I read Dalrock… and there is worse out there, but he outliens a risk here. We are so concerned about shaming each other and being tolerant that we will not call error on anyone. If a friend blows up her marriage, or a colleague leaves her husband and has an affair with another, destroying that marriage and ruining three children (I can cite examples. Locally. Easily) then we should be ashamed.
For tolerating this behaviour. But, instead, we are to be shamed for not encouraging this.
She tells us she was guilty of divorce shaming, something she did despite knowing better:
I’d divorced-shamed my best friend.
Funny, but Ann’s reasons were the same I used when people asked why me and my husband of eight years got divorced. This meant that not only was I a hypocrite, I was the one with issues.
This is the upside down world we live in, where encouraging people to remain married is tempting them to do evil, and Christians celebrate the awesome power of threats to destroy the family in their scheme to invert headship.
Most social commentators wonder why roughly half of first marriages end in divorce. However, the more relevant question is how can marriage stripped of all legal force survive in a culture where it is more moral to encourage divorce, or at least threats of divorce, than to encourage honoring marriage vows. How is it possible for so many marriages to survive when everyone agrees that divorce (and not marriage) is sacred, and the family courts back up this new morality with offers of cash and prizes to any woman who does the right thing and blows up her family? What is the “evil” that threatens our sacred institution of divorce?
The trouble is that I’m repeating myself. For I hate divorce far more now I have had one: when one has children then you have a problem with minimising the damage this will do to your children. I understand that in this life marriages can be unhappy; but divorce hurts more than being bored, or feeling that the marriage is over.
It is far better to remain. Woman, you will not, in general, trade up. Man, the dating scene is foxic. (As it is with women: I do have women friends, and I have seen their tears).
My fear is that in doing this, particularly within the church, we are treating Christ with contempt. We see him as the child, the nice person. We forget that he could get all the money changers out of the temple by himself. We forget that he made the leaders of his day quake.
We forget that he was not his brother, nor his mother. And then we wonder why our church is dying, and there is no power. We are not believing. And we are tolerating evil.
And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.
In the West, we rejected the words of Christ and the comfort of him for a new religion of technocratic progress. This was (and is) a form of socialism, perhaps not by revolution, but by regulation. And it was driven by those who do not believe. There are consequences. In Victorian times, the Prime Minister feared the disapproval of bishops, and the bishops preached the gospel. Today, the bishops preach Labour party talking points, and fear the PM.
But man cannot live by politics alone. Without hope, without a future, men die and women choose not to have children. As modernism failed, we moved to post-modernism: the moderns knew there was a truth, the post moderns deny this, seeing but dialectic and power.
And the post moderns hate. As the population implodes, they deliberately import those who hate the West, taking Brechts sarcastic statement (That Germany needed a new people rather than a new government) as a manual.
What is the cure for this? Well, it requires that we believe. But belief has a cost. Do not be deluded. If you believe the elite will consider that you are in rebellion. It is indeed time to reject this queer morality and time, and aim to return to the faith and habits of our forefathers.
For they were driven.
For they worked: they had utility.
And let the elite account us as those who aim to misbehave.
UPDATE.
John C Wright, on Europe, says it better than I can.
The flaw is spiritual rather than psychological. While theories about undeveloped amygdala, or the rabbit strategy of welcoming predators into an overpopulated meadow may have some merit, when you see a man who wishes to destroy himself and his homeland, look to the formation of his conscience for the answer to this dark and ugly riddle. You see a man whose own values, whose own sense of right and wrong, has condemned him to death. Something in his conscience tells him he is unworthy of life.
Now, look next at what he believes, what he tells himself is true. If he is a hard core communist, he believes he was produced by blind natural forces, out of nowhere, and for no reason, blown together by the wind like a sandheap for an hour, to die and blow away again, and never to again live or laugh or love for all the countless eons of eternity.
He thinks he is a meat robot, a thing without free will, without even the dignity of an animal. At least animals are not fools fooling themselves into believing in the illusion of free will. He is the weakest and saddest of beasts.
He also, if he is a hardcore communist, believes that these same blind winds created an injustice so deeply ingrained into society that there is no reasoning with the powers that be, no way of peaceful reformation. Evolution works by the Darwinian law of the jungle, survival of the strong. This is true of social evolution as well.
If the evils of society cannot be mended by sweet reason, violent overthrow not merely of part of society, but of the whole rotten structure from top to bottom, is the only alternative. Hence, for the communist, any love or loyalty to his homeland is a betrayal of his highest sense of goodness and righteousness, because then he is supporting the evils of mankind.
Suppose instead of a hardcore leftist, you are merely a flabby moderate leftist. You have all the same beliefs as the hardcore leftist, but are too weak and silly to call for the violent overthrow of the evil society blind evolution has produced. You lack the integrity to think through your philosophy and come to the harsh but logical conclusions. You are too sentimental to sacrifice the weak and sick to the great progressive god of Darwin. But sustaining the sick and weak causes racial and social degeneration according to this sick worldview: and so again the conscience of the moderate leftist condemns him for his lack of fidelity. He is a disgrace to the forces of evil.
And so Leftism, the religion that replaced Christianity in Europe since the Great War of 1914, requires a man to believe that he is worthless, less than a beast, less than a dog, but the beneficiary of an evil world-system which must be destroyed, but which he lacks the strength and will to destroy.
Small wonder they want to die. It is a worldview perfectly designed to rob a man of all gratitude and hope, and without gratitude, there is nothing in life but resentment, envy, fear, and disgust.