Milo the Dangerous Faggot posted up an interesting take on Nick Fuentes and the ongoing civil war on the Right, between Conservatism Inc. and the Hard Right, in which he pointed out that the Right is swinging hard toward the traditionalist, and therefore somewhat authoritarian, bent that comes with it:

I’ve been sensing for a while that conservatism in 2019 is becoming more authoritarian and more explicitly Christian. The balance is shifting from freedom to order as people realize that you can’t stop Drag Queen Story Hour with bromides about the First Amendment. You have to just shut it down. To over-simplify, you might say that the Trump movement is morphing from a fun-loving free speech brigade to something more like the finger-wagging Evangelical scolds and censors of the 1980s and 1990s. 

Philosophically speaking, conservatism is retreating from untrammeled “freedom” to a more ordered “liberty.” Conservatives are returning home to Edmund Burke, who often spoke of ordered liberty. Liberty, said Burke, cannot exist outside of an ordered system; liberty is in fact derived from order. Personally, I think a little from Column A and a little from Column B is about right.

“Authoritarian” might not be quite the right word for it, on reflection. After all, the order we want isn’t tyranny—it’s God’s order, which is something quite different. Fuentes and the groypers seem instinctively to understand this. They lean heavily into Christianity, and especially Catholicism. They, like me, certainly embody the spirit of glad and angry faith. They’re not killjoys from the Moral Majority, which is one reason I like them so much. (The 1980s Right got it wrong in their rhetoric, even if they were right about the importance of marriage and family. And homosexuality.)

This is the deeper understanding I’ve been coming to over the past few years: How sin is standing against God’s will. Progressives talk about Right-wing authoritarianism because they consider any attempt to limit their multitudinous sexual perversions as a kind of tyranny. Satan claims that God is a tyrant in the same way. Really, it’s libertarians and sexually promiscuous progressives who are the ones enslaved: Their brand of hedonistic freedom leads straight to Hell, while the anhedonic, misery-guts conservatism of the earnest Right-wing Establishment leads nowhere at all.

Now, Milo wrote this a bit before Nick Fuentes was revealed by our beloved and dreaded Supreme Dark Lord (PBUH) to be a Gamma. Little Nicky Titty Baby ran away from a debate with the Supreme Dark Lord (PBUH), on the subject of whether a multicultural society is inevitable. This should be a simple enough position to defend; there are a number of highly multicultural societies around the world that do, somehow, function properly, but that alone does not mean that such things are inevitable.

So we should take anything that Nick Fuentes says with a chunk of salt the size of a mountain. I have no doubt that he and his groypers are having a much-needed emetic effect on the Establishment Right, but young Mr. Fuentes himself has shown pretty clearly that he simply is not tall enough for this particular ride.

That being said… the correction being forced upon the Right by the groypers was, and is, absolutely necessary, and Milo correctly identified the very real need for a moral foundation to the Right in general.

That moral foundation can only come from Christianity.

The major problem with the philosophy of conservatism – which is about all it is, by the frank admission of conservatives themselves – is that it lacks this firm moral backbone. Conservatism is, by nature and definition, essentially a body of sentiments that allows a man to move through time while being respectful toward the traditions and ideals that created the world around him.

You don’t have to believe one single word that I write about this. All you have to do is go look at what Mr. Conservative himself, Russell Kirk, wrote in his classic work about the Ten Conservative Principles.

If you read through that, you will quickly realise that Christ is mentioned precisely once, and only in order to reference a period of time. Christianity itself is not mentioned even once. As he pointed out, the conservative has absolutely no dogma, no Scripture or Holy Writ, no set of doctrinaire principles.

And that is precisely why conservatism has singularly failed, utterly and totally, to preserve almost anything.

About the only thing that you can argue that conservatives have, in fact, conserved, are gun rights in the USA. And even that is subject to considerable debate – there are a number of laws at the Federal level that very clearly infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Just try buying a fully automatic weapon in the domestic USA, and you’ll find out in a very big hurry exactly what I mean.

On almost every other front of the culture wars, conservatives have constantly given ground and ceded to “the inevitably of change”. It is with very good reason that critics of conservatism on the Right argue that conservatives basically adopt whatever positions that liberals do, only about 20 years later.

As one meme points out- conservatives couldn’t even conserve the ladies’ room.

In order to conserve anything, you have to know what it is that you’re trying to conserve. And until fairly recently, most conservatives could only argue about preserving rights and liberties, mostly related to economic freedoms, and the only way that they could do so was by reducing men to economic producing-consuming animals.

But Man is more than this. And where conservatism has consistently failed is in attempting to create a moral code that draws lines in the sand – because, again, the conservative mindset does not explicitly incorporate Christianity.

Do not mistake me. Plenty of conservatives are devout, faithful, religious Christians. More than a few of them read this blog. Pretty much to a man, they are better men than I am – they are certainly better Christians than me.

There is no particular inherent contradiction between conservatism and Christianity. Neither, however, is there any particularly warm embrace between the two. And that is why conservatism kept failing, because while Christianity lays down very clear moral laws and lines that must be defended, conservatism cannot do this.

The swing back to authoritarianism is inevitable and, to some extent at least, to be welcomed. Hopefully the traditionalists have learned from the failures of the tradcons in the 1980s, in which they quite ludicrously claimed that rebellious angry metal bands like IRON MAIDEN, which at the time was merely getting started and was not quite yet THE GREATEST BAND OF ALL TIME, were Satanists.

I mean, these were the people who looked at the cover for The Number of the Beast, and completely lost their minds:

Let’s be clear: the lyrics of the title track were about a dream that the bassist and songwriter, Steve Harris, had. That’s all it was. And the tradcon panic over the whole thing simply convinced tens of thousands of kids to go and buy the album.

As it happens, that album was bloody brilliant. I rank it right up there as one of the top 20 heavy metal albums of all time. But it sure the heck wasn’t Satanic, in any way, shape, or form.

So let’s hope that the traditionalists aren’t that stupid, because if they are, then we of the Hard Right are going to turn into exactly the same joyless scolds that made teenagers in the 1980s turn away from the very valid messages that the Right had about the dangers of sexual promiscuity, lax morality, and daemonic influences in the temporal world.

If we get it wrong, and become the same humourless suppressive idiots that drive the SJW-infested Left these days, then we will make a huge mistake by getting young people, in particular, off message and away from the truths of our time.

One of those hard truths is that sexual immorality is absolutely devastating to society and civilisation. Without sexual and marital fidelity, the very foundation of civilisation – regardless of where that civilisation takes hold – simply crumble.

If marriage is not restricted to the union of one man and one woman, and is instead redefined away to include “marriages” between men and men, or women and women, or more than two individuals, or humans and animals… well, your society is screwed.

Again, this isn’t me talking out of my ass. This is what a careful study of the actual history of civilisation will tell us.

J. D. Unwin did precisely such a study, and his findings were devastating for the notion that a civilisation can exist without a clear moral order imposed on top of it:

1. Effect of sexual constraints: Increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.
2. Single most influential factor: Surprisingly, the data revealed that the single most important correlation with the flourishing of a culture was whether pre-nuptial chastity was required or not. It had a very significant effect either way.
3. Highest flourishing of culture: The most powerful combination was pre-nuptial chastity coupled with “absolute monogamy”. Rationalist cultures that retained this combination for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area, including literature, art, science, furniture, architecture, engineering, and agriculture. Only three out of the eighty-six cultures studied ever attained this level.
4. Effect of abandoning prenuptial chastity: When strict prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking also disappeared within three generations.
5. Total sexual freedom: If total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within three generations to the lowest state of flourishing — which Unwin describes as “inert” and at a “dead level of conception” and is characterized by people who have little interest in much else other than their own wants and needs. At this level, the culture is usually conquered or taken over by another culture with greater social energy.
6. Time lag: If there is a change in sexual constraints, either increased or decreased restraints, the full effect of that change is not realized until the third generation.

A Christian society puts significant dampers on all of these things. We have about two thousand years’ worth of evidence showing us that only a Christian society can maintain civilisation and order, without succumbing to the deleterious effects and problems that plague other societies.

Islamic societies are incapable of maintaining civilisation without extreme repression of women – they call it “exalted respect”, but it’s bullshit. Their “respect” simply comes down to treating women like chattel.

I do not know enough about Jewish civilisation to pass much of a comment. But suffice to say that if you look at what the Talmud says about how to treat women, children, and Gentiles, it’s probably not exactly a manual for a happy and healthy social order.

Chinese and East Asian societies are probably the best alternative to Christian ones, as they share many of the same positive civilisational traits as Christian societies, including that strong moral backbone that keeps its people in line. But those societies are almost unbelievably static; it becomes very, very difficult for free men and women to better their stations in life. East Asian societies are driven by merit more than anything else, but that introduces its own moral problems which those same societies are incapable of solving.

Pagan and neo-pagan societies always lapse into barbarism and anarchy, with untold levels of suffering inflicted upon the weak and the destitute. It is with very good reason that I consider neo-pagans to be little more than LARPing losers.

Freedom is a wonderful thing, to be sure. It is a gift from God Himself. But the point of a gift is that it should be treasured – not squandered.

And as I have written many times before, and will continue to write for as long as this blog remains active: Freedom IS NOT the right to do as you please. Freedom is the substitution of hard self-discipline for discipline imposed by someone else.

Because, make no mistake, one way or another, that discipline will be visited upon a society. If it is not at the hands of men, then God’s hand will. And if He ends up delivering the spanking, history tells us very clearly that the sort of punishment that He dishes out is the kind that mere mortals cannot survive.

A civilisation has to have some sort of moral order, some reason for its existence, in order to survive in the first place. The lessons of history leave no room for doubt that societies which lose their moral moorings, simply fail outright – with untold levels of suffering and misery for all involved.

And that leads us to the notion of what is, and is not, “immoral”. Every society that has thrived and prospered in history has had some sort of working definition of morality. Moving away from that definition, or relaxing it, inevitably leads to disaster.

Why is that?

Well, Milo references it quite clearly in his article. There is more to being sinful than merely stealing or committing adultery or dishonouring your mother or father. There is more to it than being wrathful, prideful, gluttonous, lustful, and so on.

Sin is, very simply, standing against the will of God.

And that inevitably leads to retribution and punishment, because if you believe that God is Truth, then by definition, standing against the truth means embracing lies and deception. And you cannot long survive on lies; inevitably, they always catch up with you.

Lies like the notion that homosexuality is “acceptable”.

Lies like the idea that pornography is “harmless”.

Lies like the belief that debt-fueled growth is “necessary”.

Lies like the delusion that a man can be a woman, or a woman can be a man, or anyone can switch fluidly between genders.

These lies, and many more besides, have become ingrained within Western societies. And they have led to the extreme corruption of those societies – precisely because those societies have moved right away from the will of God.

If the Right wants to win the war for civilisation, then it needs to understand that God wants us to accept His Truth into our hearts, and He wants us to do what is good and holy, because He wants us to thrive as His children. In order to do this, from time to time He has to assert His authority over us, and He has to use broken tools to enforce that authority.

But one way or another, that authority has to be asserted. We can choose to stand in its way – and thereby be crushed and broken with it, and see all that we hold dear destroyed, as conservatives have done far too often.

Or we can choose to stand with it and do what is right, in defence of Christ and Lord.

It’s just that simple. There is really only one choice – with Him, or against Him.