Moloch & Cultural Death

The worship of Moloch in ancient Phoenicia and Carthage involved the ritual sacrifice of children, generally the first fruits of the family. If my parents had been Carthaginians, they would have sacrificed their firstborn son – me – to Moloch. Rome, Athens and Jerusalem were horrified at the practice, which they had all long since forsworn, and drove it into oblivion. But like all evil, it keeps coming back.

Modern America is repelled at the notion of human sacrifice, yet when it comes to killing babies we make the Tyrians and Carthaginians look like amateurs. Indeed, the term “amateur” is apt. Carthage and Tyre sacrificed their young as the most precious thing they could consecrate to their god. The holocaust of their babies was for them an act of worship, of adoration. We, on the other hand, murder our young for the sake of profane expedience. Our sin of infanticide is therefore far worse than that of the worshippers of Moloch, and of similar deities, for it is not softened by their noble intention to make sacrifice.

To the extent that we pervert our practice from the Good, we serve Moloch, wittingly or not. Catholic and Evangelical social critics rightly call modern secular liberal society the Culture of Death. But cultures have always at their roots some cult: some body of basic doctrine respecting ultimate reality and man’s proper relation thereto, routinely enacted in and signified by some practice. For modern nihilist society, the profane expedience of the untrammelled individual will is the basic, indeed the only value; and abortion is its paramount sacramental ritual. So I call the whole cult of Death by the name of its god, Moloch. He does not mind that we do not sacrifice our children to him, so long as they all die. Indeed, as he is at enmity with all life, so is he at enmity with all religion, even his own.

When you make a habit of killing babies, you cannot but worsen your demographic and economic prospects, vis-à-vis other cultures that take the opposite tack. As a social policy, infanticide obviously fails my demographic test (which I discussed publicly for the first time over at Thinking Housewife, and then at Orthosphere). The only reason that Rome, Athens and Jerusalem were able to eradicate the sacrifice of children is that their cultures were stronger than the cultures dedicated to Moloch and his cognates.

This is not to say that we should refrain from killing kids only because doing so has bad consequences. When an act has bad consequences, that is just a sign, provided by the moral order of the universe – by the economic structure of reality – that the act is itself intrinsically evil. The evil consequences are the wages, that is to say, of sin. Acts are not evil because they work out poorly; on the contrary, they tend to work out poorly because they are evil.

Examination of the evil consequences of evil acts is, nonetheless, edifying, and can prompt our moral improvement. With that, then, allow me to present an extended passage from a book I am now reading: Mohammed & Charlemagne Revisited: the History of a Controversy, by Emmet Scott. It re-examines Henri Pirenne’s theory that Greco-Roman Classical civilization (as distinct from the political structure of the Western Roman Empire) in both East and West did not end until the seventh century, and was brought about, not by the Barbarian invasions of the fifth century or a cultural vitiation at the hands of Christianity circa the third century, but by an immense economic collapse triggered by the end of Mediterranean trade at the hands of Muslim invaders and pirates. Scott looks at the hypothesis in light of the considerable archaeological and textual work that has been done since Pirenne published Mohammed & Charlemagne in 1939, and judges that it has been vindicated.

Now, all that is interesting enough (and I highly recommend both books), but what caught my eye most in the early pages of Scott’s book was this item (pp 23 ff), which in its description of the Roman Empire in the first four centuries AD is rife with uncanny parallels to our own situation at the present day, so that it speaks for itself, as an indication of what we may expect to follow upon our unholy service of Moloch:

[B]y the start of the twentieth century it had become evident that, as an imperial power, Rome was already in a fairly advanced state of decay by the middle of the third century – 200 years before the official “end” of the Empire in 476. Historians began to speak of the “crisis” at that time. They noted a contraction of Roman power in the third century: the loss and abandonment of several provinces, beginning with Dacia and parts of Germany. They noted too a general shrinking of cities and the cessation of construction on a grand scale. All the great structures which to this day dot Europe – the aqueducts, the amphitheatres and the city walls – were raised before the beginning of the third century. After that, there was almost nothing. … A new consensus developed, according to which there were “two successive Roman Empires. … First, there is the Roman Empire of Augustus and the Antonines, of which we mainly think, the majestic web of planned cities and straight roads, all leading to Rome. … Secondly, after the anarchy of the third century, there is the ‘Lower Empire,’ the rural military empire of Diocletian and Constantine, of Julian the Apostate and Theodosius the Great. This was an empire always on the defensive, whose capital was not Rome, but wherever warring emperors kept their military headquarters: in the Rhineland, behind the Alps or in the East; in Nicomedia or Constantinople, in Trier, Milan or Ravenna.”

… by the year 200, [the Roman Empire] was also increasingly less “Roman.” We hear that, “already before [the second century], it had been discovered as Tacitus remarked that emperors could be made elsewhere than in Rome,” [and,] “by the third century AD they were generally made elsewhere.” In that century, we know, “there were not only military emperors from the frontier: there were also Syrian, African and half-barbarian emperors; and their visits to Rome became rarer and rarer.” And the advent of “half-barbarian” emperors was paralleled by an increasingly … barbarian army. From the third and even second century historians noted the recruitment into the Roman legions not only of great numbers of “semi-barbarians” such as Gauls and Illyrians, but of actual barbarians, such as Germans and Sarmatians. Indeed, so far had this custom gone by the fourth century that by then several distinguished Roman families boasted a barbarian ancestor many generations earlier.

… There is now little dissention on the belief that by the year 100 the population of the Empire had ceased to grow and had begun to contract. The inability to hold the most outlying of the Provinces, in Dacia and Germany, is viewed as an infallible sign of a general shrinkage. This shrinkage may have had various causes, but the practice of infanticide – widespread and commonplace in the Classical world – must surely have been one of the most important. Official Roman documents and texts of every kind from as early as the first century stress again and again the pernicious consequences of Rome’s low and apparently declining birth rate. Attempts by the Emperor Augustus to reverse the situation were apparently unsuccessful, for a hundred years later Tacitus remarked that in spite of everything “childlessness prevailed,” whilst towards the beginning of the second century Pliny the Younger said that he lived “in an age when even one child is thought a burden preventing the rewards of childlessness.” Around the same time Plutarch noted that the poor did not bring up their children for fear that without an [appropriately prosperous] upbringing they would grow up badly, and by the middle of the second century Hierocles claimed that “most people” seemed to decline to raise their children for a not very lofty reason, love of wealth and the belief that poverty is a terrible evil. During the third century successive emperors made efforts to outlaw infanticide, though how successful they were remains unclear. What seems certain is that even if infanticide became less important in the third and fourth centuries, the birth rate remained stubbornly low, for the Romans also practiced very effective forms of birth control. Abortion was also practiced, and caused the death of large numbers of women, as well as infertility in a great many others. Quite possibly, by the end of the first century, the only groups in the Empire that [were] increasing by normal demographic process were the Christians and the Jews.

… By the late third century Christians were already a majority in certain areas of the East, most notably in parts of Syria and Asia Minor, and were apparently the only group (apart from the Jews) registering an increase in many other areas. … The Jews too, by that time, formed a significant element in the Empire’s population – and for the same reason: They, like their Christian cousins, abhorred the practice of infanticide and abortion. It has been estimated that by the start of the fourth century Jews formed up to one tenth of the Empire’s total population.

39 thoughts on “Moloch & Cultural Death

  1. Abortion is the linchpin of the sexual revolution and of female careers.

    The sexual revolution is, rather obviously, absolutely dependent on abortion because no form of birth control is 100% effective. Surgical sterilzation is not an option for most young sexually active people because most of them do want children *someday*, just not with the unreliable but attractive scoundrel they’re bedding tonight. Besides, even sterilization fails occasionally; snipped ducts can regrow.

    And as we all know, children born out of wedlock are utterly disruptive to education, career, and life in general. They just CAN’T be allowed. So… with all heterosexuality under permanent threat of an oopsie pregnancy, if the abortion backup is taken away, the sexual revolution is over.

    Everyone gets that the sexual revolution depends on abortion. But it’s often missed that career women, even monogamously married career women, depend on it too. How so? Well… although the feminist movement doesn’t seem to think highly of heterosexual sex, nevertheless a good many of its adherents engage in it. Once again: no form of contraception is 100% effective. So… if a woman — even a married woman — wants a “career” that last more than a year or two past college, she must be SURE that no babies happen. Ergo, if the abortion backup is taken away, no noncelibate, nonlesbian woman could ever confidently plan a career.

    A wise preacher once opined that every demonic ideology eventually reveals its true nature by demanding innocent blood. Surely the Asthoreth of “sexual freedom” and the Moloch of “female careers” both fit this category.

  2. The ‘abortion backup’ isn’t going to be taken away. It’s here to stay for the indefinite future. Demographic considerations might eventually put a brake on the numbers of abortions – but only if the secular authorities get frightened by population decline. In a polity where a ‘multicultural society’ is an ideal society, the differential rates of reproduction (between indigenous women who choose to have abortions and alien women who do not) is winked at or even welcomed.

    Prohibition of abortion can only be prayed for at the present time. We must await a Christian Renaissance to arrest the moral decay which has made the killing of babies in the womb, among a legion of other evils, a commonplace event – and which many women believe they have a principled ‘right’ to do.

  3. The near-global availability of abortion is a signal triumph for “feminism,” and yet there’s a dreadful irony specifically for feminists in that women are using this “freedom” for sex-selective abortion, i.e. aborting girls — not just in China, India etc. but the West too.

    It is hereby manifest that much of “feminism” was really an ideology whereby the Evil One makes war on woman.

    Orthospherically inclined men and women need consciously and often to counter the pervasive anti-womanness of our time by refreshing themselves through wholesome writing, art, etc. This means the Bible, above all. But I would commend to the consideration of the Orthospherical the poetry and essays of the little-known (now) Victorian reactionary Coventry Patmore, e.g. his verse novel The Angel in the House or his essays in Religio Poetae, etc. Patmore was appreciated by C. S. Lewis and Charles Williams.

    Some years I wrote a short introductory essay on The Angel in the House for the New York C. S. Lewis Society — email me if interested: extollager at gmail dot com.

  4. I should add that I am a beginner as regards Patmore; I haven’t yet read The Rod, the Root and the Flower or The Unknown Eros, which I take to be major works of his indeed!

    I can recommend Derek Patmore Life and Times of Coventry Patmore. The author was great-grandson of the poet. The book is only 250 pages. Reactionaries will find much to relish.

    Here is how Patmore struck one blogger:

  5. And don’t forget that when many women get older and find that snuggling up to that career wasn’t all it was cracked up to be, and they finally find some sap and get married, and have a hard time conceiving (too late, too late!), they go all-out on the fertility drug program. Then they have to “cull” all the extra children with murder. Even in the process of helping women have children our society slaughters them. Moloch says, “You can have one, if you kill three.”

  6. There will always be unplanned pregnancies and people who are not ready to raise a child. That’s what adoption is for. If Planned Parenthood wanted to live up to its name in a good way, they’d arrange for every woman contemplating an abortion to personally meet with barren couples ready to get down and kiss the ground she walked on for the chance to adopt her baby. There’s plenty of them out there!

  7. The wages of sin is death in an ultimate sense, for sure – but this may not be perceptible on earth and certainly not in the short term.

    On earth the wages of sin may be power, prosperity and pleasure – at least in so far as we can perceive things.

    And, in the End Times especially, it may be that all options lead to miserable outcomes, at least in worldly terms.


    In relation to the Empire, I think there is a conflation here between the technological, military, perhaps literary achievements of Roman civilization – and those achievements which Christians ought to be concerned about.

    From a Christian perspective the whole of the Roman Empire was the context for Christianity – so the achievements of the Western Empire should be seen in terms not of building walls and aqueducts, by Christianizing Europe and Britain (the loss of which was the major tragedy of the end of the Western Empire).

    But the Western Empire can, and probably should, be seen as essentially (merely) a preparation for the Eastern Byzantine Empire centred on Constantinople; in which the Christian life was taken to a level unmatched in world history.

    Surely that is what *really* matters?

    • Well, when the Muslim firestorm hit, Western Europe was already well on its way to being a full-on Byzantine-style culture. It was still totally integrated with Byzantium – all the barbarian kings held their offices as rulers of Roman territories by virtue of appointments by the Emperor in Constantinople, and were generally Roman patricians. They all paid at least nominal homage to the Emperor. Population, commerce, taxes, and education had all recovered beautifully, thanks in part to the prevalence of Christian abhorrence of birth control, abortion and infanticide, and the trends were all healthy. Arianism was essentially dead (it had been the preferred doctrine of the barbarians). Even in Britain, Christianity had recovered from the Anglo-Saxon invasions – indeed, the Saxons seem to have taken to the religion with amazing enthusiasm, so that studying Latin became very fashionable in England, with the odd result that the greatest scholars of the language in Charlemagne’s day were British and Irish.

      This all began to change only when Muslims began to fight with the Emperor. Only then did the Western kings formally sever their political fealty to Constantinople. It was every man for himself, at that point.

      So it would be I think perhaps more appropriate to think of the Western Empire as essentially a preparation for a Western version of Christendom that would have been very like what developed in the Eastern Empire, had the whole project not been crashed along with the Mediterranean trade. We must remember that the East was ahead of the West in its Christian development, for obvious reasons: Egypt, Palestine and Syria were the very heart and center of Christendom, which stretched not only to Ireland, but to India and beyond. Persia, Asia Minor, and Iraq were mostly Christian when the Arabs invaded.They were not Orthodox, like the Sees of Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch. Mostly, they were Nestorian. But still.

      • I do not believe whatsoever that Western Europe would have survived but for the wall of the Eastern Empire situated where it was. Although the Moslems were also able to occupy Spain, this territory was not firmly held (Christians always outnumbered the Moslems in Iberia) and the Islamic rulers there eventually became more interested in self-enrichment than jihad (and thus in exploiting rather than converting the Iberians).

        The best road from the Islamic heartland to Europe was always across the Hellespont, and this was blocked and so much of the energy of the Jihadi warriors was instead directed eastward towards India.

    • Rome by the Fourth Century was no longer the nation-state republic of the “Children of Romulus”. It had become an organic concept that had sprung from them but had become much greater than them. It was also beyond its natural “limits to growth”: the Empire was economically dependent on conquest, which in turn made the Empire harder to govern. Without fresh conquest it would have to contract rapidly to survive, and by the middle Empire there was nobody save Parthia with wealth worth conquering.

      This may not sit well with primitive or evangelical Protestant readers, but Constantine the Great, the Emperor-Saint, received his office from Our Lord, Jesus Christ himself. His decision to make Byzantium the new imperial capital and rename it “Nova Roma” (I don’t believe it was officially called Constantinople in his lifetime) was a reflection both of the realities it would take for the Empire to survive and of the great purpose it would ultimately serve.

      Abandoning the provinces of Western Europe to the barbarians (who would become the ancestors of so many Westerners today), a compact and more homogenous Christian Empire centered in Greece would take shape. As a father shielding his children, this Empire would shield Europe during the Dark Ages against the coming onslaught of the Mohammedan armies and ultimately fall in sacrifice for European Christendom.

      The imperial coronation of Charlemagne was symbolic of the fact that the Western Europeans (meaning the Franks, primarily) were able to now stand as mature men against the threats of this world and the wickedness of the Devil. Christianizing the Nordic pagans was priority one: the Vikings had become a hammer smashing Europe against an Islamic anvil, and the swing of this hammer was such that it would in time threaten Constantinople.

      • Well, I don’t really disagree with anything you’ve said here. But I should like to point out that, by the time of the imperial coronation of Charlemagne, which did I agree represent a watershed, the Franks and Lombards had been fighting almost continuously with the Muslims, in Gaul and Italy, for a long time. If they had not successfully resisted the Muslim incursions in Western Europe, Constantinople would have been caught in a Muslim pincer.

        The populations that were protected from Muslim assault by the Franks and Lombards in the West, and the Byzantines in the East, were the Germans, Slavs, Rus, Swedes, et al.

      • “…the Franks and Lombards had been fighting almost continuously with the Muslims, in Gaul and Italy, for a long time.”

        Yes, Charles Martel at Tours and Poitiers in France and the Roland Saga which takes place in Spain…

        Otherwise, regulusseradly speaks to my heart…

  8. Do we really want to bring back the Baby Scoop era? Those were mostly Boomer and older Gen X babies that were lied to about their birth backgrounds. That little adventure had some pretty far-ranging consequences.

    Surgical abortion is clearly not a solution, but let’s not forget that drugging young women and taking their babies shortly after birth is sinful too.

    Adoption carries its own problems of monstrous entitlement and self-righteousness. This is most obvious in international or interracial adoption, but the basic mentality remains in intraracial adoption as well.

    Some combination of the orphanage and group home models could potentially work, with a little adoption, preferably through relatives. It is hard to say. But abortion and adoption are not the only two poles here.

    • “Adoption carries its own problems of monstrous entitlement and self-righteousness….”

      What on earth are you talking about? Tell this to a couple who would love to have children and can’t have any.

      “Some combination of the orphanage and group home models could potentially work, ..”

      Yes this is the dream of the Marxists, have the children brought up by the “state”…. Having spend part of my youth in an orphanage (no not because I am an orphan, but my parents got divorced) I spit on your idea…!

      • God is the one who opens and closes the womb. Nobody is entitled to have a child simply because they really really wants one and some girl they feel is ‘unworthy’ got to be pregnant and they didn’t. Group homes (of which boarding houses are a pretty classic example) and orphanages have a long and mixed, but often respectable and functional history in Christian societies.

        The Baby Scoop era was full of people who conspired to deceive and steal children from young women for the ‘greater good’. There’s your stealth statism. Orphanages are hardly optimal, and there is in modern ones a strong baby scoop component as well, but at least there is no giving in to the Moral Therapeutic Deism that underlies many adoptive parents’ attitudes.

        Adoption has its place, but again, it’s not the only choice other than abortion, and should never be presented as such.

    • I’m not sure what is meant by the Baby Scoop era, but there are no ideal solutions to an unmarried girl getting knocked up. If she is clearly unfit and unable to relay on her own parents’ support, then, yes, stealing her baby is making the best of a bad situation. If a girl wants ideal solutions, she should have thought about that before opening her legs for a man unable or unwilling to provide for her. Neither she nor adoptive parents are entitled to anything: what is best for the child (morally, socially, economically) is the only thing that matters. As this is perfectly sensible, it is of course the only part that gets left out of modern thinking on the subject.

      • As I already noted, it was Boomers and older Gen Xers who were scooped. Do you really think they turned out better than previous generations of illegitimate children raised without the theft?

        It is not clear that the Baby Scoop approach is sounder, as it is part and parcel of international adoption, where children are surprisingly often stolen from two-parent households for adopting.

      • According to La Wik

        Beginning in the 1940s and 1950s, illegitimacy began to be defined in terms of psychological deficits on the part of the mother.

        Imagine that?!

        Infant adoptions began declining in the early 1970s, a decline often attributed to the decreasing birth rate, but which also partially resulted from social and legal changes that enabled white middle-class mothers to choose single motherhood.

        The decline in the fertility rate is associated with the introduction of the pill in 1960, the completion of legalization of artificial birth control methods, the introduction of federal funding to make family planning services more available to the young and low income, and the legalization of abortion.

        Thankfully, the evil comes to an end… in those virtuous 1970s. For that we thank: 1) decreasing birth rate; 2) white middle class mothers “choosing” (and choosing the activities that lead to) single motherhood; 3) the pill; 4) federal provision of “family planning services”; and 5) legalized abortion. Wow, talk about a multi-prong attack!

        In 1970, approximately 80% of the infants born to single mothers were placed for adoption, whereas by 1983 that figure had dropped to only 4%.

        Indeed, it was the end of an era.

        So let me get this straight? In the so-called “Baby Scoop Era,” unwed mothers who, due to taboo, social shaming, and positive law, to say nothing of objective economic difficulties, considered their condition to be… shall we say… suboptimal, and, encouraged by others more objective, better positioned, and more rational than themselves, gave up their bastard spawn to married couples better able to care for them. And I want to bring it back? Hell yeah!

      • So you want another Gen X, because they are doing so well right now as they come into power and legislate against forming natural, heterosexual, monogamous, families entirely. Or maybe another generation of boomers, because they’ve been ushering in that age of social cohesion and traditionalism for the last 40 years.

        What we got from a generation raised by baby scooping, who grew up with a plague of doubt and uncertainty about their own blood bonds to mother and father is a bunch of people so crippled that they don’t want traditional families to continue to exist at all.

        And you want more of this? Curious, very curious.

      • A Lady, I’m confused. You seem to be arguing that it would be better to kill babies than let them grow up in adoptive families to be the sorts of people who would vote to kill babies.

        I’m honestly not trying to “get” you, I just don’t understand your argument. It can’t be the argument I have described in my first paragraph of this comment, because that doesn’t make sense. Yet that does seem to be what you are saying.

        Alternatively, you *could* be arguing that adoption is not so great, and that women should be forced both to carry their children to term and to raise them, willy nilly. That would make some sense.

        Could you please clarify?

      • So you want another Gen X

        So your argument is: Gen X was born at the tail end of (in reality largely after) the Baby Scooping Era (so-called), and that this, alone or at least in large part, explains the deformations, social pathologies, and maladpations of Gen X? Really?? Like nothing else was going on?!? So at absolute peak (1970) circa 89,000 non-familial adoptions in the US (out of 3-4 million live births/year) utterly defines the deformities of an era???!! This, especially taken in concert with how well things are going today, when out-of-wedlock (there I go with the euphemisms again) births approach 40% of all live births???!!!

        How many people have to die (by senseless violence and poor health brought on by poverty) before we have “corrected” the excesses of this tragic era?

      • No, grandparents aren’t the only relatives who can raise a child born to an unwed mother. Your solution is itself a modern one that disregards extended family as part of the solution to unwed motherhood.

  9. Also, to continue on other alternatives, people used to take in single mothers and keep them employed and raise the child(ren) together with their own children. Some people still do, thankfully. It is possible to be loving towards someone while still acknowledging that they have to deal with consequences for a poor choice. Adoption all too often ends up being about the adoptive parents’ feelings and desires and not about guiding the single mother and her child(ren) to a better circumstance with a combination of love, rebuke and service.

    • Of course, what *ought* to be done, what *used* to be done in situations like this is that young unwed mothers should hie themselves to nunneries. Their boy children should be given in due time to monasteries.

      Some such children, of course, will turn out to be unsuited to religious life. E.g., “How do you solve a problem like Maria?” Those children, having been educated by their religious communities, would be able to find jobs in the secular economy.

      • Of course, nunneries and monasteries are, uh, group homes. They are of course more than this at their core– they are specialized sacred communities, but particularly with the young children and new members, there is a group home/boarding house aspect that is pretty important.

        I guess I was trying to stay away from terminology like communal living.

      • I think there is an important difference between an orphanage – even an orphanage run by nuns – and a nunnery or monastery. The latter sorts of institutions are not aimed specifically at taking in orphans, but at the transcendent. They are not about orphans; their involvement in the lives of their orphaned wards is but an aspect of their larger purpose. In an orphanage you get a lot of kids supervised and cared for by just enough adults to manage the physical labor involved, no more. This cannot but result in a relative paucity of adult attention per orphan. In a nunnery or monastery of the old style, you get orphans running about as members of a larger community of adults engaged in important work that is not about the orphans. In effect, the orphans brought up in a nunnery or monastery are surrounded by many aunts or uncles, each of whom bears some responsibility for their welfare. In such a situation, kids can have a hope of adequate care and attention from adults.

        In a somewhat similar vein, boys as young as seven were sent aboard British men of war up through the Napoleonic era, to serve as midshipmen or ship’s boys. They were cared for by the sailors and officers; each was assigned to an older sailor, a grandfatherly type, who would be his “sea-daddy.” The boys would mess with their sea-daddies and his messmates. It was like a family, and the ratio of child to more-or-less-engaged-and-responsible-adult was 1/20 or so. And, like the nunnery and monastery, the man of war was engaged in a larger mission, of which its care for its children was but a minor aspect.

        That makes all the difference.

    • ALady, were you an adopted child? If yes, your postings here would make some sense… if not, then I can’t follow your reasoning…

  10. Many years ago I referred to the book “Charlemagne Et Mohammad” in in a post at VFR as the illustrative of why the West needs to fend off Islam and keep it at bay and away from the West. Islam will surely bring about another economic collapse if allowed to achieve it’s stated goals. Only darkness can come from such a “religion” and ideology.

    The main reason for the precipitous fall in population the late (Western) Empire was the onslaught of plague–today believed to have been small pox. This decimated the legions which were largely used by that time for enforcing the boarders and putting down revolts. Rome was long passed it’s expansionary mode–which also caused monetary problems as the economy had been built on plunder and the slave trade. This does not affect your central message as the drop in the birthrate of Romans was well underway by the time of Octavius. The plague simply brought the issue to the fore and sped up the eventual collapse.

    Gibbon made the point that multiculturalism is what led to the downfall of the Western Empire–pointing out repeatedly that the Eastern Empire remained a mostly homogeneous society. He faulted the non-Roman emperors for changing the essential character of the Empire. He also blamed the flood of non-Italians into Rome as well as southern Italy for the removal of natives to Briton and mostly Gaul. In other words, Rome was the world’s first case of “white flight”. When Rome was sacked, no one cared because there were no longer any Romans living there.

    As an aside, the Rus were very respectful of Byzantium. So much so, that “Czar” is Russian for “Caesar”.

  11. Kristor, I saw your comment at VFR speculating about whether the White House has an official Office of Moloch these days. I know you were half-kidding, but I hope you were half-serious as well, because I am. I once said to a friend that I would not be surprised if Hillary Clinton were a real-live demon worshiper. Lest I take this too far, let me add that I don’t think this is probable, merely possible and unsurprising if true.

    • I was indeed half-serious. That Hideous Strength reads less and less like science fiction to me, and more and more like a realistic novel. I just hope Merlin is out there somewhere, and that the eldils don’t hold off too much longer.

  12. That Hideous Strength reads less and less like science fiction to me, and more and more like a realistic novel.

    Yeah, me too. I read it (along with the rest of the trilogy) about a year and a half ago, thinking that I owed it to myself, and was not disappointed. I haven’t been able to forget it since. I’ve seen talk in other corners of the alt-right, especially secular corners, about whether the future is more like 1984 or like Brave New World, but I think the true answer is that it’s both mixed with the N.I.C.E.

  13. This is in reply to Kristor, although I thought I had already noted this in some other of these adoption comments.

    Women foolishly having babies out of wedlock was handled somewhat better when they were sent to all-female homes, convents or private homes, sometimes with their children and sometimes with their children raised in convents/monasteries/private homes/orphanages.

    There is a difference between indulging the selfish desires of a few upper-middle couples with faked birth certificates and all that nonsense and falsehood and actually doing what is best for mother and child. I do not pretend some illegitimate children in a more traditionally oriented society would be taken from their mothers, but mostly contact with the mother would be preserved. There are (Christian, mostly father-led) people now who take in single mothers. The single mother gets to live with her child, but the child has access to a more properly ordered family structure. She’s not ‘getting away’ with anything, but both of them have a chance to live better and the child is way less likely to end up turning out poorly.

    Alternatively, the other arrangements worked pretty well until industrialization and the closing of the monasteries. I guess I am arguing that if you are going to promote removing kids from their mothers, go with the historically proven methods, not the modern model found in current forms of legal adoption.

      • Kristor, I am sorry but it doesn’t make any sense. ALady has some hang-up about adoption. She doesn’t explain why, so I can only assume that she was adopted herself. And is unhappy about her fate… Her’s and other adoptive children’s “unhappiness” is is a major contributing factor in the “opening” of formerly closed adoption records and of a great destructive influence on the families involved.

        Next, her idea of having the mother and child taken-in by a family is just wishful thinking, if not outright daydreaming. Up to about 100 years ago my family had many servants. Among them some “single mothers” and their children… they worked, they were servants no one else wanted to have anything to do with, because these “single mothers” were social out-casts. My Great-Grandparents took some of them into their households, some time this worked well, some times not so much…

        ALady wants to go back to a time when some members of the “Grossbuergertum” as a social service took these women and their children in. Where in today’s society would she find such families? Her ideas are highly impractical and in my opinion she is denigrating the motives of people who cannot conceive and do want to raise a child…

        I have no personal interest or involvement with any kind of adoption, but something in her postings I find disturbing and offensive…..

      • I have to agree with Joseph on this. The whole faked birth certificates, the whole “scooped” babies thing, the whole upper middle class hypocrisy thing. Abuses occur everywhere but they don’t always define the thing. This thing reads like the standard feminist propaganda, all of which starts with the false hypothesis that whatever the birth mother wants, however unfit she happens to be, is best, and anybody who tries to coax her out of it is just plain evil. It is improbable that a child raised in a convent or an orphanage will do better than the same child adopted by middle class parents. It is not impossible. It could be that the middle class parents are just selfish and want a baby as some sort of perverse trophy. It is possible. It is not likely. Such an outcome will not be widespread.

        Full disclosure my sister (born pre Roe) was adopted (or “scooped” apparently). She (post Roe) was kind enough, 18 years later, to give a baby up for adoption which she herself was objectively unfit and unprepared to care for. I’m certain there were regrets, perhaps great sadness for both she and her biological mother in their respective decisions in their respective times. But a mountain of regrets does not add up to a rational argument that their biological children weren’t better off.

  14. Since Satan is the agent of deception, it seems more logical to direct these demonic slurs at liberal Christians, who deceive the world (and possibly themselves) about what true Christianity actually entails. Honest and consistent secularists are minor threats in comparison.

    • Kirillov, I agree about the liberal “Christians.” However, why would the “honest and consistent” secularists be exempt from demonic temptation?

      Have you ever tried to have a “honest and consistent” conversation with “honest and consistent” secularists? First of, most of them are not “honest and consistent” and secondly the few who are are so thinly spaced as to be almost non existent.

      I have fought many “battles” in this war, but the “honest and consistent” secularist is a rare as the red deer in this picture, the 18 ender

      The more common variety of the species “secularists” is of the obnoxious, arrogant and mostly numb-sculled sub-species also known as hobby-atheists. Its main weapon is always a weak common-place inanity and then an in-depth ad-hominem and outright swearing, seldom honest and consistent arguments… 😉

      Sorry, I had to vent…. but just last night I almost “shot” one of them…he got away with-out paying for his beer….


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.