In this installment, I want to commend Wright yet again, briefly summarize what he says, and then try to supply a key element that I think he is missing. Were he to gain that element, either from me or from a reputable dealer, I believe the good points he is urging here would gain a great deal of additional potency. So I am not really disagreeing here, but since the next chapter is on politics, I think I might resort back to this chapter in order to explain our anticipated differences there.
The chapter is titled Idolatry 2.0, and it is quite good. In it, he points out rightly that every kind of nature abhors a vacuum, not just physical nature. Whenever you banish the gods, others come creeping back in. “But history shows again and again that other gods quietly sneak in to take their place” (p. 152).
Three of the most obvious gods in our day are Mars, Mammon, and Aphrodite — war, money, and sex. In a nice touch, Wright associates each of these three gods with their respective prophets — Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud. Each of those guys would sit on their tall three-legged Delphic stools, get the fumes into their heads, and start raving about how it was all about “power,” or “economics,” or “sex.” He then has a good discussion of the various forms of worship these gods receive in our day, and I commend the chapter to you. There is good stuff here.
The thing missing from Wright’s discussion of this is that he doesn’t make the obvious connection between all three of these gods and the modern high priest of that pantheon, which is the modern state. All three of these religions are tax-supported religions, and there will be no reformation unless and until we cut off Caesar’s money supply. These religions have an apparatus, and that apparatus is the modern state. Repentance would mean that the state would have to shrink back to a more normal size — about twenty times smaller than it is now.
So this means that thoughtful reform requires that we analyze the state’s role in propitiating each of these gods. War is obvious, and the big state/big business collusion that I call crapitalism is also obvious, and the government’s promotion of sexual perversion should be obvious. There are a lot of people talking about how pedophiles often groom their prospects beforehand, and that really is something every parent should be aware of. But they should also be aware of the fact that the government schools are just a gigantic grooming program.
The state is only able to do these things because it suctions up a gargantuan amount of our money, and is swollen beyond every boundary of common decency. Pose the question to yourself another way. Work it out in a thought experiment. What would happen if every North American devotee of Mars, Mammon, and Aphrodite truly and completely repented? I will tell you what would happen. The government would shrink drastically.
When the whores repent, the pimp needs to get an honest job.
Maybe Wright needs to change his name to Edwards so you’ll defend the controversial bits.
You’re saying he oughta refuse a pinch of incense to these Caesars?
Perhaps you can explain to me how government promotes the elevation of sex to worship? I understand how government promotes war, and a love of money, but I don’t get the connection between government and Sex. Are you referring to Same-sex marriage? Are you referring to sex ed in schools? It seems clear to me that while war and the love of mammon rely heavily on government support, the worship of sex needs very little from our government.
Nick – I would say that the tax-funded abortions and birth control should be enough to win that point, but a little bit of searching, I’m sure, can find more.
Zack – I guess I should be clearer. The government does support and bolster our sexual appetites, but unlike war and greed, the worship of sex in our society would continue unabated with or without government help. Our war machine and economic system relies on government support, but in my opinion our worship of sex doesn’t.
Nick, I disagree with your conclusion. The government actively promotes illicit sexual behavior by advocating promiscuous practices and calling it “sexual education”, by funding multiple media forms of communication advocating “safe-sex” and encouraging fornication and sodomy, and by encouraging a mentality of irresponsibility for the procreation by funding and encouraging infanticide and free contraception. Marriage and the sexual liberties thereof are disdained by the government by encouraging the use of the word sexual “partner”, and by insisting upon sodomy as legitimate. All of these are easily documented. Someone who provides “aid and comfort” to an enemy is considered culpable; in… Read more »
continuing…
and so with the above premises, the context of the word unabated is illogical.
Why did the U.S not have sodomy parades in 1800? I am not suggesting the absence of sin; I am stipulating the presence of shame. Shame is a legitimate restraint (a guardrail of sorts) upon sinful appetites, and there was much more overt shame present during that time. When the government converts shame to approval, that encourages the behavior that was formerly throttled back. What was formerly abated is now unabated by government action.