new

‘Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man’ is a Jesuit maxim attributed to Saint Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus. He probably never said it, or if he did, he almost certainly said: ‘Give me the boy for the first seven years and I will show you the man’. The quote is also attributed to Aristotle, but in a sense the source doesn’t matter, for by its attribution to both one of the greatest spiritual minds and one of the greatest philosophical thinkers ever to have existed, it moves beyond cultural constructivism to transcendent truth: the workings of the mind were designed to be subject to time and space.

And into that time and space comes children’s education, by which process their moral, cultural and religious values are inculcated and their politics are moulded – from the history lesson which scorns the ethics of empire to the singing of ‘I vow to thee my country’ in the daily act of collective worship, schools are places where political perspectives become truths and religious exposure becomes morality. There is, of course, much debate concerning the proper aims of education and the right balance (should such a thing exist) between the prescriptive statutes of governments and the freedoms of parents and particular religious groups, but in a liberal democracy there must be the means to impart the knowledge of citizenship which is deemed necessary to sustain that liberal democracy, or the state ceases generation-by-generation to be either liberal or democratic.

Relationship and Sex Education (formerly Sex and Relationship Education) is one of those subjects which straddles the government-parent-religion tensions of responsibility and provision. For some, it is the task of parents to teach sexual morality and reify good relationship; for others, it is the joint responsibility of parents and religious communities, with a civic minimum imparting the essential facts of biology and social reality. For others still, mindful of parental delinquency and religious prejudice in this regard, it is fundamentally a function of the state to ensure that all children are taught the knowledge and life skills they will need to develop healthy relationships and stay safe while having sex.

The question and tension which then arises is related to age-appropriateness: at what point does the scientific naming of private body parts or discussion about where babies come from become consideration of emotional and physical changes; and then at what point those changes become discussions about different kinds of families or the differences between boys and girls; and then at what point those differences become discussions about engaging in sex, contraception or condoms, homosexuality and transgender people. And what about abortion? And then there is sexual experimentation, orgasms, group sexual experiences, oral sex, masturbation—

Would it surprise you to know that discussions about transgender are deemed appropriate for eight-year-olds?

One state primary school in Birmingham, where the children are predominantly Muslim, introduced RSE lessons to promote LGBT equality. The Guardian reported in January that the programme includes “the welcoming of people of any race, colour or religion and those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender”. There is, of course, nothing wrong with welcoming people, but what is the age-appropriate way of explaining lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to a four-year-old? What are books entitled ‘Mommy, Mama and Me‘ or ‘King & King‘ designed to inculcate about the morality of same-sex relationships and same-sex marriages? Birmingham school LGBT Muslim protestOne parent Fatima Shah is quoted: “Children are being told it’s OK to be gay, yet 98% of children at this school are Muslim. It’s a Muslim community. [Mr Moffat (assistant headteacher)] said all parents are on board with it, but the reality is, no parents are on board with it.” She added: “We have nothing against Mr Moffat – we are as British as they come. We respect the British values— but the problem is, he is not respecting our ethos as a community. We don’t send our children to school to learn about LGBT. We send them to school to learn maths, science and English.”

Andrew Moffat, who is gay and was appointed MBE in 2017 for services to education, responded: “I’m just teaching children from an early age that there are different families out there and, let’s not forget, that in some schools there are children with two mums, so I see it that they’re not being taught anything. All they’re seeing is their family is being accepted. We want all children in Birmingham to know that their family is normal; that their family is accepted and welcomed in schools.”

Last week Mr Moffat gave in, and subjugated the ethos of his school to the religious ethos of the majority Muslim parents: all LGBT lessons have been stopped. He did this because hundreds of those parents decided to withdraw their children from the lessons, which is their legal right. But what if RSE were to become mandatory, as the Government intends? What option would parents then have if they felt their children were being taught matters of sex and sexuality which they deemed to be age-inappropriate? “We are not a bunch of homophobic mothers,” Fatima Shah said. “We just feel that some of these lessons are inappropriate. Some of the themes being discussed are very adult and complex and the children are getting confused. They need to be allowed to be children rather than having to constantly think about equalities and rights.”

The themes being discussed are complex for adults, too, because it matters of sexuality and gender it isn’t at all clear where nature end and nurture begins. And that is the essence of the grievance these Muslim parents have: they feel their children are not simply being education in the sociological fact of homosexuality and transgender, but inculcated – or ‘indoctrinated’, as one parent put it – into the moral virtue of such expressions of identity. Now, you may believe that homosexuality is as innate as heterosexuality, and transgender is simply another increment on the spectrum of human diversity, but for others the causal debate is more nuanced, not least because there is conflicting evidence from eminent scientists and psychologists on both sides of the divide. While some favour the ‘nature’ explanation based on biology or genetics, others incline to the ‘nurture’ theory, based on the psychological reaction to upbringing and environment, which obviously includes education.

The Bible’s understanding of biology (and, indeed, that of the Qur’an) is a world apart from modern studies, and theologians are as divided as scientists. Some insist that cultural factors contribute in psycho-sexual development, embracing Freudian psychological theory, for example, which asserts that homosexual orientation is a consequence of the failure to identify with the same-sex parent; that a physical or emotional distance between the child and the same-sex parent results in a failure to be able to identify with one’s own sex. This results in a same-sex deficit, which the homosexual is unconsciously trying to repair by creating emotional and sexual relationships with people of the same sex. It is not so much a moral degeneracy but an emotional immaturity, and one therefore capable of being healed through therapy.

This is the view of the great majority of Muslims, and also of a great many Christians and Jews. The cause of homosexual orientation being somehow a combination of both nature and nurture – a psychogenetic fusion – would therefore be susceptible to educational inculcation. If the ethos of a school is toward ‘tolerance’ of homosexuality and transgender as ‘natural’, and that ethos is reified by teachers who impart notions of equal validity and moral parity, then what the Bible or Qur’an happen to say becomes irrelevant: British values trump God’s created order. If a child feels a bit gender-neutral or trans one day, why not explore androgyny further? Why not try living as the opposite sex for a while? It might be fun. It certainly makes you a bit more interesting and gets you noticed.

There is no easy solution to this: the government-parent-religion tensions will persist in state education until one party asserts its dominance – which appears to be imminent – at which point the other parties will respond or react. While reason demands the serious critical consideration of scientific studies, and certainly those which are concerned with the possibility that same-sex preference and transgender may be genetically programmed, not all innate tendencies in children are either good or desirable. But that is too nuanced a debate in this febrile atmosphere. It is to be noted that in the hundreds of parents who have withdrawn their children from LGBT lessons in this school, sporting their banners declaring ‘Education not Indoctrination’, ‘My Child My Right’ and ‘Say No to sexualisation of children’, they have not been condemned as homophobes or bigots by LGBT lobby groups. If these had been Christian parents, however, no doubt Amanda Spielman would have issued an instant press release, and Peter Tatchell would have been there in a flash.

[From "The reactionary program"]

Neoreaction plans to be the priesthood, but we think warriors should be on top and should steal sufficient to fund the army and the state, that warriors should do warrior stuff, merchants should do merchant stuff, and priests priestly stuff.

Our current problems are the result of an excessively numerous priesthood overflowing and intruding on the activities more properly performed by merchants and warriors. Thus human resources disrupts the corporation, wars are overrun by lawyers, and the military is forced to pretend that women can be warriors. This excess of priests is a result of priestly dominance with open entry into the priesthood and the resulting overflow of people into the priesthood.

We plan to cut off open entry into the priesthood. The Marxist and progressive program is a rationale for the priesthood intruding into the affairs of merchants and warriors. It is full employment program for Academia. Hence the joke that LIA, Low Intensity War, actually stands Lawyer Infested War. Hence the cat ladies of Human Resources, and the transformation of accounting from tracking value and value creation, to talmudic generation and enforcement of obscure, obstructive, and incomprehensible rules. Today, accounting is not about tracking value when it is transferred from one entity to another, and measuring the creation of value, but rather what rituals one must perform if one wants to transfer value from one entity to another.

Lawyers (who tend to be the day to day ruling class even if academia sets doctrine long term) and writers like all the priestly professions overwhelmingly oppose Trump.

In a reactionary state, the state will enforce marriage, and end open entry into the priesthood. Military priests will be trained in military academies under the control of retired warriors. Women will be forced to honor and obey the first man they have sex with till death do them part and will be denied access to men who are not yet contributing to the state and society.

Women feel that a man who is single and lonely, especially in today’s world of open sexual market, is not fully a male of the human species. At best, he may be an animal with some horrid infectious disease of the skin to be pitied from a distance. But much more often they are just ignored or laughed at. No amount of ideology can override these hard wired settings in the female brain.

On the other hand, men see this in women and join the mocking and the laughter in order to signal that they’re definitely not that type.

Since women are hypergamous, the natural tendency is for there to be a very large number of young males in this hyperoppressed class.

Further, this incel class cuts across the reactionary classes (warrior, priest, merchant, and followers), since high status wealthy businessmen, merchant class, often do very badly with women, and people that we categorize as priestly class, high status males whose career requires strict political correctness, who are required to very politically correct, usually do very badly with women.

But if we look at successful past societies, they have generally taken extraordinarily drastic coercive measures to minimize this class of men, to overule female hypergamy.

While socialism in goods invariably fails catastrophically, in part because the priests run businesses to produce holiness, rather than value, drastic coercive intervention in the market for love and sex seems to be a basic requirement of civilization, without which civilizations fail. We need to ensure that every man who pays taxes and every man who fights for order tribe, society, King and God, gets pussy, which runs contrary to natural female inclination.

Marriage is a contract between the former owner of the bride, normally her father, and the new owner of the bride, normally her husband. Reproductive sex is an essential part of this contract.
Women should be attached to one male and not allowed to ride the cock carousel, ideally the first male they ever have sex with, hence shotgun marriage.

Male society consists of priests, warriors, merchants, and followers, and the female population is not a society, but consists of feral women and women under the authority of a husband or father. Women are only part of society through an intimate relationship with a male in authority over her. That is not the reactionary program. That is biological reality, manifesting in the disastrous consequences of attempting have female run corporations. Today, we don’t have equal women, we have feral women.

Late marriage west of the Hajnal line was, in the towns, linked to enforceable apprenticeship, up to about 1800 or so. A man was typically an apprentice till about twenty four or so, and it was ok to be lonely, despised, and mistreated, since upon successfully completing his apprenticeship, he would cease to be despised and mistreated, and would soon afterwards marry a virgin about four or so years younger than himself – who had been apprenticed to housewifery, to servant and housekeeping type tasks, or some traditionally feminine occupation, but who upon marriage would perform those tasks for her husband, or under the supervision of her husband. For women, apprenticeship was typically ended by marriage, for men, marriage typically followed not long after the completion of apprenticeship, at least in the towns, where work was formalized. In rural areas, work relationships and education were informal, so no connection between formal work, education, and getting married appears in the records for rural areas.

Apprenticeship was emasculating, but apprentices were expected learn from a manly role model who was working at producing value, and expected to become that man. Today, they are trained by priests who have no knowledge of the real world, and will not read old books, instead reading what other twenty first century academics say about old books that they have not read either.

The apprentice role was effeminate and emasculating, with the vows of apprenticeship and the restraints of apprenticeship resembling a wife’s marital vows, but it was intended to prepare them for life as a man, not to prevent them from becoming men, whereas modern priestly education aims at preventing men from becoming men.

In North America apprenticeship typically ended about three years earlier at twenty one, and people correspondingly got married earlier.

Frame is a set of assumptions about the conversation and the interaction, and in order to facilitate communication and the interaction, we tend to tacitly accept the assumptions without conscious awareness.

Notice we have the word “racist”, but no word for people who claim that there are no races, that everyone is alike. We have the word “sexist”. If you think that women are different from men, you are sexist, but no word for someone who thinks they are interchangeable should be subject to the same rules, and perform the same social roles.

History shows that whoever tells you capitalism is a recent economic system intends to murder you. Notice that no one making this claim is prepared to argue it or defend it – they just frame it a way that presupposes it is indisputable fact that one doubts, that you agree that it is true. They will never argue on the basis of history, only try to project their frame on to you. Commies murdered a hundred million people, and commies told all of those people commies were on their side against evil capital.

The reactionary program is being met with efforts to frame it as if we agreed, as if everyone agreed, with progressive frame. Supposedly we want different rules for women because we hate women. Supposedly we want capitalism and security of property because we favor rule by the capitalist class. Supposedly we want families to be protected by society, Church, Sovereign, and God, because we hate women and want to beat our wives and children. Supposedly property rights are rule by capital, and did not exist for anyone except aristocrats until quite recently. Supposedly whites fled Detroit because they hate blacks, not because their houses were being burned down around their ears.

I intend a restoration modeled on Charles the Second: Fertile semi hereditary aristocratic elite, divine right monarch, openly official state religion, which one must affirm for state or quasi statal office, capitalism and modern corporate capitalism, with a restriction that the business plan be approved and adhered to. Investors need to know what they are investing in, and governments need to know that large successful corporations will not start investing in unrelated activities that buy them political influence and restrain competition. One corporation should have one business model.

The situation immediately preceding Charles the Second resembled today’s American Hegemony: An officially unofficial state religion that had suffered a leftist singularity, which singularity was ended by Cromwell, not Charles the Second. He ended it with far less bloodshed than Stalin ended it in Russia, though bloodshed is frequently unavoidable, and more difficult to avoid the further leftism has gone.

The American hegemony also resembles the Turkish empire, which had become the anti Turkish empire as the US State Department has become “The International Community”. It was the Turks, not the provinces, that revolted against the Turkish empire. I had hoped that Trump would be Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, would be Atatürk, Cromwell, and Charles the Second in one man, but that is a tall order. An Atatürk needs to be a military man, and the left has taken precautions against such a man.

As progressivism spirals to ever greater heights of madness, ever faster, there is bound to be a crack up – bound to be a Kemal Atatürk, a Cromwell if we are lucky or a Stalin if not quite as lucky, and, eventually, if we are brave, effective, prudent, and lucky, a Charles the Second.

Female emancipation never lasts, because peoples, tribes, cultures, states, and religions with emancipated females fail to reproduce. Pretty soon Japan will not have the Japanese. They either restore patriarchy, as the Japanese have done once before, or they will be conquered by manly patriarchs who enslave their women, as happened to the Chinese, or they just disappear and are replaced by outsiders. Peoples with emancipated women cannot fight very well, because they are short of young males, because involuntarily celibate young males prefer to hang out in mum’s basement, and because young males are reluctant to fight for family, society, sovereign and God, because they don’t have family. They are even more reluctant when society, official state religion, and the sovereign is hostile to them having sexual opportunity, and ejects husbands from their families. Why fight when you have no pussy to fight for, and when if you got married, would likely face a court order parting you from your children and denying you your assets. Our descendants will patriarchs, or we will be mighty short of grandchildren and we will be replaced by patriarchs.