Christianity and sexual morality

Pretty much all of us on the dissident side of politics who tend towards social conservatism or traditionalism are probably agreed that modern society has a problem with sexual morality. The problem being that we don’t have a sexual morality any more.

Whether there is any chance of changing this, any chance of returning to a society in which sexual morality is taken seriously, is another question. At the moment the chances seem pretty slim. On the other hand the one lesson we can learn from history is that dramatic social and political changes can happen and they can happen very quickly.

So assuming that however unlikely it seems right now such a change might be possible at some point, what kind of sexual morality would be desirable? Do we want to turn back the clock to the 1980s, the 1950s, the Victorian era or the fifteenth century?

That’s a big question and will probably require several posts to address fully. At the moment I want to consider just one aspect of the question. Do we want to return to a Christian sexual morality? Many traditionalists on the right would like to do so, but is such a thing even possible? Christians are a small minority. Is it a practical proposition  to base morality on the beliefs of a rather small proportion of the population? Is it reasonable to want to do so? Is there even the tiniest chance it could be achieved?

There’s also another point to consider. The Cultural Left has been very successful in shutting down dissent because of their very effective tactic of painting anyone who disagrees with them as being motivated by Christian zealotry and/or bigotry. Since most people are not Christians this works extremely well. Planning for a return to a specifically Christian morality is in some ways making things easy for the Cultural Left. Of course if you’re a committed genuine Christian then naturally a Christian-based morality is going to sound very attractive. It’s as well to remember that such a thing doesn’t necessarily sound so appealing to the non-Christian majority.

Perhaps we need to try harder to convince people that you don’t need to be a Christian to be concerned about the devastating impact of sexual immorality. It is possible to be vehemently opposed to social liberalism on purely pragmatic social utilitarian grounds. Sexual immorality undermines the family which in turn has catastrophic consequences for children. It undermines society as a whole by disrupting normal social relations. It leads to unhealthy lifestyles that cause human misery. You don’t have to be religious in order to see this clearly.

I have to come clean about my own position. I’m sympathetic to Christianity but I am not a Christian. I don’t necessarily think a Christian morality would be a bad thing (in fact it might be a good thing) but I do think it would be a very hard sell.

And to be honest I’m not entirely sure I’d personally want a Christian-based morality. Certainly not a full-on biblical sexual morality. I would be in agreement with hardline Christian traditionalists on some sexual issues, but perhaps not on others.

Of course much depends on exactly how a more strict sexual morality would be enforced. Does anybody actually believe that governments could be trusted with legal powers to do so? Surely no-one could believe that a democratic government could be trusted with such powers, democratic governments having systematically abused every single power they have ever been able to get their hands on. I would be frankly horrified by the prospect of a Christian sexual morality enforced by the apparatus of the state. Such a morality enforced by social persuasion and social disapproval  might be more palatable. Of course it goes without saying that there are certain very serious sexual offences (rape and anything involving children) that involve severe actual harm and they must be subject to legal sanctions, even though that means giving governments powers that they can and will abuse and in fact already do abuse. Sometimes unpleasant compromises cannot be avoided. And perhaps one day we will have a society in which the police and the courts can actually be trusted.

The real issues though are whether a sexual morality based on the teachings of Christianity can or should be imposed on non-Christians, and whether aiming for a Christian morality would alienate so many people as to make the chances of some kind of moral improvement of our society even more remote than they already are.


victory or survival?

I am not suggesting that the war is lost or that we should give up the fight. I believe we should continue to look for strategies for victory, but I also think that we need to start considering strategies for survival. It is possible that in the short to medium term survival will be the critical question.

This is particularly true for Christians. The war on Christianity is heating up. It is obvious that the objective is now the complete destruction of Christianity.

It is vital for Christians to realise that it is not just the unholy triumvirate of government, academia and the media that they are up against. The corporate world is every bit as hostile to Christianity. The corporate world wants Christianity destroyed. There are various reasons for this but it needs to be understood that there is a fundamental hostility at work here. Capitalism wants tame workers and most of all capitalism wants willing and compliant consumers who accept that their only role is to consume. The existence of any institution that encourages people to be anything other than consumers is no longer going to be tolerated.

Christians need to realise that by and large their own church hierarchies are now firmly in the enemy camp. Perhaps that is not entirely true of the Catholic hierarchy but even in the Catholic Church resistance is crumbling at an alarming rate.

I’m not a Christian so the war on Christianity really doesn’t affect me personally but it is becoming more and more obvious that anyone who is a dissident of any description is going to have to start looking at survival strategies.

One crucial survival strategy is to learn to regard the entire state apparatus and the entire corporate world as actively malevolent. It’s not paranoia when your enemies are real and they really are out to get you. Being afraid of the secret police in the totalitarian societies of the 1930s  wasn’t paranoia, it was common sense. We live in a society today that is moving towards totalitarianism at a terrifyingly rapid pace.

If you talk to the police without a lawyer being present you are putting your own head on the chopping block. Not matter how innocuous the questions, no matter how trivial the matter seems to be, it is unbelievably foolish to answer even a single question unless your lawyer is with you. It is equally foolish to volunteer any information to any government or quasi-government body, or to any large corporation. Do not participate in any surveys or polls or academic studies. Do not reveal unnecessary personal information on social media.

It is a wise idea to minimise your interactions with government agencies.

Christians need to be exceptionally cautious about these things. If you’re a Christian and you broadcast the fact on social media without the cloak of anonymity you are giving your enemies a weapon which they will use against you, and against your family.

I have spoken in the past of the need to avoid modern popular culture. This is now more vital than ever. All modern popular culture is propaganda. All of it. Every single movie. Every single TV show. All of pop music. All fiction writing. The propaganda may be blatant or it may be subtle but you can be absolutely certain it is always there. You need to be especially vigilant in shielding your children from this poison. Thinking that you can avoid the danger merely by minimising the exposure is sheer folly. Modern popular culture is not just poison, it is a cumulative poison.

We also need to consider very carefully our attitude towards society. If society is hopelessly corrupt and vicious do we owe it any loyalty? We cannot avoid living in the society in which we find ourselves but there’s no point in deluding ourselves. Western civilisation is diseased. The main priority is to protect ourselves and avoid becoming infected.

Yes, this is a very depressing post and I will doubtless be castigated for being black-pilled but I do think we need at least to consider the possibility that the worst may come to pass. Maybe it won’t. I hope it won’t. But being prepared for it if it does happen is surely not a bad idea.

the social function of the church

Churches in the modern world are irrelevant. They’re just social clubs. They perform no useful social function. They exist in order to provide a warm fuzzy feeling of self-righteousness and niceness. 
This might seem paradoxical since churches today appear to be obsessively concerned with their social rôle. This is an illusion. They are serving the liberal agenda, not a Christian agenda. They are merely acting as another propaganda arm of the state. They are serving the state and the corporate interests that control our society. They do not promote Christian values. They promote the values that the state and the corporate interests wish to impose on us. They have abdicated their actual social rôle.
Churches are not guided by scripture or by their own teachings. They are guided by opinion polls and by the media. They have become political entities (it’s a major feature of our society that every aspect of life is politicised). The churches do not lead. They follow. They follow the power and the money. 
They decided back in the mid-20th century that they needed to become more relevant. In fact they’ve become entirely irrelevant. They’re not much more than a branch of the entertainment industry. They sell good feelings.
The churches have abandoned actual religion and they have abdicated their function of providing a moral framework by which to live. They promote whatever values happen to be popular, which are of course the values of the state and corporate interests.
Christianity has become a purely personal thing. The churches have forgotten that they have a rôle to play in promoting an actual Christian society. If a religion does not provide a moral framework by which to live then it’s difficult to see what purpose it does serve, other than making people feel smug and self-righteous.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 13.0px} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000} span.s1 {font-kerning: none}

There are still Christians who desire to follow Christianity as an actual religion but there is no place for such people within modern institutional Christianity.

the myth of moderate feminism

Some interesting feminism-related stuff on the web at the moment. Much of it concerns Jeanette Kupferman, a radical feminist in the 1960s and now a woman in her 70s. She’s now a grandmother and wondering if the world feminism has created is really going to be good for her granddaughter. 
Her doubts on this subject prompted these questions at The Knight and Drummer – Can a feminist be redeemed? Can a feminist  eventually turn out to be a good woman after all?
Reading what Kupferman has to say, I think we can answer those questions in the negative. 
The story has also been noted at Oz Conservative where it’s been pointed out that Kupferman still clings tenaciously to her core liberal and feminist beliefs. 
A feminist cannot be redeemed unless she is prepared to abandon feminism in its entirety. The truth is that there is no such thing as a moderate feminist, or a reasonable moderate feminist. Feminism is based on a fundamentally mistaken view of human nature. It’s wrong right from the get-go. There’s no way to do what Kupferman would like to do, to salvage the good bits of feminism. What she sees as the good bits are actually the very things that make it an unworkable and catastrophic ideology.
Also of interest in this context is this piece by Roosh V, Why The Female “Anti-Feminist” Is A Feminist In Disguise, in which he warns that women who claim to be anti-feminist should not be taken at face value.
I also read Dalrock’s blog fairly regularly. The comments are interesting as they provide a window into what really goes on inside mainstream American Protestant churches. The extent of the surrender to feminism is terrifying. The churches have made the classic mistake – they have assumed that with feminists they’re dealing with reasonable people. They have deluded themselves into thinking that there can be such a thing as a Christian feminist. It’s nonsense. You cannot be a Christian and a feminist. It simply isn’t possible. Women who claim to be Christian feminists are certainly feminists but they aren’t Christians.

Moderate feminists, like moderate liberals, are extremely dangerous because they can easily fool naïve conservatives into believing that feminists are capable of being reasoned with.
So can a feminist be redeemed? Yes, if she is prepared to admit that feminism is thoroughly and completely wrong from start to finish and if she is prepared to reject feminism totally and completely. Very very few feminists will do this. 
Can a feminist  eventually turn out to be a good woman after all? No, not so long as she clings to any part of the feminist ideology.

women, Christianity, superstition and heresy

The latest post at Oz Conservative, Male dominion, magical women, is extremely interesting and there have been a couple of interesting comments as well. It’s one of those posts that makes you think about an issue in an entirely new way.
There’s firstly the issue of whether women who conform to the traditional Christian virtues deserve to be considered to be “the crowning achievement of divine creation,” something that Mark quite rightly has some doubts about. He also mentions the extraordinary female attachment to bizarre beliefs in things like the Tarot and various forms of fortune telling. These are things that 99 percent of men would regard as laughable and nonsensical superstitions but a frightening number of women believe in such superstitions. What is really worrying is that extremely intelligent women are still quite capable of believing in stuff like astrology.
It’s another example of the profound difference between male intelligence and female intelligence. Men have the ability, to a large degree, to separate belief from emotion. Men tend to believe in objective truth, and they believe in weighing up evidence. Women believe in emotional truth. If it feels true then it is true. Of course this is a generalisation. But generalisations can be very useful things as long as you remember that they are generalisations and I think that this particular generalisation is both useful and mostly accurate. Certainly my own experience of women suggests that women do not perceive truth the way men do. 
I’m not suggesting that women are dishonest in this regard. It’s just the way they’re wired. They find it exceptionally difficult to make non-emotional judgments. Of course if society was still organised on the basis of traditional sex roles this would not matter, since in their proper domestic sphere emotional intelligence is a major asset. It becomes a problem when women take on roles for which they are unsuited, such as political leadership, where their emotional intelligence is almost certainly going to lead to disaster.
A commenter named Bruce added something that had never occurred to me before but which may well be very very important. He said that 

“…Christian women, at least the ones I know, are far more likely to claim that their decisions are based on direct conversations they have with God. They tell me that they literally speak to God and he speaks back – either in the form of “whispers” or direct conversation that they literally hear. I almost never hear Christian men claim this sort of thing.”

I think that this may explain a great deal about the current disastrous state of Christianity in the West. It seems quite possible that the female experience of religion is entirely and radically different from the male experience. For women religion may well be purely an emotional thing. That could be why women seem to be unworried by the widespread acceptance of heresy by Christian churches – women simply don’t care about theology or doctrine at all. Men will often choose a religion, or reject one, because there is a key point of doctrine that they simply cannot accept. It seems likely that for women what matters is whether a particular religion or a particular denomination seems to them to be emotionally true. Which means that as long as they get the emotional buzz they’ll accept any heresy.
This is certainly a very powerful reason to oppose the ordination of women and to oppose vigorously the appointment of women to any position of authority within the Church. Women are unlikely to oppose heresies or abominations like homosexual marriage because it simply doesn’t matter to them if such things are explicitly forbidden by scripture or by the historical teachings of the church. What matters are feelings.
A church dominated by women is inevitably going to drift towards heresy and doctrinal incoherence but it’s also going to drift towards New Age-y wallowing in superstitious wishful thinking or equally dangerous fatalism. Christianity cannot survive in any meaningful form unless men take back their proper leadership role. With women in charge Christianity is likely to do much more harm than good.

stability or progress

I’ve just been reading one of Robert Van Gulik’s Judge Dee mysteries. Why is this relevant? I’ll explain in a moment. Van Gulik was a Dutch diplomat who wrote a series of detective novels describing the cases confronting a magistrate in China during the Tang Dynasty (7th century AD).
What’s interesting is that Van Gulik’s knowledge of Chinese history, culture and jurisprudence was profound. And in his stories there is not the faintest hint of the cult of progress. He describes a society that valued stability and order to an extreme degree. This reflects the view that historians have always taken about Imperial China, although western historians have mostly seen this as a weakness. The Chinese developed a very advanced civilisation and then stopped. No further progress was considered to be necessary and in fact further progress would lead to instability and was therefore a bad thing.
While it might be an over-simplistic view of Chinese civilisation there’s undoubtedly a lot of truth in this view of a society committed to preserving what it already had rather than pursuing the phantom of progress. 
Looking at the world today it’s easy to believe that the Chinese had the right idea. This is especially so when you consider the misery and chaos that followed the overthrow of the last Imperial government in the early part of the 20th century.
The cult of progress is always tied up with utopianism. If we just keep progressing then sooner or later we’ll have a perfect society composed of perfect people leading amazingly happy and fulfilling lives. This is the philosophical view that started to emerge in Europe in the 16th century and it has taken a firmer and firmer hold with every year that has passed since then. By the beginning of the 20th century it was the one unchallenged dogma of our civilisation. Imperial China was dominated by Confucian thought and Confucian thought most certainly did not see things in this light. Medieval Europe was dominated by Christianity and medieval Christianity did not see things that way either. 
The point is that it is possible to have a fully functional and quite advanced civilisation based on the cult of stability rather than the cult of progress. 
The cult of progress is, by it very nature, destructive. To build a new society we must first destroy the old one. Everything that has happened has been an inevitable consequence of this. Whenever utopia fails to materialise it just means that more destruction is needed.
Should we abandon the idea of progress altogether? Surely the cult of progress has brought us many benefits? There is a genuine dilemma here. The answer is perhaps that the cult of progress needs to be balanced by an equally strong force advocating stability and order. Perhaps if progress could be slowed and controlled it might not be so socially destructive? It’s possible, but progress has a way of continually getting out of control.
Perhaps we need to ask ourselves exactly what kind of progress is actually useful? Technological progress has on the whole been pretty useful. Social progress on the other hand has brought us to the brink of ruin. We might need to accept the harsh reality that there is no such thing as social progress. We probably should ask ourselves also exactly what kind of scientific and technological progress we need. Do we need ever more advanced weaponry? Do we need faster and faster personal computers? Do we need smarter and smarter smartphones?
One conclusion that logically follows from this is likely to be unpalatable to many people who consider themselves to be right-wing. Taking control of progress would require a very strong government. Almost certainly not a democratic one. Imperial China survived for millennia because mostly it had a strong government. It also survived because those who ran the government, the countless bureaucrats that characterised Chinese government, were educated to believe in stability and order and the tenets of Confucianism. It seems to follow inexorably from this that rigid control of education is necessary for the preservation of civilisation and that dangerous and destructive ideas need to be suppressed. Perhaps that is the price that has to be paid if you want a successful stable culture.

the trouble with paganism

I’ve been reading Dan McCoy’s The Love of Destiny: The Sacred and the Profane in Germanic Polytheism which I guess could be described as an exercise in neo-pagan apologetics.

The problem of religion is one that has been exercising my mind for quite some time. I’m fairly clear about the natures of the problem. I don’t think atheism is healthy for society and I don’t think it’s healthy for the individual. What I’m not clear about is the solution to the problem.
It’s a problem that many (possibly even most) people in the dissident right, alt-right or whatever you want to use as an umbrella term for such groups are aware of. The two most popular solutions are a revived Christianity or some form of neo-paganism. It’s the neo-pagan solution I’m concerned with at the moment.
I understand the attraction of the neo-pagan solution. Christianity hasn’t done much of a job of defending our civilisation in the past century or so and neo-paganism has the advantage of offering a distinctively European alternative. Blood and soil and all that.
I have however always had reservations about neo-paganism. This is a short summary of my reservations (and as you’ll see they’re all pretty much related). 
Firstly, any kind of polytheistic religion by its very nature will tend towards fragmentation. There was a time when the whole of Europe was pagan but it was certainly not a golden age of religious unity. At the time that wasn’t a major problem but what we need today is unity.
Secondly, neo-paganism has always been short on doctrine. Certainly very short on anything approaching a unified doctrine. Within incredibly broad limits you can more or less choose your own beliefs. Every man can in effect have his own private religion. The difficulty with that is that it must inevitably lead to the kind of atomisation and sense of alienation which are the very things that make liberalism so deadly. One of the functions of religion is to bring people together, not to divide them.
Thirdly, there’s no standardised neo-pagan morality. Each cult can adopt its own morality and in practice every individual can adopt his or her own moral standards. Obviously that’s a recipe for social chaos.
Fourthly, neo-paganism can very easily become just a vague woolly New Age spirituality. Even worse, it can become a sort of glorified pantheism. And pantheism is itself a sort of glorified atheism.
Fifthly, not only is neo-paganism not conducive to social discipline it’s also not conducive to self-discipline. It’s an open door to every kind of self-indulgence – moral, intellectual, emotional and spiritual.
McCoy is aware of these weaknesses but unfortunately he considers them to be features, not bugs. This is one of the many disturbing things about this book.
McCoy starts out in his introduction by assuring us that he has no animus against the monotheistic religions. We then move on to the first half of the book which is a sustained, hysterical, intellectually incoherent attack on what he considers to be the many evils of the three great monotheistic religions. Interestingly enough for McCoy the three great monotheistic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Science. His main beef with these religions seems to be that they’re anti-Nature and moralistic. For McCoy Nature is all good and morality is all bad. Because we’re all part of Nature, man, and it’s all good because, well, it’s just all good because it is. Morality of course is bad ’cause it’s oppressive, man. This is pretty much the hippie worldview.
The second half of this brief volume is marginally more interesting, giving us a brief rundown on Norse mythology and the Northern European pagan worldview. The problem here is that, to me at least, that worldview sounds impossibly bleak, fatalistic and depressing. Submitting to fate seems to be the essence of it. 
Of course it would be unfair to dismiss neo-paganism out of hand based on this one book. Nonetheless this book does confirm every one of my worst fears on the weaknesses of neo-paganism and the unlikelihood that it is going to be of much use in saving our civilisation. Mind you I suspect that the author would not be bothered by this, since civilisation is oppressive, man.