All Universal Moral Principles Are Idle Fancy (5?): Why Morality is Social Poison

The Christian invasion of all spheres not already dominated by Marxists is again underway. Secularists beheaded that dragon a decade ago only to find it was a hydra. In 2016, those on the American political Right rejected Christian lies. The Republican primary of that year saw voters reject the Christian ethics of humility and agape love as self-abasing, reminiscent of the woeful Romney campaign four years prior, and instead embracing the Romantic virtues of pride and the praise of strength, embodied by then-Candidate Trump. Yet with the electoral defeat of 2020, due at least in part to Christendom’s remaining elements with the likes of Mitt Romney, the American Nationalist Awakening has been cowed. The Christian Right, though it fetishizes weakness, is attempting to strong arm the Nationalist movement into once again submitting itself to the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 

Gab was the first victim of this counterattack. Now the Christians launch another invasion on Minds. These are chameleons. They excel in mimicking the anti-Progressive rhetoric of the Nationalist, but their tactics and policies are more in line with those of the Globalist and the Communist. On Minds, their tools are downvoting and reporting. The Christians swarm against that which they find distasteful, not at all unlike their Communist counterparts. 

But this is not the first time the enemies of despotism have been undermined by Christians. Ranging from Barry Goldwater’s stark warning for the Republican Party to the Nineties refutation of the same Conservative Christianity on which Ronald Reagan capitalized; the heirs to the Enlightenment continue to wrestle not just with aspiring tyrants quoting Marx, but also with dogmatic moral despots seeking to put up the cross and put upon it the Secular ideology that gave birth to Liberty.

This must not be done so much through Atheism. Rather, Secularists must do battle with Political Christianity. It will resemble the fights in 2016 between Marxists and free-thinkers. Rather than attack the rationality of God, as men like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have already done with great success, Secularists should attack the imbecility of Jesus, the hypocrisy of the Apostles, and the lies and greed of Christian leaders today. One can successfully resist and repel both Christians and Marxists by demonstrating how both ideologies are, when applied to politics and society, the same.

The Purification of American Media
 

Christianity in America was not always this political machine. Though it’s the dominant religion, there are many sects and in any given sects a dozen competing differing social doctrines. For much of its real history, the United States has been Secular; The Secular is not synonymous with Atheist, but merely a strong separation between the Religious and the Political to guarantee Society is guided by Reason. (one must recall that under Communist rule, Albania declared itself to be the world’s first Atheist State – but was certainly not driven by Reason). This changed with the turn of the Twentieth Century, and particularly with the Wilson Administration and the rise of the political ideology known as Progressivism. 

Early Progressives believed that good governance could improve people’s lives. They believed that better regulation through the law, both on businesses and individuals, could and would make things more in line with Utopian values. This culminated with the Prohibition Era. Progressivism’s gift to the American people when last it reached an apex was two decades of lawlessness. A combination of a thriving underworld liquor industry followed by an international economic collapse demonstrated to astute students of social history that good intentions do indeed pave the road to hell.

The idea of Utopian governance did not die. Roosevelt, in his many terms in office, did enact massive Keynesian economic reforms and included many Socialist sophistries. His policies actually lengthened the Great Depressions effects, although many modern Progressives deny this. They point to his contributions to American government, such as the minimum wage and the Women’s Bureau, conveniently forgetting that World War 2 spurred American Industry two years before the attack on Pearl Harbor. One could say the Emperor Hirohito and Adolf Hitler were better for the American economy than then President Franklin Roosevelt. 

However, what can be said for these early Progressives is that there was some logic to their thinking, even if it was overly simplistic. The Prohibitionists believed that by banning alcohol they solved domestic abuse problems and divorce rates: an understandable logic if one considers alcoholism the disease and not just another symptom. The New Deal proponents believed that giving people more money and more experience through public works projects would lead to increased employment: logical, so long as one forgets much of John Maynard Keynes’ most influential work. 

However, the Second World War left its imprint on the American psyche like nothing else experienced by the young Nation. The industrialized genocides committed throughout Europe and Asia shocked hardened soldiers and their softer civilian families. Conveniently for the Socialists, Americans ignored the medical experiments done on black citizens, the internment camps for those with ancestry in the enemy countries, and various racial policies that mirrored the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany. Without a widely and wildly publicized trial of the guilty party, Americans tend to ignore what might be termed uncivilized behavior. 

Fascist politics requires a cult of personality. Mussolini must be correct and totally correct, and there is no alternative. And his opponent must be wrong and totally wrong. Faith was placed in politicians based on their affiliations, not on the merits of their policies. In America, this faith, albeit not Fascistic, gave rise to the Religious Right.

To prevent the rise of a Hitler, a Stalin, or a Mussolini, the Religious Right made a cult of personality around the preacher. The priest, the Man of the Cloth in poetic terms, came to represent the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. It follows that, like Mussolini, the priest was correct and totally correct, without any alternative. The logic, again being simple as it was, is that who, in following the Messiah, would ever lead his flock astray?

The American Christian clergy gained power and influence which rivaled that of Goebbels and Trotsky. Lacking Storm Troopers and Red Armies, they instead relied on the fear of fire and brimstone to keep their control on the hive mind of the masses.

Baruch Spinoza said “If men controlled their minds as easily as they do their tongues, then every tyrant would sit safely upon his throne.”

Some one must control the minds of men for tyranny to fester. Those who controlled these minds are not put into this position by some political power or militant entity. Rather they must gain this control through trust; they gain this trust by proclaiming their adherence to their own morals, however they might choose to define morality. They virtue signal.

They took the aim to gain for themselves political power. In response, Republican Barry Goldwater issued this dire warning to the Republican Party: “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

Like the Pope anointing Charlemagne, the preachers in America gained power by anointing aspiring politicians. This guaranteed a politician votes from the sheep. Just as any well interpreted passage from scripture could grant votes, it could also take them away. They made targets. They attacked elements of American culture they deemed not Christian. This things, whatever they might be or have been, were declared to be the opposite: Satanic. Movies and music became the Devil’s preferred tools of temptation. Since these things dealt with real subjects, and not mythological concepts like Providence or the Promise of Paradise, they did nothing to keep the minds of voters on Jesus (and, more importantly, on the preacher’s specific interpretation of Jesus). 

There were concerted and somewhat successful campaigns to censor comedians, regulate artistic expression, and control what stories movies could tell. The Parental Advisory label once common on CDs aimed at high schoolers were the product of one such campaign. The introduction of PG and PG-13 ratings are another product – in fact, the Roman Catholic Church has its own ratings system, published by the US Council of Catholic Bishops, in which films can be labeled as morally offensive.

The Exodus Project celebrated its successful campaign against Pornhub and pornography. It is a Catholic institution which claims to be against human trafficking, accusing Pornhub of distributing child pornography. This comes from an organization funded by an exposed international pedophile ring, the Roman Catholic Church and its leadership in the Holy See. And it’s this exposed international pedophile ring which gained such contemporary political power through the mere words of Karol Wojtyla and Mother Theresa’s televised appearences. This power was lost when their sexual activities involving children were exposed. Now, desiring the regain this power of influence, the Roman Catholic Church has wholly embraced Communism.

This portion has been written, Dear Reader, to emphasize that any alliance with the Christian Right will not bring you back fun video games, death metal, gangster rap, or pornography. They will be just as censorious as the Feminists and Marxists. The only difference is that they will do so in the name of Jesus, and not some championed and supposedly oppressed group.

Gab of Lead

Politically ambitious Christians want things to go back to the usual of two extremes. They don’t want Fascists, Libertarians, Anarchists, Sadists, Agorists, and the like debating and sharing ideas. They want you to choose a side, Christianity or Satanism. Much in the same way Marxists want you to choose between them and their definition of Fascism, this is nothing but a road to Serfdom. It is telling that in the eyes of American Christians, the Marxist is the embodiment of the Satanic and to the Marxist, the Christian is the prototypical Fascist. This artificial dichotomy exists for two reasons.

The Conservative Christian is not so different from the Radical Marxist. Both ideologies promise to fix Society. Both ideologies maintain in their creeds the belief in inherent human value. This is a noted truth that Hayek noted in his observations of Italy, in the fights between Commmunists and Fascists, that the arguments presented to potential recruits by either ideology were the essentially the same. 

There is a particular kind of person that subscribes to such ideologies (by which I mean those ideologies claiming to fix everything wrong with Society). Usually pseudointellectual, they are impressed with themselves, describing molehills and even good times as mountains they have climbed, whilst impartial observers usually see some one who is either a failure or, at best, completely and utterly mediocre. This personal view of themselves leads them to develop lofty goals and admirable aspirations, which they are quick to tell others about. However, keen inspection reveals they do nothing to make their dreams reality. Their inevitable failure feeds (or possibly even lays the foundations for) a paranoid personality; believing themselves to be incapable of failure, they adopt the position that society has some segments of it committed against them. The Christians have often pointed to some faceless nameless Satanic cabals which supposedly are composed of the world’s elite (except for the politicians they like, of course) and the Marxists believe the rich are conspiring against them personally (excluding millionaires like Bernie Sanders, Hasan Piker, and other very wealthy Socialists). The worldview should seem familiar to most, as it is nearly universal among teenagers. Indeed, ideologies such as this usually belong to those who are of mature age, but behave as though they are still children. 

This is why Marxists and Christians are both so eager to gain control of the educational establishments. Notice, you never see Christians arguing for the distribution of Darwinian theory, or Enlightenment philosophies when they decry Marxist indoctrination. Rather, they say “public school is bad! Send your children to church schools!” 

Gab originally was conceived and marketed as an alternative to Twitter. Promising not to censor unpopular and unpalatable content, the platform quickly revealed its ulterior motives not with the reconciliations to the FBI following the shooting at a Pennsylvania synagogue, but when they first began to censor pornographic content. 

Individuals exhibiting personal virtue do not march out to eradicate pornography, to sanitize horror, and to censor raunchy comedy. They do not indulge in such things, for it is their sacrifice and not the sacrifice of others with which they concern themselves.

Erotica, horror, and comedy are often the three genres of art that not only make themselves simultaneously capable of appealing to our base human instincts as well as our enlightened intellectual capacities, but also have been historically the vehicles for social and political allegory. From Trumpian memers to the socialist Lewis Black, comedy has been used to mock the status quo. From Paradise Lost to George Romero’s zombies, horror has always made itself applicable to politics. From the Marquis de Sade to John Waters, erotica and pornography has always displayed to ourselves those uncomfortable truths we try to ignore.

Gab censored porn on the same premise which Exodus Project used to attack Pornhub. It was the same old “But the Children!” argument. The expressed reasoning may sound not only moral virtuous, but noble and just. However, there is always another motive behind the actions of censors. Just as every tyrant designates a holiday and throws a parade to buy the love of his subjects, the censor appeals to our moral senses in order to stifle our intellectual ones.

In 2010, a Balkan director Srdjan Spasojevic produced an infamous film set in the porn industry. This film starred prominent Serbian celebrities, an accomplished actor as a retired porn actor and a nationally renowned singer as an aging porn actress who gets her former comrade to return to the industry for one last movie. The now married father finds that the movie he is starring in focuses itself on violent pedophilia. Upon trying to remove himself from production, he subjected viewing a movie of a newborn being raped, then he is drugged, kidnapped, and ultimately coerced into raping his own 12 year old son.

A Serbian Film is banned in almost every country except for the United States. The director stands by the fact that this film is an allegory: the abuse of the Serbian nation by the Serbian state. These words are uttered several times by the movie’s main villain, Vukmir Vukmir. As he is interested in selling his porn abroad, can it not be understood that the critique is that the Serbian state is acting as a U.N. puppet, trying its own war heroes, while maintaining its identity as a measure meant only to pacify the Nationalist Serbian people? And should they view it, could not citizens of other countries, after overcoming the visual shock and horror, question their own government’s relations to Washington, DC and Beijing? Or perhaps, Americans and Chinese might come to the conclusion their respective leaders care nothing about the countries they lead.

Another example is Mignonnes, a French movie about a troup of underage French dancing girls who perform sexualized choreography. The movie was criticized heavily for what some deemed child pornography, with even some in the American government calling on the distributor, Netflix, to face both criminal and civil charges. 
However, there was no consideration for the message. The absentee parenting method so common in the modern world is what was being critiqued in Mignonnes. Unable to bear having their noses rubbed in their own shit, the parents of the West retaliated. The good Christian Conservatives, who did nothing to investigate the actions and assets of the pedophilic Roman Catholic Church (some even going as far as to defend their Mother Church), pounced on Netflix. This is quite convenient since many in the American Conservative area, especially those of a Christian orient, consider Netflix to be a political propaganda tool for their opponents. 

There was no discussion about the dangers of allowing children unfettered access to the internet. There was no discussion about the importance of proper parenting, and how to do so. The Religious Right is convinced that its own morals are entirely correct, and takes little regard to their own practices.

But what does all of this have to do with Gab?

Andrew Torba is the founder and creator of Gab and a devout Christian. It was his genius to market Gab as a less restrictive Twitter alternative. This generated a great deal of interest from the same clientele drawn to Minds. Some accounts were inactive and existed only in the case of Minds bending the knee or being purged from the internet entirely. Other accounts were vibrantly posting.

Then there was the shooting, for which many people laid the blame on Torba’s Gab. Investigations into this particular shooter, who espoused a protoFascist ideology, found that he adopted his opinions while still a teenager attending a private school centered around Marxist indoctrination. Could it be that he felt himself threatened by the demonstrably anti-European ideology? The media which he consumed, from the American popularization of rap music to the woman-washing of culture, would have certainly reinforced this. His own feelings of inferiority and frustration made him seek out pornography depicting, almost exclusively, black men and white women, which would have only heightened his sense of danger (it should also be mentioned that interracial pornography of this type is on the rise, and this is certainly due in large part to the interracial propaganda so prominent in the 2000s pop culture). And perhaps the only reason he adopted his particular ideology, and took action against a synagogue, was that the only people telling him not to doubt his eyes and ears were National Socialists and Fascists.

Still, the true number of influential National Socialists and Fascists in the United States is near nil. It benefited the Marxist cause better to blame the Christian Gab, on which this shooter (named Robert Bowers). Conveniently, as always, the Marxist mob disregarded philosophical differences which spanned oceans between Torba’s Christianity and the Fascism of an adherent to Julius Evola.

Authorities, which are, in the United States, agents of the Marxist State, gained Torba’s cooperation (certainly not without some force applied). He adopted their system of censorship, using the tools already in place on his website. He publicly betrayed his initial promise of a commitment to Free Expression. 

But I remember the early days of Gab. Several amateur pornographers were on the site, noting that Gab was censoring their more explicit images. Hentai, if I recall correctly, became a target of Torba’s censoring tools. He only enforced the will of the Marxist because of external circumstances which forced his hand. He subtly enforced Christian morality without any incentive beyond that in his own breast. 

So much for the Freedom of Expression.

The AntiAtheism of the Atheist Community

I cannot, in good faith, place all the blame at the feet of Christians. Radovan Karadzic was a devout Christian, and that man was the kind of politician and leader the West sorely lacks now. It is just he is a rare breed of man. The actual willpower to even undertake such a task is rare in our species. I think I will demonstrate in the following paragraphs that it is not only Christians who are plagued by unwavering true believers.

The stereotypical Christian mind, that is to say, unquestioning of what comes from the pulpit and blind obedience to claims of authority, is just as present in the Atheist community as it is in any religious one. I would even venture to say, it is more present among Atheists to be obedient and submissive to authority figures claiming expertise than this trait is seen among Christians. 

Just as Christians have to deal with what some have come to call the Feel-Good Christian (that is, those persons who say they are Christian but adhere to none of the teachings of Jesus or Christianity in general), Atheists must deal with their own similar problem. The term showing up has been Atheist 1.0. 

While the Atheist has traditionally struggled with the concept of god, and come to his conclusion through philosophy and reason, and has sought out meaning through those same tools: the Atheist 1.0 accepts there is not a god because it is regarded as intellectual to deny the divine’s existence. He comes to this conclusion because he sees famous scientists and philosophers are Atheists, and concludes it is their Atheism which makes them smart, not the years of study and hours spent deep in thought. This is not unlike how a Christian determines morality not by any deliberate actions, but by espoused beliefs. Since he has not undertaken any serious philosophical reading, has not once adopted the contrary side of his own, he has no tools beyond belief with which to give himself meaning. He does not devote himself to a greater cause because of its merits, but does so because it merits him. He becomes a Feminist, an anti-Racist, a Marxist because he believes these things will benefit him; his own vision of New Jerusalem is the Communist Utopia.

The Atheist 1.0 is AntiAtheist in that while he does not have a god, he is dogmatic, accepting just as many things on faith as the religious. He accepts that there is no god uncritically, proudly proclaiming the need for evidence of a deity. Yet, he becomes enraged when he must defend his propositions. He accepts these propositions from other avowed Atheists, as obedient to them as the Christian is to his priest. He laughs at the idea of Original Sin but either castigates others or atones for his own Privilege. He rebukes the Christian for indoctrinating children at churches only to applaud the parents of transsexual toddlers beginning to take hormone therapy. He righteously castigates religions for wars and genocides, but is among the first to deny events and excuse some totalitarian power (usually the USSR) for the same things. In short, he is the hypocrite he hates.

This comes from his blind acceptance. He blindly accepts what Fauci says just as he blindly accepts there is no god. He never pondered the question, only heard that religion is bad and his desire to be seen as an intellectual has made him denounce the existence of a deity. He does not dare to question the theories proposed by Karl Marx or Kropotkin. 

In short, he does not think, he feels. He rejects what is felt to be bad and accepts that which he feels is good. He shies away from questioning his hastily adopted stances as though he was a schooboy assigned too much homework. Instead, he accepts the words of popular Atheists just as the Christian accepts the Gospel. The danger he poses to the Atheist Community, and to Society at large, stems from this emotional impulsivity.

Whilst Atheists can agree the beliefs of true Christians are ridiculous – the Immaculate Conception being easily explained as a cheating fiancee, the Resurrection being most likely a myth, the miracles being elaborate hoaxes, and the list goes on – one can at least respect the devout Christians for their resistance to the degeneracy of Marxism. I am sure that these devout will find hypocritical Christians just as revolting as Atheists do the likes of Aron-Ra or The Amazing Atheist. A licentious Catholic has done nothing but espouse loyalty to an exposed pedophile ring, and a Marxist Atheist has done little more than proclaim his desire for the morality of Christianity, so long as he does not find them personally binding. This kind of Atheist wants others to adopt the teachings of Jesus, particularly those regarding charity, but will not have himself held to any standards of restrictive virtues. Like his hypocritical counterpart (who I suspect congregates mainly under the title of Catholic), he wants Society to adhere to his standards of decency, but refuses to adhere to Society’s (or anyone’s) definition of virtue and morality.

Likewise, a self-proclaimed Atheist who then recites lines like “Feminism is about Equality” or attests to the absolute innocence of George Floyd are simply trying mimic the socially acceptable intellectuals they see in the mass media. They think themselves each to be a Christopher Hitchens or a Bill Maher, even though Hitchens and Maher have more in common with Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas than they do with Ibram Kendi. However, Kendi is simple, and writes for the simple-minded. His message is the same as every television evangelist: “Do as I say to be good”.

One must decipher the lunatic writings of Nietzsche, the insane rationality of the Marquis de Sade, and the deep understandings of Albert Camus, to name but a few of my personal favorites, to even begin to scratch at why there can be no god. And this is no easy task, at least not if one takes it on honestly and earnestly.

Yet the Feminists and the Anti-Racists offer something dead philosophers cannot. They offer Absolution. Suddenly, the Atheist 1.0 is good, so long as he adheres to being an anti-racist, and treats blacks as though they are pitifully inherently criminal. He is good when he yells about Chad laying too many women without flowers, but never holding the women to account for their own impulsivity. He is good when he calls out for Socialism and says that the college debts of drunkards, buffoons, and drug addicts should paid off by the “rich”, which conveniently does not include Socialist politicians. 

These are his morals. He has not crafted them, or adopted them after years of trial and error. In many cases, he has not even experienced the world to even see if these morals work in the real world. Like a Christian boy surprised that people enjoy casual sex, he stands astounded when confronted with the statistics on race, sex, and economics. Often times, he rejects them, using words like “racist” and “sexist”, which for him have merely replaced antiquated terms like “blasphemous” and “sacrilege”.

He does not think, he feels.

Conclusion: We Must Reject Morality For Society to Thrive

Schopenhauer says, and I paraphrase, that children should not be exposed to ideology until at least their later teenage years. Every system of morality, be it religious or secular, stems from some ideology. Even prohibitions on murder originate with Christianity, as that the Romans were quite fond of murder for sport, as were the Germans and the Celts. Children should not be taught morality so that as adults they do not spew it, for they will only accept those things which they fancied when young. We see many young women nowadays praising the virtues of empathy and Socialism, because these things make them feel good, especially if they are on the receiving end. We do not see them championing good conduct or temperance, for these things are not pleasing.

Instead, moral codes should be the business of adults. A fifteen year old has as much insight into the social dynamics of poverty as he does into the effects of the Jupiter’s gravitational pull on our own home planet. His opinion on the rich should matter as much as his input on how to build a rocket. Let him instead be concerned with sex, fun, fashion, music, and laughter. These things will teach him more about morality than Jesus of Nazareth or Karl Marx ever could at his age. Just as he will learn the importance of musical keys, he will learn the importance of those subtleties in social interactions.

Moral codes should be determined by this ideology or that one. Instead, they should be determined by popular consensus among adherents to various ideologies. Without delving into the issues of democracy and ochlocracy, I think it suffices to say that those citizens who contribute a positive net amount should have the right to determine the moral codes. Thus, instead of emotionally pleasing morality, such as free sustenance for single mothers or wars where civilians are spared, instead only intellectually pleasing morality should influence the law. This should belong to another segment.