In the first 4 parts of this series we established that the more judeo-christian a political theory is, the smaller the roll of the State seems to become. In short, Christian cultures believe God Himself sets the original blueprint for what rules a society follows and how human relationships are structured. Then the State steps in only to enforce this order:
If you observe past political theories that were based on atheistic worldviews (e.g.: former USSR, China, etc) you will note that they elevate the State to the role of God-hood. Something has to fill the power vaccuum. If a transcendent Creator does not exist to establish order and meaning, humans will coalesce into an elite leadership that will then play god over society. In short, the State becomes God because somebody has to:
As a result, instead of seeing the family structure and the morality of the workplace through the blueprint of biblical (or even natural) principles, the State and the culture is now free to re-define life according to their own theories and imagination. God and the Nature He created no longer have the last word. Humanity’s cultural, academic and political leaders have free reign to re-imagine gender, family roles and every aspect of right and wrong.
Ironically, one of the sharpest turning points in our society’s slide away from 1500 years of judeochristian influence into a post-Christian world was brought about by the “flower generation” of baby boomers. The irony lies in the fact that the crowning ethic in this generation was to free itself from all authority. From the church’s authority, from government authority and from any other form of “oppression.” Yet, as these youths grew up and filled the ranks of the liberal political parties, they ushered in a political theory that increased the government’s authority over North Americans to never before seen levels.
Also, as liberal baby boomers grew up and took over large segments of academia; liberal theories on culture, ethics and government took hold of a significant portion of Generation X and the Millennial generation. Political correctness (in the form it was re-introduced in the 1970’s by the New Left movement) has now grown into the dominant cultural ethic. It challenges and perhaps even supersedes the role judeochristianity has in politics and culture. As all worldviews and religions do, the cult of Political Correctness has its own list of “do’s and don’ts.” Most people are only peripherally aware of what these New Rules are. For the Christian these rules are especially important to know because Political Correctness is diametrically opposite the basics of Theism. Knowing what is considered a sin can help a believer avoid unnecessary persecution. And, as we shall see, there are monetary and legal repercussions being handed out for those who break the New Rules. In many ways, there is a modern Inquisition being waged based on the orthodoxy of Political Correctness. Make no mistake, these New Rules for the New Puritans are not randomly patched together. They are a coherent Marxist revival meant to dismantle a judeo-christian culture and replace it with its exact opposite: an atheistic, humanist society lead by a totalitarian elite leadership. A true resurrection of ancient Emperors and Monarchies.
This “new sin” is committed when a white person dresses in the likeness of a non-white culture. Or when a white person sells items that originated in a non-white culture. Katy Perry discovered this first hand when she was scolded for having dread-locked hair in one of her music videos and for dressing as a geisha during a concert performance. Perry subsequently caved-in to the pressure of the criticism and issued multiple public apologies. She did not argue against these New Rules once the New Puritans banged on her door, she went with the flow and pleaded “mea culpa.”
It did not matter to her detractors that Katy was not belittling these non-white cultural appearances. She was adorning them because she thought they were appealing and fashionable. She was practicing cultural appreciation. Yet, according to the New Rules, any time a white individual adopts a cultural item from a non-white demographic it is an act of oppression. Reasons for this radical view typically hover around the notion that whites have been an oppressive imperialistic power over minority groups and therefore should not profit from the products of their victims. At this point, we could get into a very long winded argument about how all cultures come pre-packaged with good, bad and ugly historical trends attached to them. Not just whites. All cultures. And to perpetually place the blame of one’s ancestors onto the new generation’s back would hold ALL ethnicities down in a never-ending bondage of paying for the sins of their fathers (or great great grandfathers). Yet, I believe that line of reasoning — valid as it is — would miss the point. If we cannot appreciate different cultures, how are we supposed to move into the future in a peaceful, post-racial community of diverse ethnicities? Never mind that it is the mixing of cultures that have produced almost all cultural innovations. Rock and roll was arguably the result of Celtic and African musical styles merging together in a new continent on the other side of the world. Dreadlocks predate African Amercian slaves and were used by the ancient Indians (i.e.: Asian India) as well as the Germanic barbarians and Vikings. To isolate almost any outfit, hairstyle, cuisine or musical genre and claim it belongs solely to a single people group is erroneous. We develop culture the same way we develop languages, in a fluid, ever-changing and ever cross-hybridizing fashion. Cultural Appropriation, as a New Rule is not only unfairly oppressive to people born with white skin but it ignores the historical reality that cultural appreciation is the norm within all cultures and is needed for innovation.
New Blasphemy Laws
Some of the new sins involve the use of certain words deemed unspeakable. Think of them as modern blasphemy laws. Certain words which are on this list are words that most people would agree should not be used. For example, the N-word in reference to a black American is indeed loathsome. To use this word is to rub salt into the healing wound of black America’s past enslavement. It must be understood that the symbolism of a white individual using the most denigrating term for a black American is especially hurtful. Common decency should inform self censorship of this word. However, is it possible for the New Puritans to go too far when it comes to those who commit “wrongspeak?” Let’s consider the case of Bob Lamey who recently “quietly retired” after it was reported that he used the N-word in front of colleagues. Lamey had been the NFL’s Indianapolis Colts’ play-by-play announcer for 30 years. He used the N-word off the mic and no one but his colleagues heard it (one of which was black) and now Lamey’s career is over. But the ricochet continues. Lamey divulged that he was quoting a story told to him over 35 years ago by then auto racing analyst Derek Daly. Apparently in a 1980 interview, Lamey had asked Daly whether or not any of the racers at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway were purposely under-performing during qualifying races. To which Daly supposedly replied “no, there are no n—–s here.” Derek Daly admitted that he had used the N-word during a live radio interview with Bob Lamey and as a consequence Daly has also lost his job.
Modern Puritans would say “good riddance” after all, these white men used the unspeakable word. Now, the private corporations who employed both Lamey and Daly made private decisions and were not coerced by the U.S. government. So the argument will be that the 1st amendment rights of either individuals were not violated. And this may or may not be correct. Yet the instant and total annihilation of Lamey’s career for merely quoting another man who used the word inappropriately is Orwellian in its nuclear effect. Even Daly, who used it in a racially charged way, is now a man without a job for using language almost 40 years ago. And the fact that the society which formed Daly’s sensitivities was a radically different environment than our current puritanical one is not even considered. No grace period and no forgiveness for those found, even through second hand information, to have once upon a time — perhaps nearly half a century ago — violated the New Puritans’ Blasphemy Laws. Careful what you say in private conversations just in case society one day grows insanely intolerant to it. And if you think you are safe and immune because you speak according to modern sensibilities… you may want to talk to Lamey and Daly.
How would modern secular liberals feel if a Jewish political lobby 25 years ago had tried to blow up Michael Jackson’s career for anti-semitic lyrics in his early 90’s song “Scream.” In the lyrics sheet it spells out the questionable verse: “Jew me, sue me, everybody do me/ Kick me, kike me, don’t you black or white me.” Substitute the J and K words with the N word and then compare the outrage against Lamey and Daly to the absolute non-consequences felt by Jackson during the entirety of his career. Also think of how offensive many of the images and spoken words in our popular culture are to Christians. Yet Christians live along side these offensive things without destroying the lives of those who commit these offenses. And if any criticism is leveled at anti-Christian language or imagery, screams of “freedom of expression” drown out the complaints. What Christians consider blasphemous is of no consequence in our society yet if you cross the New Puritans (even if this occurred 40 years ago) you will be financially ruined.
Another staple of the New Rules is the “fact” that our society is so sexist it refuses to pay women the same as men. Even for identical jobs. The claim is that female employees are paid nearly 25% less than men for the same work. First, it would seem to me that if this were the case the workforce would be flooded with women and men could not find much work. No one would turn down a worker that was equally qualified and experienced as another and was willing to take a huge pay cut. Economist Thomas Sowell has long since pointed out that the reason for the disparity in average income between the sexes is due to women being likely to get married and raise children. Taking them out of the workforce for several years while the men are continuously climbing professional ladders and therefore climbing pay scales. Further, women tend to desire jobs which focus on interpersonal relationships (e.g.: general practitioner, counsellor, teachers, nursing, etc) whereas men are most likely to choose jobs purely for high monetary reward (e.g.: banking, financing, corporate business, etc). In fact, in Scandinavian countries there has been a concerted effort to not apply any social pressure on boys and girls when it comes to teaching them which careers to aspire to. So the desired result was obtained: raising a generation that was not told what they should or should not desire in terms of life goals. The notion was to let nature play itself out without social constructs warping the effect. Surprisingly to secular liberals, this lead to Scandinavia having the greatest differences between adult men and women’s career choices compared to nations that placed an expectation on women (whether this was in the direction of re-inforcing or denying traditional stereotypes). For example there is a 20 to 1 ration of male to female engineers and a similar ration of female to male nurses. It appears that when you remove social pressure, all that is left is biological tendencies and these appear to be binary (i.e.: male and female). The expected gender confusion did not manifest.
You really couldn’t make some of this stuff up. “Heteronormativity” is any representation of heterosexuality as something that is more natural than alternative lifestyles. So if you are filming commercials for a family product such as laundry detergent or breakfast cereal, if none of your commercials presented a lesbian or transgendered couple, you would be guilty of “heteronormativity.” By putting images into the general culture that depict male and female coupling as normal, you have “sinned” according to these New Rules. Nothing is offered to explain this, it is just expected that you will follow the New Puritans down this rabbit hole. Nature never intended any other type of union to be able to create the next generation of humans other than heterosexual couples. This does not mean we belittle gay couples or “open” couples. There is a very large difference between recognizing what is natural and being hateful. When it comes to medicine, it is very important to note how an organ is supposed to function. Whether it’s the liver, the kidney or the heart, there is a narrow range of normal functions for any of these. Is it hateful for a doctor to tell a patient that their pancreas is behaving abnormally? Why would it be hateful then for a culture to highlight heterosexual coupling as the natural and healthy union for the human machinery? Can we at least argue in favour of our point of view? And if we happen to portray normality as… normal, why should this be wrong or sinful? According to the New Rules we need to ignore nature and promote couples that contradict it. Pardon me if this seems unnecessary and perhaps somewhat sinister.
Modern feminists have looked hard and long at our society and now diagnose it as suffering from “rape culture.” Obviously rape is a horrid act that our society should punish. In fact, I don’t think we currently have strong enough penalties for actual rape. Yet the modern Puritans’ definition of rape culture extends the scope of what sexual assault is. For example, if a man in a position of power approaches a female employee, the New Rules would place this within the atmosphere of rape culture. No doubt that men have abused their power throughout history to get sexual access to women. The proverbial casting couch of Hollywood comes to mind. And I would agree that this type of power-leverage-for-sex is a form of coercion that — although women still have a choice in the matter — is tremendously unhealthy.
Harvey Weinstein’s downfall should have come much sooner and many actresses’ careers (or chastity) would have been saved had his victims come forward in the early years of his rise to power. I am not victim shaming. I can only imagine how difficult (if not impossible) it would be for a “nobody” to confront the powers-that-be in the film industry. I am not even sure I would have had the courage to do so. Yet the fact remains that many women willfully traded sex for careers and/or kept hush hush about an age old Hollywood secret-in-plain-sight. This type of power imbalance has always existed between men and women, not just in the entertainment business. But in all business and government cultures. I think this is a problem. Now, my complaint against the New Sin of “Rape Culture” is that it has loosened the definition of sexual assault too much. Making it nearly meaningless. For example, it is not uncommon for college women to regret a consensual sexual encounter and then re-define the sexual experience as “rape.” In fact, Candice Jackson of the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights had this to say about campus rape allegations:
“Rather, the accusations — 90% of them — fall into the category of ‘We were both drunk,’ ‘We broke up,’ and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right,’”
Clearly this represents a watering down of rape that will make it harder to create harsh punishments for actual rapists. Imagine if a 10 year prison minimum was proposed in this current climate of “regretting drunk sex = rape.” Either the law would never get through or it would and then horrific injustice could be done to many college men. If we could properly define rape and then clearly separate it from the fact that we do live in a hypersexualized, post Christian culture in which men continue to barter for sex using money and power, then we could both increase the penalty for actual rape AND begin to dismantle the core tenets of our culture which perpetuate the objectification of women.
Gender Bending and Gender Creation
Another core tenet of our new post-Christian world’s religion is the view of gender as being as fluid as clouds in the sky. Gone are the stone aged notions of boys and girls. He and she. Now we have a palette of available genders that would make Baskin Robbins’ 31 flavours look stingy. How many genders are there? Depends who you ask. At one point facebook’s United Kingdom site allowed users to chose between 72 gender options. “How can there be so many genders when there are only two biological sexes?” Aha! You neanderthal, don’t you know that the “science” of gender (as determined by blue haired feminists who lead Women’s Studies departments in liberal arts colleges) has uncovered the cutting edge notion that sex is biological by gender is psychological. Yes, you either have male or female sex genes — and therefore a male or female body plan — but the gender norm you ascribe to is a free choice of the brain. One might ask “why stop at gender, why not include the mind’s freedom to choose to identify as a member of another species?” Well, believe or not, there is a fringe movement to do just that.
Now, shouldn’t we just live and let live? Well, that would be nice, however, in our modern world, you do not have the choice to believe in any other religion other than the one handed down by the New Puritans. Ontario’s Bill 89 added “gender identity” and “gender expression” clauses to the child protection laws. Which means that if your child wants to transition to another sex. you are powerless to stop them as a parent. Even if you child is… well a child, a minor. In Vancouver, British Columbia, a father lost a battle to prevent his 14 year old girl from undergoing testosterone injections. The State has deemed itself arbiter of what is best for children. Even in the case of the brave new world of sex changes for minors.
Canada’s Federal Bill C-16 is the main driver of these changes and have place gender identity and expression as equally protected in the Canadian Charter of Right’s and Freedoms as someone’s religion. This keystone legislation has wedged the gender fluidity issue into the sphere of sacred rights and will now be used to bludgeon any opponents. Even if those opponents are the parents of confused, mentally ill children whom the State puts its hooks in and leads into the risky world of gender transformation. A world in which the suicide rates are astronomical.
In March of 2017 the federal parliament in Canada passed Motion 103 calling for the creation of a federal bill making “islamophobia” illegal. When asked for more clarity on exactly what constitutes islamophobia, one of the motion’s authors, Iqra Khalid, seemed either unwilling or unable to answer:
Many Canadians find this disconcerting. First, discrimination against any individual is already outlawed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, a study showed that Jews are the most commonly discriminated religious group in large cities such as Toronto. So why is there not a proportionate attempt to create protection against anti-semitism? Further, not unlike the Jussie Smollet hate crime hoax in the U.S., all of the high profile claims of anti-muslim hate crimes turned out to be fake. Such as the claim by a young muslim girl that a man attacked her and cut off her hijab in Toronto in 2017. Although the media instantly believed the account and the Prime Minister himself weighed in publicly condemning “islamophobia,” the police quickly determined that the incident was never occurredTo be fair, in January 2017 a horrific terror attack against a Québec City mosque left 6 Muslims dead. No one should downplay the brutality of this mass murder nor the ideological nature of the crime. Yet, what does the creation of special protection against the Muslim religion do for future attacks? It is already illegal to kill anyone for any reason. Gender, religion, sexual orientation or otherwise. Let the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the Canadian equivalent of the FBI) create a special anti-muslim terror watch, but to create language laws that potentially make it illegal to criticize Islam will do nothing but potentially embitter and motivate future anti-Islamic mass murderers and terrorists. And let us be clear, this singular event does not constitute a pattern in Canada. Even in Europe and New Zealand there have been singular instances of Muslims being targeted by extremists or white nationalists. Whereas the huge body count left behind by European and American-based jihadists is completely ignored.
For example, France and Germany as well as the U.K. have seen a large and steady rise in mass public terror attacks. To focus on France alone, in 2015 a group of 12 cartoonist for the French satire magazine “Charlie Hebdo” were gunned down and killed because their publication had made lewd and vulgar depictions of the prophet Mohamed. Later that same year in November, a co-ordinated attack throughout Paris saw the slaughtering of 130 French citizens by a group of Muslim jihadists. On Bastille Day in the city of Nice, France in 2016, 86 women, children and men were brutally killed when Islamic jihadists ran a heavy commercial truck purposely through a crowd of families. Another 458 others were injured. Even then French president Francois Hollande called this attack “Islamic terrorism.”
I could spend reems and reems of paragraphs referencing the Rotherham city nightmare in which over a thousand young British girls were roped into a sexual exploitation ring by Pakistani Muslim men and police ignored complaints by the parents of victims due to fear of appearing to be profiling Muslim migrants. In short, we do not live in a world in which Muslims are on the wrong end of oppression. The Western world has been especially welcoming to this religious demographic and in return we have suffered much at the hands of the extremist minority in their midst. Hard to understand why the government is tripping over itself to give special legal privileges to Muslims. And just to show how dangerous “anti islamophobia” laws can be, a female Austrian scholar was speaking in Vienna and criticized the Muslim prophet Mohamed’s sexual relationship with his 6 year old bride when he was in his fifties. She allegedly said “a 56 year old and a 6 year old? What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?” For her speech she was found guilty of hate speech and fined. Appealing her case to the top of the European Union’s Human Rights Court which denied her appeal and upheld her conviction.
As our government grow in power over us we will see our individual freedoms evaporate. One at a time. The sinister attempt to control our speech by appealing to our emotions (“why would you want to say something hurtful!?”) is a cleverly disguised attempt to grow the government class’ power and influence. In the pursuit of truth, as professor Jordan Peterson once said to an antagonistic interviewer, we must risk to offend. Someone on a particular side of an issue will be offended, potentially, when their most cherished beliefs are assailed by a skeptic. But the overturning of sacred cows is the start of all our most beloved scientific, legal, political and religious revolutions. It is the price we pay for progress. To create a society in which no feelings are hurt is impossible and useless. It is a Trojan Horse for government power into our lives.
When our Western society was still a Christian culture, the secular minority decried the puritanism of religious figures in politics, culture and education. Well, it seems that now that the secular humanist crowd is in ascendancy, the are more than happy to be our New Puritans.