Listen to your Elders

I’ve spent a fair amount of time contemplating Muslim culture and I find the vast majority of it detestable. And I’m no armchair quarterback; without divulging too much of my personal life, there was a time when I wore a uniform and went around the world ostensibly to keep a particular race of people from getting too big for their sand-covered britches. So I’ve seen with mine own eyes the beast in its natural habitat. Theirs is a culture wholly incompatible with the West.

That being said, the Muslims do have one thing correct and that is a reverence of and deference to their elders. In traditional Muslim culture (is there any other kind?) the eldest man in the village has the ultimate authority. He makes the decisions.

In the West, our authority and value as individuals is thoroughly linked to our profession. The level of prestige we bestow upon an individual is quite often based on the job they have (and its implicit salary). I suppose theoretically this is a decent enough system assuming that compensation is commensurate with responsibility of profession and that responsibility of profession is commensurate with competence in the highest level of leadership and decision making. For those of you with little life experience, these are flimsy assumptions.

But for sake of argument, let’s assume the system works as described. There’s another critical flaw in that the labor force in the West encounters (mercifully) a little thing called retirement. And when we mercifully retire, we must relinquish the authority and prestige that we once enjoyed as a doctor, lawyer, school teacher, mechanic. And let me not mince words here: retirement is a privilege that primarily only western, Christian nations enjoy—and certainly only first world nations enjoy.

Perhaps this is an exponent of capitalism more broadly. I’ll be the first to admit that capitalism has its flaws but by no means does this admission mean I’m willing to supplant the free market with something as suicidally foolish as socialism. On the other hand I will not hide from the self-evident reality that capitalism comes with its own set of pitfalls—chief among them is that our value as individuals is wedded to our professional title.

Furthermore, on the equally opposite side of the spectrum, we make another foolhardy assumption that youth and vigor is the only thing of any real value in our society. We perversely vaunt youth to deific heights when we repeat platitudes like “youth is the engine of the world.” Of course there’s a grain of truth to this sentiment; we’re destined to be replaced by those who come after us the same as how we ourselves replaced those that went before. It’s the natural order of things, but blind faith in the ingenuity and innovation of youth as some kind of savior is abjectly misguided.

And these words ought to carry extra weight as they originate from a (relatively) young person. In the West, I have the advantage of inheriting a society that wants nothing more than fro me to take the helm. Were I a gambling man, I’d be absolutely crazy to bet against that. I’d have so much to lose and nothing to gain. Yet here I am, offering the gift right back because I feel unworthy. Just as age is no guarantee of wisdom, youth is no guarantee of innovation. And in an age where our society has come increasingly unmoored, I advocate a return to balance. I advocate a return to a time—not too distant yet—when our elders were appreciated for their hard earned insight and world-weariness and not cast aside as decorations. I advocate a return to a time when youth was marveled at for its passion and spontaneity but ipso facto was denied the keys to the estate.

Dating is Zero-Sum

Many people don’t realize that “dating” is a recent invention; something we came up with in the death throes of post-modern decadence and is one of the—if not the—principle factor contributing to our current cultural malaise.

As adult supervision waned and the zeitgeist of our current decadence increasingly demanded that fewer and fewer boundaries be placed on the decisions made by young people in regards their choice in partner, premarital sex became commonplace. Once that happened, it wasn’t long at all before it became a necessary but insufficient term of pre-engagement engagement—one that principally benefited young men who were then free to dump any current “girlfriend” for a new and improved “girlfriend”, and thus a new and improved sexual encounter. If men were to do this en masse, it stands to reason that that new “girlfriend” would have been dumped herself by and old “boyfriend”, thus perpetuating the cycle.

But women are opportunists, too. They can—and do—manipulate the dating market to attain better purchase on locking down the long term commitment of a desirable man. As is often the case, a young woman finds herself “dating” a young man for whom she has no real emotional connection. Instead, she sticks around because he satisfies her primal need for someone to buy her shit and be a shoulder to cry on. When (if ever) that more idealized version of a “boyfriend” comes along, she’ll drop the first like a bad habit to make a go at the new guy.

In either case, you’re either the player, or you’re getting played. It cannot be both.

Before modern dating, (i.e. the hundred or so thousand years of human existence prior to the mid twentieth century) there was courtship, which was a brief period of benign inter-sexual interaction heavily moderated by skin-in-the-game family members, townspeople, and all-around wise elders with the strict aim of creating a legal union suitable for the rearing of well-adjusted, world-inheriting children.

These elders, whom we should listen to, were charged with the burdensome responsibility of introducing young people who were believed would make suitable parents if legally bound to one another. Through careful, sober analysis, they weighed various factors that would impact the success of their potential union with the sagacity characteristic of people who have been around the romantic block. They knew all too well the judgment-impairing intoxication of young love and how easily it can have the Youth chasing down dead ends. Bottom line: kids make terrible romantic decisions.

The principle distinction between courtship and dating is that there was no sex during courtship. This cannot be emphasized enough. If sex is readily available, any young man is liable to conjure up reasons not to devote himself to any one woman. This is why chastity is the most valuable thing a young woman possesses. During a courtship, the most intimacy a young person could expect was innocent hand-holding and maybe a stolen kiss at the door.

What this ‘no premarital sex’ distinction means in reality is that courtship, unlike dating, is a cost-free affair. One can engage in multiple courtships throughout their late teens and early twenties and not feel as if they’re using themselves up or sacrifice their dignity. One doesn’t feel as if they give a piece of themselves away with every new partner. One doesn’t become jaded. Modern dating, on the other hand is a maleficent zero-sum exercise in futility precisely because sex is on the menu. We must eradicate the plague that is modern dating.

“But wait, P.K.,” you protest. “Courtship would remove some of the personal freedoms of the individual!”

A, no shit. Humans are flawed creatures who if not for external guidance (legislative or spiritual) would revert promptly back to the savagery of the Jungel which cares not a wit for the future of your nation, let alone its spelling rules. And B, I don’t care. With marriage and fertility rates as low as they are, and divorce rates and benzodiazepine dependency as high as they are, a break-the-glass emergency is upon us and sacrifices will have to be made if we are to survive. In the indelible words of some dude on the internet, “The wants of the individual are superseded by the needs of the many.” The ‘many’ in this case are our posterity.

As Spiritual Morality Wanes, the Police State Waxes

For many thousands of years, the actions of man have been shepherded by the twin scales of both formal law and spiritual morality… and for good reason: in a society where morality recedes, law (i.e. the State) must make up the difference. In ye olde times, there were two great circles of acceptable behavior—two code books—and together they covered a lot of ground as regards right and wrong.

Over the past fifty years especially, religious conviction and thus spiritual morality has all but disappeared. Followed to its logical conclusion, what we end up with is a “society” of total law and complete absence of morality. For instance, about two years ago I read the story of a Canadian man that married his horse. Naturally, the townsfolk were bemused by such behavior, but because there was no formal law against it, the state could do nothing to stop him.

Being that this occurred in Canada and not the US, I don’t really have a horse in the race. But why was there no formal law forbidding bestiality? Because when spiritual morality exists, people don’t needlessly spill ink forbidding something that everyone already know is wrong. I never followed up on the horse-fucker story, but I imagine there is now a push toward making connubial bliss betwixt a man and his farm animals formally illegal. The fact, however, that this case was heard in a courtroom built with taxpayer money, proceeded over by judge who’s salaried with taxpayer money, and the ruling ultimately published on taxpayer-funded paper and/or servers, is a sad state of affairs. One assumes the legal fees for the depraved pervert were ponied up by the taxpayer as well.

Without the code of spiritual morality, there is left a massive gap in our behavioral boundaries. A healthy, functioning society requires trust. Without the voice in the back of our minds encouraging proper behavior, we revert back to our primitive selves and erode what little societal trust we ever managed to attain. What we end up with is a highly opportunistic population that is only concerned about whether they can get away with bad behavior legally.

Sure, they may get away with it legally, but will they get away with it spiritually? Me must encourage a sense of divine guidance. We need to once again develop a code book that goes wherever the body goes—including all these places the State cannot (for now) go. Do this, and we will be rewarded with a much more stable place to call home.

I’ve heard erroneous arguments that organized religion is the cause of all war, all strife, indeed the very impetus of the police state. This couldn’t be further from the truth. One organized religion per nation state in conjunction with a moderate formal code of laws is ideal for the long-term health of the nation and avoiding the Orwellian Nightmare. In the absence one established religion, a sense of higher purpose and meaning (i.e. spirituality) can serve just fine.

And just in case you were thinking to yourself, “what’s wrong with having judges decide the legality of our every decision?” Well when I told you earlier that I didn’t follow up on the horse-fucker story, I lied to you. When deciding whether it was legal for a man to fuck his horse, the judge said yea (although one hopes at least the horse said nay). As you read this, the horse-fucker is now happily horse-fucking fully within the confines of matrimonial sanctity.

Point being, even if the State were even capable of ruling on—and enforcing—all things, you could never put your faith in the courts to make decisions in the best interest of the nation.