The Modern Cosmopolitan Cult Tends to the Cult of Moloch

The Cult of Moloch drives out all others.

The established Modern Cosmopolitan Cult is the Cult of No Cults. It is the Cult of Nothing. Only a Cult of Nothing could risk much room within its temenos for other cults – the Christian, the pagan, the Mohammedan, and so forth. For, all those other cults have positive principals, each of whom with his worshippers would be at odds with the others, contesting for dominance over the hearts and acts of the cosmopolitans, until one of them achieved the victory and established his own cult. Were any of them established, they would make no such room for their competitors within their own precincts. So all such positive cults will tend to engender a state of affairs in which they may be established and their competitors driven out.

As a purely negative, incredulous, skeptical, agnostic cult, the Modern Cosmopolitan Cult is proud of its ostensible toleration of other positive cults. It bruits about that toleration, advertises it as an important and extremely advantageous feature (not a bug). But despite its agnostic and skeptical pretensions, the Cult of Nothing too has a Principal; it has a positive god, who is intent on driving out the other gods competing for the hearts of the cosmopolitans. His name is Moloch. Moloch is the god of Nothing.

And by the lights of Moloch, nothing is more important than Nothing. So under the fully realized Modern Cosmopolitan Cult, nothing may be worshipped, other than Nothing; and everything else must be sacrificed, must be let go, in favor of Nothing.

The young of the cosmopolitans, e.g., are far less important than Nothing. So under the terms of that Cult may they – aye, ought they – be sacrificed on the altar of Moloch, without scruple or worry.

Like any other cult, the Modern Cosmopolitan Cult cannot in the final analysis tolerate any others in its temenos. It must impose a religious test on all citizens, each of whom it must require to pay tithes – every tax dollar spent on social welfare programs is the fruit of a tithe – and otherwise make sacrifice upon its altars. It must require at least ostensible and publicly proclaimed orthodoxy from all the subjects of the sovereign. It cannot allow anyone to be politically incorrect, and must punish, ostracize, banish, persecute, bewilder, kill the heterodox, who are its proper scapegoats. It cannot allow the public celebration of any rites other than its own. Its toleration of other cults must then be “toleration.” They can be tolerated only insofar as they are not credited by anyone, or too ardently or completely followed; or are “reformed,” so as to congrue in practice with the Modern Cosmopolitan Cult.

Which is to say, that they cannot be tolerated, period full stop. They must be driven out, leaving only the ukases of the Modern Cosmopolitan Cult truly operant in the moral deliberations and public acts of which our social lives are constituted.

16 thoughts on “The Modern Cosmopolitan Cult Tends to the Cult of Moloch

  1. Empires always develop a cosmopolitan cult, the price of admission being formal acceptance of all the other gods in the imperial pantheon. These gods sometimes come into conflict, so the high priests and poets of the cosmopolitan cult get to rank and order them. But it is all a fake religion confected for political expedience, and has no revelation at its center. I think that is the Nothing. What we have at present is a highly moralistic cult with a nihilistic core–in other words, Nothing pretending to be something.

    • That is why secular empires must always weaken. They have no revelation at their core, no proper cult at all. So they are just going through the cultural motions. It’s dispiriting, and vitiating. What are we fighting for? Nothing!

      An imperial cult that did have revelation at its core would be a different kettle of fish. Viz., Christendom, or Islam. Both tolerate other cults, true; but just barely, and only temporarily. In the end, they must drive out or utterly absorb, or by transcending subsume, all other competitive cults.

      • Some empires begin as a means to propagate a revelation (religious or ideological), but the revelation soon becomes a means to propagate the empire. The transition is the onset of decadence. Cynicism and hypocrisy spread as more and more people in the empire see the revelation as an empty slogan. I’d say “spreading democracy” is a long way down that road.

      • No kidding.

        To avoid this fate, the central revelation must be refreshed and reinvigorated either by mystics or by martyrs. Vain repetitions can’t cut the mustard.

  2. From my essay, Identity: The Future of a Paradox

    “A favorite phrase of modern liberal people, used by them – as by their Puritan precursors, no doubt – never but to scorn and shame, is: ‘That is not who we are.’ But who are they, who, uttering the haughty formula, claim for themselves proprietorship over the all-inclusive we? Perceptive people, the true Others of the modern liberal person, have begun to remark that the piety of inclusion is sacrificially exclusive, that it is inimical to any memory not of its own recent, counterfeit making; and that it dreams, finally, of annihilating everything not itself. A genuine new Western identity will perhaps birth itself in the belated but clear recognition of an absolute enmity that has not quite, but only just not quite, completed its agenda of malicious extirpation.”

    From Gustave Flaubert’s Salammbô (1862), Chapter 13 —

    “The brazen arms were working more quickly. They paused no longer. Every time that a child was placed in them the priests of Moloch spread out their hands upon him to burden him with the crimes of the people, vociferating: ‘They are not men but oxen!’ and the multitude round about repeated: ‘Oxen! oxen!’ The devout exclaimed: ‘Lord! eat!’ and the priests of Proserpine, complying through terror with the needs of Carthage, muttered the formula: ‘Pour out rain! bring forth!’

    “The victims, when scarcely at the edge of the opening, disappeared like a drop of water on a red-hot plate, and white smoke rose amid the great scarlet colour.

    “Nevertheless, the appetite of the god was not appeased. He ever wished for more. In order to furnish him with a larger supply, the victims were piled up on his hands with a big chain above them which kept them in their place. Some devout persons had at the beginning wished to count them, to see whether their number corresponded with the days of the solar year; but others were brought, and it was impossible to distinguish them in the giddy motion of the horrible arms. This lasted for a long, indefinite time until the evening. Then the partitions inside assumed a darker glow, and burning flesh could be seen. Some even believed that they could descry hair, limbs, and whole bodies.

    “Night fell; clouds accumulated above the Baal. The funeral-pile, which was flameless now, formed a pyramid of coals up to his knees; completely red like a giant covered with blood, he looked, with his head thrown back, as though he were staggering beneath the weight of his intoxication.”

      • Flaubert well understood the Cosmopolite Cult. His Carthaginians have adopted the veneer of Hellenism; they consider themselves to be sophisticates. Notice the multicultural touches: There are priests of Proserpina attendant on the ceremony, not only priests of Baal; and elsewhere, supposing that my memory serves, Moloch takes the name of Cronus, the Titan who ate his children as they were born. Your “Yikes — Horrifying” applies no less to Flaubert’s depiction of the Moloch immolation than to the 858, 000 abortions performed in the USA so far this year. (See I recommend Alexander Nussbaum’s essay of today (4 December) at The American Thinker, “Stan Lee’s Useless Gods.” I also strongly recommend Anthony Esolen’s article, “Meet the Tiger,” in the current number of Chronicles magazine. The Cosmopolite Cult is the Moloch Cult, to be sure, but it is also a perverse sex-cult that corresponds to the Anti-Sex League in Orwell’s dystopia.

      • The Cosmopolite Cult is the Moloch Cult, to be sure, but it is also a perverse sex-cult that corresponds to the Anti-Sex League in Orwell’s dystopia.

        As Heartiste – of all reactionary commentators, perhaps the most trenchant, ruthless, rude and bloody minded – aye, and honest, and therefore of all of us among the most penetrating (heh) – has repeatedly shown, the cult of sexual libertinism ends, and must end, in a death cult that abhors and repudiates sex as such, repudiates the body, and at the last repudiates reality; and that therefore deletes sexual joy, sexual loyalty, and both reproduction and the family. It is a cult that repudiates *love.* It repudiates everything that men and women most want from sex: reciprocation of love.

        Ironic, is it not, that of all men a pick up artist should best have seen that the culture of sexual liberty which enables pick up artists such as himself ends in the destruction of everything that even such a nihilist as he might have wanted from his pick up artistry?

        Ironic or not, it must at the least be admitted that no man is so ready as Heartiste to follow the train of his honest, indeed painful thought where it leads: to a repudiation of the casual libertine sex to which he at first adverts, and which formed at first his whole raison d’etre.

        What then do we most want from sex – from, that is, the mere corporeal engagement? We want another to will for us, manifestly, the good that we will for her.

        It is noteworthy in this respect that sexual loyalty as carried into practice in traditional societies involves an irrevocable and permanent sexual commitment of two lovers to each other. Marriage, i.e. In marriage, properly so called, the consent that is the fragile and quickly revoked sine qua non of the modernist libertines is irrevocably and permanently given. And once it is thus given, there is thereafter no worry about it. Everyone can then relax. The husband and wife can then simply love each other, in will and act if not in sentiment; but then, lo, as we so often find, sentiment tends to follow in train of will and act. We serve whom we have willed – and vowed – to love; so then do we find that we soon enough feel love – aye, and lust, that terrific, almost supernatural allure – toward those whom we have willingly served.

    • [[T]he piety of inclusion] dreams, finally, of annihilating everything not itself. — Dr. Bertonneau

      In other words, the anti-cult of Nobodies in Particular DECLARES “universal equality” and a black hole is born. Man stands no chance altready residing on its event horizon.

      Not even Perfection can he imagined anymore.

  3. Pingback: The Modern Cosmopolitan Cult Tends to the Cult of Moloch | Reaction Times

  4. Nihilism is the flavor of society today–and arguable the ultimate flavor, the logical outcome of 300 years of philosophical liberalism. Nihilism will out-compete any philosophy every time if it is given the philosophical space. If my understanding of Zippy’s writings on the subject is correct, a liberal society has no self perpetuation mechanism, and so contrary ideas are allowed and even encouraged. It becomes a race to the bottom.

    A society which worships ‘Nothing’ can produce much of what ails us.
    – Believing our bodies are inaccurate representations of our self-image which must be surgically modified
    – believing people can be financially exploited through usurious contractual arrangements (i.e. student loans, subprime mortgages, etc)
    – believing that Racism, bigotry, intolerance, all kinds of ‘offensive’ language are defined by whatever I feel at the given moment
    – believing that authority exists only at the consent of the governed, as Zippy so eloquently put it, “because I say so”.

    Such a society that worships Nothing will be consumed by Nothing and will eventually be…nothing.

  5. Pingback: The Spiral Dynamics of “A Christmas Carol” | Winston Scrooge

  6. Pingback: What Would Moloch Do? | Winston Scrooge


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.