians, most likely, but what we understand about Christian faith tells us he would be opposed to mass migration.

The place to start is where Christianity starts. The “open borders Christians” are correct when they say these Haitians are God’s children, no different from the fifth-generation Irish guy or the guy who traces his line to the Mayflower. Fundamental to the Christian faith is that we are God’s creation and humans are made in God’s image. Our ability to understand God at all rests on the assumption that he possesses all the qualities we possess as human beings.

From this we can draw one obvious conclusion. We have reason and free will, thus God intended for us to use our reason and free will. God does not make mistakes, at least this is true for the New Testament God. The God of the Hebrew Bible is not as confident, so maybe he was still prone to error. Regardless, God gave us, and only us, free will and reason, so it must have been on purpose and for a reason. The only possible reason is to use them.

The other thing that we know, if we are all God’s creation, is that all men are God’s property for the same reason man can have property. God owns himself, so God owns that which he has created. He gave man dominion over the earth and all of the living creatures on it, but he did not grant ownership. God may be an absentee landlord, as many have asserted, but he is still the landlord, which means he still owns what he created, including mankind.

This is the basis of Christian ethics. What we ought and ought not do is based on the idea that we are all God’s property. Theft is wrong because when you steal the labor of another man, you are harming God’s property. On the other hand, punishing someone for theft, is acting on God’s behalf to right the wrong done to God. It is why we think hunting for food is perfectly acceptable. Man needs to eat, and God gave us domain over the animals. Hunting for sport, however, is complicated.

The logic of Christianity tells us that Jesus would be appalled by what is happening in towns like Springfield Ohio. Rounding up Haitians and dumping them into unsuspecting towns around North America does nothing to reduce the damage done to God’s most precious property, mankind. In fact, it increases the damage. Worse yet, this damage is done for the benefit of the money changers responsible for it. What we see happening with immigration is a deliberate offense to the Christian God.

This is even more obvious when we remember that we have reason and free for the sole purpose of using it. If we wanted to help Haiti, there are ways we could improve the conditions on the island without harming cat owners in Ohio. We could take over the island, set up a local dictator tasked with distributing food and medicine. We could round up the Haitians and send them to Africa, where they have the minimum infrastructure needed to maintain an African population.

The point of all this is that Christian ethics is about reducing the damage to God’s property, which is primarily mankind, but also that which mankind has been granted dominion, the earth, and its inhabitants. Mankind has reason and free will in order to figure out the best way to act in order to minimize the damage to God’s property, so we are free to debate the issue. We must be free to debate the issue. Cherry picking lines from Scripture to shut down debate is therefore immoral.

More important, cherry-picking lines from Scripture so that you can claim a sense of compliance with the will of God, at the expense of God’s property, as in the damage done by immigration, violates the foundational logic of Christianity. If Jesus were here today, he would not only flip over the tables in the offices of the people responsible for unchecked immigration, but he would also whip the people waving around their Bibles in support of it. Jesus would hate them.

Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start.

Faith & Reason

Posted on September 9, 2024 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door I have a post about bringing back penal colonies and exile to deal with crime, a post about how the fight with Old Scratch continues among the people we call the left and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.

Was Jesus rational? If you are a modern Christian, this is a question that probably sounds intentionally offensive or unintentionally ignorant. It suggests the person asking the question thinks Jesus was insane. Calling Jesus a crazy person therefore could sound deliberately provocative. On the other hand, someone asking the question could simply be ignorant. Only someone unfamiliar with Scripture or Christian theology could suggest that God’s only son was a lunatic.

This is not a question that would have offended early Christians, however, because they had a different relationship with faith and reason. The gods of the ancient world were not the defenders of logic and reason. Often, the gods were the greatest offenders of logic and reason, using tricks and magic to bring down the hero, even though the hero was acting rationally. After all, the tragic hero is often the man who does the rational things but is brought low despite his reason.

The ancients did not look at reason like modern man. They had to solve problems like all humans, but they did not worship reason like a god. In fact, reason was often viewed as a hinderance to understanding the gods. Understanding the gods and their relationship to man started with the understanding that the gods operated outside of the rationality of mankind. They had their rules, man had his rules, and the story of man was the interplay between these two worlds.

Of course, there was that sense that the fate of men and the individual man was controlled by things beyond human comprehension. It was not just the capricious gods who tripped up men, but that sense that there was something else going on to determine the outcome of life, something that was well outside the domain of man, a thing called fate. Just as the tragic hero was undone by fate, the hero was the man who recognized and submitted to his fate.

For most of human history, the key to making any sense of life was in accepting the mystery of the natural world and man’s place in it. That acceptance never meant understanding it, much less conquering it. The natural world was not a thing to be conquered or even challenged. It was a thing to be accepted. Therefore, for the early Christians, the irrationality of Jesus and his life would have made far more sense to them than the far more rational version of this age.

The phrase, “Athens and Jerusalem”, which turns up in certain parts of American conservatism has its roots in this question about the rationality of Jesus. The second century Christian writer Tertullian famously asked, “what has Athens to do with Jerusalem” in response to those trying to make sense of faith. The absurdities within the story of Jesus are what gives power to faith, because the truly faithful believe the message despite the absurdities.

As an aside, “Athens and Jerusalem” was reintroduced to us by Strauss, who used it for a series of lectures and essays. No one knows what he meant by it as the main project of his students is to make themselves and their mentor as incomprehensible as possible on the assumption that “Straussian” is code for incoherent. Others have picked up the phrase as a way of weaving their ancestors into your family tree, thus making Western civilization the fruit of the Greeks and the Jews.

It is debatable as to whether Strauss clipped this phase from Tertullian in order to open the gates to ideas outside of Christianity. In the hands of lesser minds, it has led to idiotic concepts like “Judeo-Christian.” Tertullian would have happily lit the fire underneath the heretics promoting such an idea. Like the other Christian writers of his age, he was hostile to the Jews and wrote polemics against them. For their part, the Jews have never forgiven him for it.

That aside, there is little doubt that Christianity, as it spread throughout Europe, became a vehicle to introduce Greek thought to Europe. Not only did the Church preserve and reproduce ancient works, including the Greeks, it began to absorb the rationality that Tertullian would have found difficult in the organization of the Church and its relationship with the secular authorities that evolved in the Middle Ages. The irrationality of faith planted the seeds of the rational rejection of faith.

Therein lies the problem for the modern Christian. He has grown up in a world that worships reason to the exclusion of mystery. The point of human thought is to locate every mystery and strip from it all of its irrationality, so that it is reduced to a mechanism explained by mathematics. Reason is the hunter who poses with his kill for a picture he can use on his internet profile, because the beauty he sees in the image is him posing next to the kill, not the bit of nature he harvested.

The Christian who bristles at the “absurdity” the question posed at the beginning is a Christian forced to explain faith by the rules of reason. It is a hopeless project, which is why the churches have emptied out across the West. If the churches are to fill up again or new churches are to be founded, the modern Christian must confront the fact that the god of this age is rationality. That god must be overcome in order to be restored to his proper place alongside the mystery of life.

The Faith Of Our Betters

Posted on August 29, 2024 by thezman

Western elites are in a competition with one another to see who can be the most creative in violating the old rules of the liberal order. Every week seems to bring a new outrage from a Western government. The reason it seems like they are looking to outrage rather than work from an understood ideological foundation is that they do not fully understand their new ideological foundation. It is an evolving paradigm, as they used to say, to which they are forced to adapt.

A good example is this rather weird story out of the UK. A company was taken to court because they paid warehouse workers more than their retail workers. The warehouse staff was predominantly male while the retail staff was predominantly female, thus creating a situation in which men are earning more than women. The company pointed out that this is normal and there was no evidence that women were discriminated against in hiring or evaluations. They lost the case anyway.

Something called an employment tribunal agreed that “the difference in pay rates between the jobs was not down to direct discrimination, including the conscious or subconscious influence of gender on pay decisions, but was caused by efforts to reduce cost and enhance profit. Even so, it ruled that the “business need was not sufficiently great as to overcome the discriminatory effect of lower basic pay.” In other words, it just looked bad so it must be bad.

This is like saying that a man was not directly or indirectly responsible for the death of someone he did not like, but the man’s death just looked bad, so the fellow who did not like him will be convicted of murder. In the new normal, you can be guilty of violating a rule or law, even if you did not actually violate the rule or law, simply because the rule or law is not getting the intended result. You could literally end up in a British jail because the judge thinks it looks bad for you to remain free.

For those familiar with American discrimination law, this may sound like disparate impact, which is a legal term that refers to practices that unintentionally discriminate against people of protected groups in areas like employment and housing. This doctrine was imported to the UK for the same insane reasons it exists in America. It is the only way around objective reality while maintaining the radical delusions of universal human equality and the blank slate.

The logic of disparate impact works like this. Since there are no immutable differences between people or groups of people, any differences between groups of people must be due to some form of discrimination. Logically, there can be no other reason if universal equality is true. Therefore, if there are group differences that negatively impact nonwhites, then it must be from discrimination by whites. Discrimination is the ghost in the machine that explains what we see every day.

That is not what appears to be going on with this UK case. The tribunal clearly stated that the company policy is neutral, as far as intent and application. Apparently, there are female warehouse workers who make what male warehouse workers make and male retail workers who make the same as female retail workers. It is just that females prefer retail while males prefer warehouse work. This bit of biological reality is so disturbing to the court they ruled it must be eradicated.

It is a good example of two things we see with the new religion we see with the managerial classes in the West. One is there is a strong whiff of world rejecting Gnosticism about it. It is never clear if they are trying to recreate the human condition to their liking or they simply reject the human condition along with the objective reality in which mankind resides. Perhaps Justice William O. Douglas’ use of the terms “emanations” and “penumbras” was a clue.

The other thing you see is how the power of narrative warps their sense of reality to the point where it is often at odds with reality. This is something we keep seeing in things like the Ukraine war and now the Harris campaign. The narrative provides an a model of reality that is untethered from physical reality, so they must always be altering their mental model of reality. Alternatively, they seek to force reality to comply with the demands of their alternative reality.

It is not hard to imagine the judges in that UK case thinking, “We know how things should be, so even though they are not that way, and we cannot find evidence of Old Scratch in this, we will just set everything right and all is good.” There is no thought of the secondary and tertiary consequences to their ruling. If the company automates it retail area to address the problems created by this ruling, they will be back in court to explain why they are not living the court’s model of reality.

All the loose talk about creating a new religion misses the fact that we have a new religion, the religion of the managerial class. This new religion has roots deep in the Western tradition. Not only does it contain the egalitarianism and universalism of Christianity, but it also has the mysticism from the ancients. At the heart is the suspicion that reality is a figment of our imagination, so if we reimagine reality then we can have a reality that frees us from the human condition.

In the end, this weird new religion is a luxury good. The parade of lunacy we see is only possible because the masses have food and entertainments. Each new bit of lunacy chips away at it but until it reaches a critical state, the cost of these religious fantasies is spread around the respective economy. The great enabler of managerial lunacy is the ability to socialize the cost of it. At some point, the cost becomes unbearable, and the new religion goes into the dustbin of history with its adherents.

Starting A New Religion

Posted on August 28, 2024 by thezman

There are three things true about the modern West and all three of them are connected to the issue of religion. One is the obvious fact that the religion of the West, Christianity, is in steep decline. The second is that the West itself is in a steep cultural decline, which may be the result of the decline of Christianity, or it could be another symptom of a deeper issue behind both of those problems. Then there is the ongoing invasion and subjugation of European people in their own lands.

Objectively, occidental people look more like Native Americans right now, in terms of the things we can measure, than their ancestors of the last century. Low birth rates, declining life spans, rampant discrimination against people of European heritage, drug and alcohol abuse. Like the Indians on the reservation, European people now live at the pleasure of an alien ruling elite. As we are seeing in the UK, European people no longer have their ancient rights in their own lands.

What needs to happen to arrest this process is for occidental people to fight back against the gathering darkness. For that to happen, people need to be inspired to sacrifice for something and the best way to get people to sacrifice is through the mechanism of religion. A healthy people have a religion that reflects what they love and celebrate about themselves. This is what provides the motivation to sacrifice present happiness for the future happiness of their people.

The trouble with this line of thought is that the religion of the West, Christianity in its various forms, is in total collapse. That means creating a new religion, but new religions do not have a great track record. Not only that, the secular religion of the West, liberalism, is drenched in Christian priors. If you want to start a new religion, you not only have to contend with the old religion, but that which has slowly displaced it in the name of secularism and openness.

On the other hand, you could take a page from the last successful new religion, Mormonism, and create a spinoff of sorts. It is debatable as to whether Mormonism is a Christian denomination. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider themselves Christians. They share many Christian beliefs, such as the divinity, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the end it does not matter much as they managed to make it work and continue to thrive.

In other words, the Mormons rebooted Christianity in a new religion that served the needs of a growing number of people who did not see what they wanted or needed in the existing Christian denominations. Another way of putting it is a group of religious entrepreneurs saw an untapped market and created a product that fit the needs of this underserved market for religion. They set about creating a new religion, using many of the familiar parts of the existing religion.

The first task of Joseph Smith and his early converts was to create a new moral authority for his new religion. In order to avoid the trap of current interpretation of Scripture, Smith said he was visited by an angel who led him to the “golden plates” which would form the basis of a new religious text and the foundation of the religion we call Mormonism. The Book of Mormon is not another Gospel or considered Scripture, but it sits alongside Scripture for the believers.

The important thing about this additive process is that Smith was recentering the moral authority of Christians between the God of the Old Testament and the God of Jesus and the New Testament. The Hebrew God is masculine, cruel, and often terrifying, while the God of Jesus is infinitely merciful and benevolent. God of the Old Testament is a warrior who loves the smell of burning flesh. The God of the New Testament is a loving mother who always forgives you, no matter what.

By the 19th century the Christian God was becoming something of an alien weirdo, especially to men. How could a man trust a God who cannot savor the thrill of dominating his opponent or who cannot enjoy sin? What is the point of worshipping a God who will forgive you if you fail to worship him? Men sacrifice their goods and their person, not because of trust, but because of fear, a fear of the consequences of doing otherwise, either from their fellows or from their God.

The Christian was no longer a sinner in the hands of an angry God, but a sinner who was clutched to the bosom of a loving God. The former did not care if sin was an inevitable plight of man. You were still going to be punished. The latter did not care if you sinned or that you did so with guilt free enthusiasm. You were welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven just as long as you accepted Christ. The masculine God was gone from the house of man and the feminized God was in charge.

What Mormonism did was recreate the authority of Christianity as something that could both inspire men and terrify them. It is from this reimagined authority that the new rules of the new religion rest. Modern Mormonism may have been feminized over time, like everything else, but there is no doubting its initial masculine appeal. A God that promises men multiple wives is a God who both loves man and also enjoys, at times, tormenting him with too much of what he desires.

The other thing about this new masculine God and his new followers was that they were exclusive and it was not easy to join this new religion. Anything that is easy to obtain quickly loses its value and this was the curse of Christianity by the 19th century. To be a Christian of any type, maybe multiple types, was no more challenging that buying a new suit or changing fashion styles. Then as now, the mature Christian denominations asked nothing from the believers other than cash.

The early Mormons had to suffer, and to some degree they are still required to suffer, due to their peculiar habits. Smith and his followers were chased around the Midwest by angry mobs who viewed them as dangerous heretics, until an angry mob eventually killed Smith and his brother. Smith was a martyr for his cause, but unlike Christ, he was not a martyr in denial of human reality, but a martyr in service to the people of his new religion, thus an example for all of them.

Regardless of how you feel about Mormonism, it is a great example of how to form a new religion from the rubble of Christianity. Smith was the product of the Second Great Awakening, a period of renewal for Protestant sects that had lost their way and a time for new approaches to the life of Christ. Adventism and Dispensationalism also came from this period of religious revival. The Social Gospel Movement also had roots in the Second Great Awakening.

If any society and people are due for another “great awakening” it is the people of the occident who find themselves on the cusp of oblivion. If you are thinking about starting a new religion or resurrecting an old religion, now is a good time, as there are millions of people unhappy with the current offerings. It might also be a good time to reimagine God as something more terrifying than the benevolent old black guy who is happy to drive around Miss Daisy.

The New Christianity

Posted on August 26, 2024 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door I have a post about the send gamers to labor camps, a post about finance socialism and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.

Was Jesus a loser? By the standards of the age, the human standards, he was most certainly viewed as a loser, with the exception of his followers. That was the point of crucifying someone in that period. The Roman authorities used the practice as a form of humiliation as well as capital punishment. The point of displaying the condemned as they suffered and died was to let the rest of the population know that the guy on the cross was at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

Modern Christians would take exception to calling Jesus a loser, but early Christians would not have been offended. The humiliation of Jesus was integral to both understanding the life of Christ and the message of Christ. If the Romans or the Jews had executed Christ in the fashion reserved for prominent people, then the life and message of Christ would mean something quite different. The stripping of all human dignity at the end was essential to the life of Christ.

Therein lies the problem for modern Christians. By the standards of this age, Christ is a loser, just as he was two thousand years ago. The message of Christ not only runs counter to the way in which modern people live and are expected to live, but the bad end runs afoul of how modern people expect the life of a hero to end. The modern person expects the hero’s life to end in a great triumph and universal acclaim or at least the acclaim of the major characters in the story.

Of course, the message of Christ does not work too well either. Eschewing material prosperity is just not a thing people do in this age or for a long time. In fact, the point of life for a long time has been to increase your material wealth. All of the heroes of the modern age are those who either got rich for their own sake or got rich for having upheld the modern morality. The way around this for the modern Christian is some form of the prosperity gospel, but that often looks like a grift.

More important, the message of Christ was aimed at the losers. From the start, Christianity was a religion for losers. Its appeal assumed that the audience was composed of people who were losers and would remain losers until they died, which would probably be soon. For them, investing in this life made little sense, so they should invest in the next life. Their time on this plane of existence was best used to prepare for everlasting life in Christ.

It is a powerful message if you are a loser and most people in the late Roman Empire and post-empire Europe were losers. Nasty, brutish, and short is a famous line from Hobbes to describe pre-society man, but it was also a good description of life for most people in the early Christian era. It was true for many people when Hobbes was writing in the 17th century. The typical person was subjected to violence, disease, and the constant fear of running out of food.

A religion that tells the losers that their suffering is part of a transition from this life to everlasting life and bliss is going to find a lot of interest. The folk religions of the age were not so rosy about what comes next. Worse yet, if you were going to get any sort of reward in the next life, it meant living this life heroically. That did not offer much for the peasant farmer or the man tied to the land. It is not hard to see why a religion for losers would spread rapidly through Europe at the time.

This insouciant description of Christianity as a religion for losers is not intended as an insult to Christians or Christianity, but to make a point. The rise of Christianity in the West was due to two things. One is the majority of the population, even the upper classes, lived harsh lives. Therefore, a promise of relief from suffering and everlasting life had a strong appeal. The second factor was the embrace of this life as a means to an end, rather an end in itself.

Fast forward to this age and you see that poor people live lives of luxury relative to just a century ago. The typical poor person in America is obese because he has unlimited cheap food. His home is full of conveniences and entertainments. Even in the most terrifying modern ghettos, violence is a fraction of what people experienced even a few hundred years ago. A religion aimed at people living a life of misery is not going to sell to a population living in luxury.

Compounding the problem is a new religion of sorts has evolved in the West that celebrates material success. The point of life, according to the new religion, is to increase your material wellbeing. The point of the state is to foster those conditions and measure success by society-wide material increase. In every election, the economy is the top issue because in this age, we worship stuff, so the promise of more stuff is a sign of virtue. The point of life is more stuff.

A much bigger problem for Christianity is the fact that the ruling elites of this age have no use for Christianity. In the Middle Ages, not only did the ruling elites have lives of struggle, but they also saw utility in a religion that shifted the focus of their people from their current squalor onto what comes after this life. Marx was not entirely wrong when he wrote, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

Probably the biggest challenge for Christianity is the modern Christian, who like the modern grammarian, refuses to evolve. The grammarian clings to the rules of grammar as if they are timeless truths. Any thought of ignoring them for the sake of clarity is treated as a crime against humanity. The fact that most of what he clings to is a relative new invention is lost on him, because what matters most to him is wielding the blue pencil like nuns used to wield the ruler.

This is the problem with the modern Christian. He is ossified in a mode of thought that is relatively new. Transport a modern Christin back to medieval England and he would be burned at the stake as a heretic. Plop him down among the early followers of Christ and they would be baffled by his Scriptural dogmatism. The early proselytizers charged with converting the pagans would find the modern Christian to be a rigid and irrational burden on their work.

Christianity, as we understand it, is the result of a long evolutionary process that adapted the life and message of Christ to the audience and times. The inability and unwillingness of modern Christians to evolve and adapt is probably the biggest challenge facing Christianity. Put another way, the problem with modern Christianity is not its opponents, but its most dogmatic defenders. They have made failure their security blanket and refuse to let go of it.

If Christianity is going to survive, it will have to adapt to this age and repurpose itself as a replacement for liberalism, rather than an enabler of it. Christianity gave birth to liberalism, but it does not have to sink under the waterline with it. Instead, it will have to either replace it with a new Christianity or give rise to a secular alternative that cannot just coexist with Christianity but allow it to once again flourish. Otherwise, Christianity will go into the dustbin of history along with Western civilization.

The Last Atheist

Posted on July 30, 2024 by thezman

There was a time when the so-called New Atheists were getting a lot of attention online and in the media. The main reason for the interest was famous people with claims to empiricism, people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, leading the charge for the New Atheists. Famous people can focus public attention on just about anything and when those famous people have credentials people are conditioned to respect, then those famous people can lead public debate.

The movement ran out of steam for a few reasons. One is Richard Dawkins found out that he could bash Christians as much as he liked, but when he moved onto other religions the priests of the New Religion took exception. In Britain, you cannot mock Islam and nowhere are you allowed to mock Judaism. Although it is unlikely that he ever figured it out, the truth is Christianity in the English-speaking world has come to mean “white” and the New Religion is antiwhite.

Sam Harris, the another famous New Atheist, was largely undone by his own weirdness, which you can see in this old debate. He looks like someone you would see in a documentary about serial killers. Persuasion is as much about how the arguments are presented, as about the facts and reason, and Harris presents as a psychopath who you would not buy a car from much less an argument about God. It turned out that Harris was the best argument against atheism.

The main problem for atheists, of course, is that they do not have an affirmative argument to make in support of their claims. You cannot prove a negative, which means there is no way to prove God does not exist. The best they can do is attack the arguments in favor of the existence of God. This not only makes them sound like jerks, but it can never work for the simple reason that people do not abandon their beliefs when they stop making sense, only when they find a better belief.

The other problem for atheists is that they engage in a form of argument that is inherently dishonest in its form. They start with the assertion that their claim is one of however many valid claims. Therefore, if they disprove the other claims, that means their claim is the right one by default. It is why atheists spend all of their time attacking what they claim are the arguments in favor of God, rather than putting together an argument in favor of their godless universe.

This is the Intelligent Design argument in a nutshell. Since there is no way to prove that God got drunk one night and created the platypus, they spend all of their time “disproving” evolution or asserting that “Darwinism” is a religion. It is entirely possible everyone is wrong, and we live in a simulation and the ID’ers are mistaking what they see for the hand of providence, for what is really just the work of bored child of a race of superbeings in another dimension.

That aside, the biggest problem for atheists, however, is that our moral framework as a civilization rests on the assumption that right and wrong, ought and ought not, are backstopped by something that lies outside the reach of man. This has always meant God, the gods or the shaman who communicates with the spirit world. Often, this supernatural element is bound up in tradition, which is just a handy word for agreed upon ways of acting over a long period of time.

If you rip out God from the equation, then all things are permitted unless you can find a reasonable argument against it. You can see the problem here in this video of Harris being interrogated by a young YouTuber. It quickly becomes clear that the new moral framework Harris proposes makes no sense, not even to Harris. He is reduced to endless equivocation and restatement. Depending upon your perspective it is either sad or amusing to watch him struggle.

Of course, the main problem for Harris in his quest to create a new reason-based morality is that such a thing is not possible. Every human society has a morale code, a list of things you ought and ought not do. These collective beliefs in what is and is not ethical are either based on tradition or in the supernatural. One of the cornerstone beliefs must be that there are bits of this code that are off-limits to questioning, as they are too important to put to a vote.

This is the problem for late-empire America and the West in general. Once the medieval Christian conception of God was removed, the entire moral superstructure of the West began to faulter. Liberalism itself rests on a priori beliefs that are rooted in the Western Christian tradition. The reason liberal democracy looks like despotic anarchy is that the thing it requires to remain rational has been removed. The result is a Hobbesian moral universe that often appears suicidal.

This brings us back to the atheists. The main reason their project has always failed is that you cannot replace a set of beliefs with nothing. People will believe in something similar until a better option is found. Belief in the supernatural solves a problem, which is why humans share this one quality. For Western man, the zenith of belief was late-medieval Christianity. The long arc of the West that has reached the current state is the struggle to replace that belief with nothing.

In a way, the rise and fall of New Atheism gives us an insight into what lies ahead for the Godless world we have created for ourselves in the West. It is the image of the last atheist stammering his way through basic questions which he cannot answer because how we ought and ought not live lies in the thing he seeks to destroy. Ironically, it means the reality of belief will once against reassert itself because reality is the thing that does not go away when you stop believing in it.

Christianity Versus Democracy

Posted on July 29, 2024 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door on the great stone of truth I have a post about a good new Western called Old Henry, a post about the Olympics and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.

A question that does not get asked very much, especially in public, is if Christianity is compatible with democracy. Organized Christians in this age make a point of supporting “democracy” because the people in charge cannot stop talking about it, but that speaks to the sorts of people running organized Christianity. They want to be in good standing with the rulers, an irony that never gets mentioned. The thing they claim to profess evolved in opposition to secular rule.

Putting that aside, the issue of whether democracy, as in the consent of the governed through direct participation in governance by the governed, is compatible with Christianity is an important one. It is clear that as the West has become more democratic, it has become less Christian. Open hostility to Christianity is a feature of the class of people who talk about democracy the most. It certainly seems like the fans of democracy are not fans of Christianity.

Most people today who call themselves Christian or one of the sects of what we think of as Christianity are well aware of the hostility, but they blame secularism or various names for radicalism, rather than democracy. Christians embrace democracy as much as the opponents of Christianity, even if their particular brand of Christianity has no democratic elements. Catholicism, for example, is anti-democratic in structure, but American Catholics love democracy.

There are, however, Christian sects that do embrace democracy. Baptists churches, for example, hire their pastors. If the pastor finds a bigger church willing to hire him and pay him more money, he is free to leave the old church and join the new one. On the other hand, if the church congregation or the deacons decide the pastor is not to the liking they can fire him. Here is a video from a Baptist minister giving the background on why he was recently fired by his church.

The short version of the video is the pastor gave a sermon on marriage and the role of women that was based in a traditional interpretation of Scripture. The wife of the youth pastor, a more modern woman, was offended by the sermon. She and her husband organized a campaign within the church against the pastor in the video and eventually got him fired from his post. In the end, they got a majority of the congregation to agree that either he goes, or they go.

This is a very democratic result. After all, the starting point for democracy is the assertion that the majority must prevail. While there is nothing in Scripture that says this is how things must be, most Christians accept this assertion. In fact, one could argue that the most important victim of majority rule was Christ. If instead of demanding Barabbas they demanded Jesus, the world would be quite different. The point is this congregation and others like it are not organized according to Scripture.

More important, the way they are organized contradicts a basic assumption of all religions, not just Christianity. That basic assumption is that there are some things too important to be left to man. These are things that are true because the gods or God have declared them to be true. Scripture does not say adultery, for example, has to be sorted through a show of hands. For Christians, adultery is a sin, and it is not up for debate

Without knowing the content of the sermon that the pastor in the video says was the source of the conflict, it cannot be judged dogmatically. What matters is the pastor preached in a way that offended the congregation, or at least a majority of them, so the rest went along with firing him. If his sermon was theologically and scripturally correct, then it means the congregation decided they did not like that part of the Bible, so they avoid it and those who preach it.

The point here is that for Christianity to work, or any religion for that matter, the main body of its beliefs must be beyond the collective judgement of man. The collection of oughts and ought nots that make up every religion are rooted in an authority beyond the ability of man to question. Otherwise, the oughts and ought nots are rooted in the collective will of the people. The word we have for this is democracy. In other words, democracy replaces God or the gods as the moral authority.

This is why the radicals of the French Revolution firts set their eyers on the Catholic Church when they gained power. Popular consent could not coexist with an alternative moral authority or its representative on earth, so it had to go. The same logic was at work when they eradicated the aristocracy. Hierarchy is an alternative moral authority to popular sovereignty, so it cannot coexist with it. The thrown and the altar have always been the enemy of popular consent.

You see that in the story of the video pastor. The people who engineered his termination feel justified not because they find support in Scripture, but because they think they have the support of the majority. The God they truly worship is not on the Bible but in the show of hands and their sense of being in the majority. It is not hard to see how this can lead to what you see with the Episcopal Church. It is rainbows and sodomites because the god they worship is the god of democracy.

What the evidence leads to is that the enemy of Christianity is not liberalism or even secularism, but the concept of democracy. Once people of any faith embrace the idea that truth is the result of consent, there is no room for God. Any religion that tries to exist in a society that embraces democracy, will come under pressure to replace its God with the god of the people. As a matter of survival, Christians should see democracy as their primary enemy, externally and internally.

This raises an important question. Can Christianity survive in a democracy. Even if the Church rejects democracy and all its works, can it survive in a society which is governed by the principles of democracy? Is there some limit on the democratic impulse that must be in place and be viewed as unassailable in order for Christian to live in democratic society. If not, then are Christians obligated to fight democracy or simply acquiesce to their own destruction?

Tunneling Into The Clouds

Posted on January 10, 2024 by thezman

By now everyone has seen the videos of weird looking Jewish men popping up from sewer grates in New York City. The men were popping out of underground tunnels built by the Chabad cult in Crown Heights. The city discovered them in December and was attempting to fill them with cement, when the Chabad members rioted in an effort to thwart the city’s efforts. The cops were forced to arrest many of the members and physically clear the facility of Chabadists.

Needless to say it was the best day ever for the antisemites, who naturally looked at the scenes as confirmation of their claims. It was also a great day on social media as the jokesters had some of the best material ever. The images of soiled mattresses being pulled from the tunnels reminded many that this subculture has long been accused of hiding terrible things. Of course, the scolds were out wagging their bony fingers at the world for noticing what was happening.

Lost in all of this are the questions about who these people are and why are they allowed to operate in this country. Most news sites just called the facility a synagogue but it is the world headquarters of the Chabad cult, which is an international movement that aims to influence government through the conversion of secular Jews back into what the cult thinks is the authentic Judaism. This group has centers in every Western capital and many major cities.

Imagine if white nationalists bought a building in New York City and declared it their international headquarters. Imagine they imported men from around the world to live in and around it. The videos online of the riot tell us that many of these men at this location are foreigners. Instead of white nationalists, imagine it was supporters of Palestine doing this. It is a good reminder that providing special status to groups of people comes with downstream consequences.

The more important question, however, is why has the ruling class allowed this bizarre international cult to setup shop in the United States? This cult formed in the 18th century in what is now Poland. They remained there until the Second World War when the head of the cult relocated to New York City. The circumstances at the time probably prevented careful scrutiny, but since then the ruling class has had plenty of time to figure out whether these people should be allowed to remain.

Immigration is always a tool of the ruling elite. This was true in the Roman Empire and it is true in the American empire. Outside of some very narrow exceptions, immigration is a tool of the ruling class to weaken domestic opposition. In the 19th century it was used to suppress wages and prevent unionization. In the current age it is used to maintain the power of the managerial class by diluting the demographics of the country and disrupting the formation of natural community.

How does Chabad fit into this scheme? They do not work in the normal sense which means they are useless in suppressing wages. This cult operates within the Hasidic community, so they are like an economy within an economy. They self-segregate, outside of their recruitment of secular Jews, so they are not showing up in your suburban subdivision to create problems with the neighbors. What they mostly due is recruit secular Jews with access to power in order to influence the elite.

Again, this cult has centers in every Western capital. They operate near the centers of power in the West, so that means they have facilities in cities like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and San Francisco. Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is a member of the Chabad cult. Given the scrutiny on Trump, one has to wonder why the media never did a deep dive on why and how this cult was able to place a member at the center of global power.

None of this should suggest that Chabad is evil or at the center of an international conspiracy to destroy the world. The point is that this extremely bizarre and alien religious movement is allowed to operate unfettered in a time when Western ruling elites are increasing paranoid about internal threats. One would think a cult digging secret tunnels under New York City streets would produce more concern than some grannies wandering around the capital waving Trump flags.

What all this points to is two things. One is the dynamic of American society, especially within the managerial class, is a non-linear system. It is not a top-down system where a small group engineers everything from the shadows. Instead, there are a lot of players jostling with one another seeking advantage. The paranoia we see from the ruling elite is not due to fear of a peasant revolt, but genuine fear of a palace coup that uses a peasant revolt as a pretext.

The other thing this Chabad business tells us is the ruling class is not thinking far beyond one move on the board. A strong ruling class would have packed the Chabad guys off hours after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not that Chabad is evil, but that no smart ruling class tolerates a cult it cannot control. Instead, the managerial elite seems to be blind to this weird movement. It helps explain why foreign governments find it so easy to manipulate the political class.

All of this is a good reminder that America has never been a country in the conventional sense, but rather something like a large distributed network. The nodes on this network are the power centers that wield influence in certain areas. These nodes are often networks themselves, like the news media. The New York Times is the major node within the news media, which itself is a node on the ruling network. These nodes influence one another and jockey for power with one another.

As a result, no one is ever really in charge, like we see in Russia or China, where the state is the dominant power and controls all the power centers. We saw this with Trump when he was thwarted by the various nodes within government. When he overcame those problems, he was stymied by the judicial and corporate nodes operating within the general network of the managerial class. The ruling elite of America is a mesh network that operates atop society.

The Chabad people understand this, which is why they recruit members who can infiltrate these nodes. Most Chabad members do not look like those guys scurrying out of underground tunnels. They look like anyone else in society. Foreign governments see this is well, which is why Israel can have so much influence. China, despite enormous wealth and willingness to buy politicians has less influence than Saudi Arabia because the Saudis understand how America really works.

If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory, so if you are a griller, take you spice business to one of our guys.

Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that roasts its own coffee and ships all over the country. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.

DIE Another Day

Posted on January 8, 2024 by thezman

Note: There was no Sunday podcast this week. I got back from the new house and was simply too tired to do it. I may put the Sunday show on ice until I get the house finished, which means doing something else in its place. Behind the green door, there were two written items this week. A post about my trip to the witchdoctor and post about the aesthetics of modern cars. Subscribe here or here.

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the massive food fight that erupted among the worst people over how the allegedly best people cheat like crazy. Claudine Gay, the former president of Harvard, was supposed to be a proof of concept for the egalitarian blank slate religion of the Cloud People. In reality she was as synthetic as their empathy for people of color. Claudine Gay was a modern lawn jockey. Instead of standing on their lawn with a lantern, she held up her diplomas.

Then we have Bill Ackman, the billionaire hedge fund guy who started this when Gay made unpleasant noises about Israel. He first threatened to withdraw funding and when that did not work, he went after her credentials. In a world of credentialism this was a declaration of war on the system. Soon the internet dug into Gay’s background and found examples of alleged plagiarism. Harvard then demoted her to being a million dollar a year political science instructor.

In response, MIT decided to get into the fight, and they leaked dirt to Business Insider about Ackman’s wife, who supposedly had a cut and paste problem too. It is ironic that people who are immune to the charge of hypocrisy thought they could use the charge of hypocrisy against people famously immune from the charge of hypocrisy. It is an example of how the hive mind operates. Once Ackman was declared outside the hive, he was no different from Trump or Hitler to the hive.

For his part, Ackman has declared a jihad against MIT. He is asking for volunteers to scan the academic work of everyone at MIT. He has also offered to fund the use of technology to expedite the process. Interestingly, the MIT president said all the same things as the Harvard and Penn presidents about Israel, but she has been immune from criticism to this point. Perhaps she thought the force field was not enough to protect her, so she launched this preemptive strike.

Again, it is hard not to enjoy this poo-flinging contest, but it obscures a reality at the heart of the whole thing. That is the logic of the egalitarian religion must lead them to these self-destructive ends. The reason for that is there is no way to reach the stated goals of this new religion without dismantling the standards and practices of the Western society that made the modern university possible. In other words, to dismantle whiteness they must dispense with the rules of whiteness.

The only reason Claudine Gay can exist is if the rules of the academy are changed to make it possible for her to exist. All along the way her mostly white advisors cut corners for her so she could move along through the system. They do this because it was the path of least resistance, but also for self-interest. They could subtly mention how they were once the advisor of this shining example of the new religion. This is social capital an academic can use for status seeking.

Systemic rule breaking is not confined to the grievance studies areas. The need to acquire totems of the new religion is everywhere on campus. The chemistry department at Rice University, for example, spends scarce resources on thirty different diversity and inclusion programs. The department now offers a for-credit course in Afrochemistry, which is taught by this woman. She will no doubt be lifted up on the shoulders of academics and socially promoted into a leadership role.

This all sounds fine except that when you populate your new system with people who are both incompetent and entitled, the results of that system will reflect this. The long running discussion about the decline of elite universities is centered around the fact the graduates are often astoundingly incompetent. The truth is, they may be incompetent at traditional things, but they are stars at the rules of the new system. The products of dismantling whiteness are good at dismantling whiteness.

The reason we have a crisis of competence in America is the managerial system is slowly being taken over by people who are only good at gaming the system to produce diverse, equitable and inclusive results. The managerial system is slowly being bent to the goal of denying its own existence. No one would dare hire Brooke Johnson to do chemistry, but she plays a role in who gets hired to do chemistry. Get enough Brooke Johnsons and Claudine Gays and the system begins to fail.

All of this was inevitable as soon as the moralizers of the mid-twentieth century declared a fatwa against nature. Once it was immoral to notice natural inequality and the fixed nature of people, the old system was doomed. The only permissible explanation for the persistent inequality was to blame the system and that meant destroying the system was the only moral path forward. The social promotion system is about maintaining the myth of egalitarianism.

That also means there is no way out for these elite colleges. Bill Ackman can expose all of them as plagiarists, cheats, and fools, but nothing will change because nothing can change as long as the core tenets of the faith remain. Unless Bill Ackman has a new religion for these people to embrace, they will burn the whole system to the ground before abandoning diversity, equity, and inclusion. This means the collapse of the university system is inevitable.

The Z Blog

Sports, Culture and Other Stuff

Category Archives: Religion