In The Death of Christian Britain Callum Brown argues that contrary to the accepted narrative Christianity did not steadily decline in Britain as a result of urbanization and industrialization, but instead suddenly collapsed in the 1960s.
…women, rather than cities or social class, emerge as the principal source of explanation for the patterns of religiosity that were observable in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Most importantly, two other things will emerge. First, women were the bulwark to popular support for organized Christianity between 1800 and 1963, and second it was they who broke their relationship to Christian piety in the 1960s and thereby caused secularization.
Brown traces the collapse to a two stage phenomenon. First, British Christianity morphed into a veneration of women, viewing them as “the angel in the house”, and the earthly source of Christian virtue. Brown found that British literature of the 1800s contained a consistent theme of coarse, rough, sinful men being eventually tamed and brought to God by naturally good women.
…women’s spiritual destiny was virtually never portrayed as a battle with temptation or real sin; fallen women did not appear as central characters, and none of the usual temptations like drink or gambling ever seemed to be an issue with them. The problem is the man, sometimes the father, but more commonly the boyfriend, fiancé, or husband, who is a drinker, a gambler, keeps the ‘bad company’ of ‘rough lads’ and is commonly a womanizer. The man is the agency of the virtuous woman’s downfall; he does not make her bad, but does make her suffer and poor. She is not always portrayed as having undergone a major conversion experience, but to have emerged from childhood into a disciplined and natural ‘goodness.’
Second, in the 1960s women in Britain lost interest in playing the role of angel in the house, and the entire structure suddenly collapsed.
Women had previously been the heart of family piety, the moral restraint upon men and children. By the mid 1960s, domestic ideology was assailed on many fronts, putting the cultural revolution in collision with not just the Christian churches but with Christianity as a whole. The loss of domestic ideology to youth culture from c. 1958 meant that piety ‘lost’ its discursive home within femininity. Its last redoubt, the ‘angel in the house’ to use an historians cliché, was now negotiable and challenged discursive terrain…
The discursive death of pious femininity destroyed the evangelical narrative.
Brown doesn’t draw this connection in the book, but it is obvious that the view of women as beacons of natural virtue itself comes from the British literary tradition of Courtly Love (chivalry). As C.S. Lewis explains in The Allegory of Love, Courtly Love teaches that men must look to women for moral guidance (emphasis mine):
The love which is to be the source of all that is beautiful in life and manners must be the reward freely given by the lady, and only our superiors can reward. But a wife is not a superior.81 As the wife of another, above all as the wife of a great lord, she may be queen of beauty and of love, the distributor of favours, the inspiration of all knightly virtues, and the bridle of ‘villany’;82 but as your own wife, for whom you have bargained with her father, she sinks at once from lady into mere woman. How can a woman, whose duty is to obey you, be the midons whose grace is the goal of all striving and whose displeasure is the restraining influence upon all uncourtly vices?
Courtly Love was created as a mockery of Christianity, but Christians were so tempted by the idea that eventually most Christians couldn’t distinguish between the two. This is certainly true in the US today. It shouldn’t be surprising that once the real deal had been replaced with an enticing substitute the stage was set for the whole facade to eventually come crashing down all at once. What isn’t clear is why the sudden collapse in Christian belief happened in Britain when it did, but not (yet?) in the US.
Pingback: How Lancelot vanquished British Christianity. | @the_arv
Over at Jim’s blog, he regularly blames the Puritans for everything. This is ahistorical and wrong. What you point out, about the shift in literature starting around 1700, is the same time the Puritans had to flee to America. As soon as the Puritans were removed from power, the cuckery multiplied. England wants to be cucked. It got rid of its patriarchal religious folk, and this is the result. The Roman (Church Fathers) influence pushed out the Hebrew (Bible) influence. I think Jim (or maybe you) posted some time back about a legal shift in the status of women that happened in the time of King Henry the VIII; wish blog search was as good as it used to be. Blogs seem to be the ones hardest hit by Google’s censorship algorithms. Be interesting to revisit that in light of this new information.
Isn’t this also the period of time that covers the divestiture of the British Empire, the rise of socialism in Britian, plus aftereffects of the destruction of the aristocracy that began in earnest after world war one? When so many governing cultural structures get disrupted in such a short period the continuing result is the increase of chaos until some new equilibrium is reached and new order structures are developed. That these new order structures are inherently unstable does not mitigate the fact that they still form and will grow in power until their underlying limitations cause another spiral into chaos.
In short, women allowed in civilizational decision making ruins everything that men work to build.
OP — “What isn’t clear is why the sudden collapse in Christian belief happened in Britain when it did, but not (yet?) in the US.”
Christianity collapsed long ago in America. The ‘churches’ largely are hollow, and the spirit has no intention of entering them. The diversions and comforts of empire distracted and delayed.
Already in America the remnant is small. Very small. The guiding religion of America and (un)Great Britain is equalism, feminism, globalism. The way of Babylon and the way of Nimrod. Most Christians, including at this page, operate in the assumption of satan’s world, where ‘everyone is created equal’ with ‘equal rights’ which is opposite of the created schema from God. In the celestials, NOBODY is equal, created or otherwise. It is masculine and hierarchical.
Most modern people, including men, resent hierarchy and authority delegated from God. They demand that their station, gifts, abilities, opinions, and votes carry equal weight with those of all others. They become quickly enraged if called to obedience to properly designated authority, and often end up slandering the servants of God in their zeal to prove themselves ‘just as good’ or ‘just as important’. Equal, IOW. They would tell the king Himself he was nothing but bluster if He countered their enunciations! This is rebellion and not the masculine way.
OT: Online daters aim out of their leagues:
http://www.france24.com/en/20180808-online-daters-aim-out-league-says-study
The 19th century English author, George Gissing, is an exception. His novels are naturalistic rather than romantic. Gissing was a brilliant psychologist, and quite red pilled. When I read his novels, I keep wanting to underline his remarks, as they are so insightful.
His novels mostly focus on how money, the pursuit of it, and the lack of it, affects social relations, especially between the sexes. Different novels focus on different social classes, but the essential themes are the same.
Gissing’s The Odd Women is considered perhaps the first “feminist novel,” but is quite good. It’s about the man shortage (apparently a thing in 1880s and 1890s England), and hence the pressure on women to find work outside the home, as many could not find a husband. The Netherworld profiles the working poor. The Whirlpool the upper middle/leisure class. New Grub Street focuses on the literary class — aspiring writers, editors, and reviewers, most of whom were highly educated yet poorly paid.
Gissing does not pedestalize women. No man is ever redeemed by a woman’s love. His female characters are complex and deeply flawed, pursuing alphas, cheating on betas, betraying each other, and getting burned along the way. The man fare no better. Many characters suddenly die or suffer calamities along the way, as death often came unexpectedly in Victorian England.
Gissing’s novels are largely pessimistic and depressing, without happy endings.
What isn’t clear is why the sudden collapse in Christian belief happened in Britain when it did, but not (yet?) in the US.
I believe ray to be dead on correct. I’ll add (opinion only) the sudden collapse hasn’t been noticed here partly because of the sheer amount of money and capital moved around in the U.S. churchian complex. Denominationalism is more diverse and has the sheer numbers GB never had. Plus.the RCC, EO, etc.
@Dalrock, I still think your conflation of Courtly Love with chivalry in general is in error. C. S. Lewis did not (and was enough of a medaevalist scholar that he WOULD not) make the same mistake in the book you cite.
Chivalry (the “Grail Knight” chivalry which plays tension with the C/L cultish kind all the way through Malory’s Morte d’Arthur), is rather at the Aristotelian mean between C/L feminism and caddish Game, opposite errors that both make to-do of how the man treats womankind, to the neglect of how he conducts himself ahead of (in leadership of) the women in his charge.
That article is definitely true Hmm, but I think they ignore that it is the women who are really aiming out of their league in their effort to make it “everyone”.
The profiles I see all have women looking for a male up to 10 years her junior to her own age or possibly plus 2 years. Some have better looks than others, but almost all aim thinner and hotter than they are.
Then the ones who whine about only getting messages from PUAs and such, along with dick pics, but then they don’t even respond to being messaged.
Most also want completely wonderful finances so they can do lots of travel and such. They want the trophy boyfriend/husband to keep in their purse.
They want someone with no struggles, yet are almost certainly full of their own, they just don’t note them.
I am in the mid 50s, so that tells you the market.
RPL,
It may be realistic, but I don’t need more downers in my life right now….
I agree with ray — Christian belief has already mostly collapsed in the US. The churches are hollow. Most of what people practice today is “moralistic therapeutic deism”, rather than Christianity, and the levels of practice in Christianity are steadily dropping across the board, all stripes of Christian. It took longer here for that to happen than in Europe because the watershed event that set up the collapse in Europe was WW1 — it was after WW1 that Europeans began to lose faith in the traditional institutions and order, including the churches, such that by the time the cultural revolution of the 60s/70s came along, there wasn’t much left of religious belief but the facade, so the facade blew over. WW1 didn’t have that impact in the US — that kind of disillusionment really hit here after Watergate and Vietnam, so were several decades behind Europe in terms of the collapse of faith, but it’s in full swing right now, with the fairly sharp declines in church attendance and the significantly increased slice of “nones” in the religious affiliation polling.
Americans tend to be more ” woo woo” than Europeans, so I expect what will happen here will be slightly different to what happened there. Faith here will continue to become more new agey, and lots of people will identify as “spiritual but not religious” rather than atheist. But what we know as “Christianity” is in full collapse already here, appearances notwithstanding, just as it was in 1930s-60s Britain, before the revolution applied the coup de grace to an already largely hollow institution.
I was there: I saw it happen and can thus report what it was like – but I regret to say that I don’t really see the hypothesis of Callum Brown (I’m guessing dour Presbyterean Scot here) as having much in it that was ultimately persuasive and unanswerable; am intrigued that the dates he has chosen are 1958 (is this all being blamed on Sir Cliff of Richard – ironically surely England’s only, albeit Indian-born, openly-devout Christian pop-star) and 1963 (last year of the Tory government in power since 1951 – first episode of Doctor Who) and why is America different (as indeed it is – and was)?
Perhaps our resident wanna-be Mod – the man with the Parkour and Moped and a lot of Small Faces singles can give a Welsh perspective.
@J. J. Griffing
Every time a reader has offered evidence of this, it has turned out that what they called non Courtly Love chivalry was in reality more of the same. You might be the exception here. However, the more important fact is that as we popularly understand chivalry it really is the Courtly Love variety. This has clearly been the case for a very long time. See the highest order of chivalry in Britain, established in 1348 to commemorate the time when a lady dropped her underwear and the king picked it up.
The king’s admonishment to anyone who would judge a woman who dropped her drawers in front of him remains in the royal coat of arms:
So while it is theoretically possible that there is an obscure surviving literary strain of chivalry that doesn’t celebrate women who drop their drawers before the king, and doesn’t get off on three way make out sessions between a lord, his lady, and a chivalrous knight, it doesn’t really matter. This is the chivalry that has captured our imagination. It is how we understand knighthood and virtue.
This is slightly off-topic, but I want to wholeheartedly thank Dalrock for his entire website. I found the red pill a few years back, but didn’t fully appreciate what it meant. Dalrock’s countless posts on women pushing the marriage age up and its effects finally made everything click.
A few weeks ago I attended a national religious convention for young people. The first night there, a few of us went out to the bars. I was sober the entire time, but this particular girl took an instant liking to me.
Long story short, she danced with another guy in front of me, held his hand while they went downstairs (where the bathrooms are), got so drunk she puked on the side of the road, has a wrist tattoo, told me she was dreading her upcoming 26th birthday because she was getting old. At the same time, during the convention she was acting super flirty with me, wanted to take pictures, asked me for my snapchat, was super excited when texting.
What a joke that was. Literally textbook party girl trying to find her Beta (me, I guess). What blew my mind was that she had the audacity to actually flaunt her arousal for Alphas right in front of me.
How dumb can these girls get? Like damn, if you’re trying to catch a beta, at least try to act like you’re wife material.
Ah, oh well – thank you Dalrock and all the commenters here. Had it not been for you, I wouldn’t have been able to make sense of her behavior and quite possibly gotten married to her. I have to say, that’s the first time I’ve seen a girl try that hard to get me, she was very, very charming…and it did take me a few weeks to snap out of feelings I caught for her.
BTW re: Honi soit qui mal y pense
It’s a good thing I’m not swayed much by societal standards, because I definitely thought bad of this girl who after talking to me about finding a husband at this convention was grinding on another dude 5 minutes later.
@vyasa
The Norman Rockwell white picket fence fantasy of life/family/society caused many of us GenXers to wife that bitch up when she was done barfing in the gutter.
More importantly IMO, this space connects the dots and allows a man to see there’s no difference between are and well north of 90% of the women sitting in church pews.
..difference between HER…”
Smart phones make me dumb.
“The feudal system and the consequent relationship between a knight and his lord had also influenced the rules of courtly love. The knight would swear an oath of fealty to his liege lord’s lady just as he did with his lord. In literature, should a knight enter a love relationship with his courtly lady, the latter dominated the relationship and the knight had to obey and submit. Though courtly love may not be consummated and the lady may be oblivious to the knight’s affections, the knight was propelled to do great deeds so as to feel deserving of his lady’s love if not to earn her favour. Courtly love was one of the engines that fuelled a knight’s valour.”
http://www.medievalchronicles.com/medieval-life/courtly-love/
In other words the worship of women began. Idolatry.
Britain lost two generations of men to the World Wars, and the veneration of those wars replaced a lot of piety. You can’t go 10 feet in Britain without running into a war memorial. It was a unique set of conditions, I think, combined with what you wrote above.
Courtly love took down the Spartans as well, according to even feminist articles:
“When Sparta deteriorated in the 4th century BC, their fall from grace was blamed in part on the inclusion of their women in public life, their ability to own land, and thus their supposed ability to exert a certain amount of power over their men. It seems that the general consensus was, if you gave a Greek woman an inch, she would take a mile.”
https://www.ancient.eu/article/123/the-women-of-sparta-athletic-educated-and-outspoke/
Aristotle on Spartan women:
Aristotle, Politics, Book 2, Chapter IX
Billys: They want someone with no struggles, yet are almost certainly full of their own, they just don’t note them.
The tradcon response is: That’s because you’re supposed to be the man. Women are allowed to have struggles and problems. Men are supposed to man up and fix themselves, so they can then help women with their problems. Where are all the real men? Instead we have girly-men whining about having to be strong for a woman.
Dalrock, I am not quite sure why you (of all people) would write:
“What isn’t clear is why the sudden collapse in Christian belief
happened in Britain when it did, but not (yet?) in the US.”
If anybody has been documenting Christian pastors’ (unconscious)
surrender to feminism in the U.S., (I still hope you bring all your thoughts
together in a book one day), hasn’t it been the… Dalrock blog?!
As a lifelong lover of Arthuriana and knighthood-stories, but despiser of Tristram and disgusted by Launcelot, you’re absolutely right. Even secularists like T. H. White get it right more than Malory does (he’s often held up as the “definitive” Arthurian writer) when they look at Launcelot’s adultery and Guenevere’s philandering with him and come out and say “There’s something WRONG here!” But the “Good People” of the English-speaking world look to Tom Malory’s Launcelot and make him Beaux Ideal of manhood, whether consciously or not, though Malory himself is torn between the explicitly opposing standards of chivalry and attains to neither, like the Beta dumped by both wife and mistress for trying to have his Kate and Edith too.
However, the more important fact is that as we popularly understand chivalry it really is the Courtly Love variety. … This is the chivalry that has captured our imagination. It is how we understand knighthood and virtue.
Tragically on point, sir. On point indeed.
I will seek out some examples of the “Grail chivalry” for you, if I can, as well as knightly “Game” (the latter seems exemplified in King Pellinore and Sir Kay, by most post-Mallory accounts).
The chivalry from the 800’s (Song of Roland, the stories about El Cid in Spain) don’t appear to suffer from Courtly Love. I read a mothers advice to a young Carolingian noblement; it didn’t appear to suffer from Courtly Love either. Perhaps because Charlemagne (Carolus Magnus, Charles the Great) was a patriarchal polygamist with 9 wives and concubines. Although the seeds of cuckoldry may have been there too, he never let his daughters marry.
Women can never be the moral center of a family. That’s not their role, to the point that they fundamentally lack the ability to enforce Morality at a consistent level necessary. They always need external Order, which sets the parameters under which they can maintain them.
This is why the Event Horizon for a Church is always Women on the deacon board. No Woman, no matter how intelligent or righteous, can enforce the necessary Order that is required. They always compromise because that’s what Women do to survive.
This is why I bring up “Structure” with regards to the Church. It simply doesn’t work because Humans are Human and will act Human. A top-down approach doesn’t work within the Church because it’s too easy to corrupt. Everyone ends up falling to the lowest common denominator, out-source their Faith to the Church and just go about living as they are told by someone else.
The Anglicans simply had things go slightly different than the Romans, but they fell in the exact same manner and in a similar time frame. This isn’t surprising, as there actually is an organized assault on Christians everywhere. That’s always been true, but it’s more organized these days. The Romans were infested with Homosexuals & Marxists; the Anglicans with Women. Viewed from the perspective of Weak Points exploited by an attacking organization, it makes sense. Once put in place over the period of 30-40 years, the Structure has no way to purge the Evil that’s infested it.
The Orthodox have dealt with some of this by becoming incredibly National. There’s a reason for Greek or Serbian Orthodox. It kills evangelism, but they survived with their theology intact through brutal repression. (That a Western European ideology ended up killing more Eastern Europeans shouldn’t be lost on this point. That was pretty intentional.)
American Protestants ended up doing something a little different, since it rose with the expanding of the country. For all intents & purposes, American Protestants end up structured around a Pastor. This is a serve failure in Structure, as theology goes everywhere, but it does allow for the death of one Church and the rise of another in pretty rapid succession. We’re approaching the end of another Birth/Death cycle among the American Protestants, as the MegaChurch structure is played out, but the full Death part of the cycle hasn’t quite started. Soon, though.
Dalrock writes, “Courtly Love was created as a mockery of Christianity, but Christians were so tempted by the idea that eventually most Christians couldn’t distinguish between the two. ”
In celebrating courtly love via Beatrice, is Dante mocking Christianity in The Divine Comedy?
Also, who first created “Courtly Love” as a mockery of Christianity?
Then I’m not their fairy tale. I come with a cross….all men do.
“Everyone ends up falling to the lowest common denominator, out-source their Faith to the Church and just go about living as they are told by someone else.”
Most people are followers. The problem is institutions designed to wipe out any effective leaders because they are threats to the status quo, or at least give them a competitive disadvantage.
Too political? Loss tax status.
Anti PC? Can’t operate close to cities or be harassed constantly.
Anything defined as right leaning speech? Lose social media and payment processors.
Trying to get space for a meeting? Owner threated and it gets canceled.
So it exists in the underground until it can acquire enough power to protect quality public leaders.
I can agree with this. I’ve heard when it comes to marriage the man is the head of the family and the woman is the heart of it. If the heart is full of evil and lacks virtue…it’s diabolic. The diabolic always seeks to tear apart and split things. A very important aspect of women is when they become mothers what they teach their children…if they don’t have any virtues how will they teach their children any?
Actually realized how similar it is to the early Church. Hide out until you turn enough of the elite.
@J.J. Griffing
Men are the true romantics. That’s not necessarily a good thing.
Mycroft Jones
The chivalry from the 800’s (Song of Roland, the stories about El Cid in Spain) don’t appear to suffer from Courtly Love.
Sure, because the luxury of romanticism couldn’t be afforded at a time of existential struggle.
The cult of Courtly Love came along when Europe within the Hajnal line was reasonably secure, and excess resources existed that women could appropriate.
Cynically, one might suggest that the cult of Courtly Love came into being in order to subvert the older style of chivalry, subvert it for covert ends.
@Looking Glass – “This is why the Event Horizon for a Church is always Women on the deacon board.”
I’d claim it would be when women stop covering their heads in church.
jazzdrive
Britain lost two generations of men to the World Wars, and the veneration of those wars replaced a lot of piety. You can’t go 10 feet in Britain without running into a war memorial.
A friend of mine has traveled there extensively and showed me pics of some churches interior with names on the wall, especially in the 1914 – 1918 time period. In some British towns, almost every single man in a given age cohort died during WW I. Not some, not most, but nearly every single one. The social fallout in a small town must have been horrific, it was obvious even in cities.
Some men argue that the 1914-1918 war killed Western civilization and it’s just taking over a century to play out. Unfortunately there’s some evidence to support that.
Pingback: How Lancelot vanquished British Christianity. | Reaction Times
@Anon Reader
I would put it differently. Courtly Love was aimed at subverting Christianity, and used existing chivalry as a carrier. Existing chivalry was the way in, but the target was Christianity. It is brilliant (diabolical) when you think about it. Christianity is about salvation and love. So is Courtly Love. But salvation comes from fealty to women instead of Christ, and the love is romantic instead of agape. The substitution is so complete that no one even notices.
So basically, all the 1800’s simping beta cucks in Britain elevated women to sinless victim goddess status, converted their whole society to this new religion, and when time finally gave women the opportunity to let their true nature thrive without consequence, the whole shit show fell apart? Sounds pretty much like every western nation.
It’s true: every English town has a War memorial. I was passing my local one only this very day and observed that even now in the heat of summer that there were five large wreaths lying there. The Memorial is inscribed with the names of all those from the town who were killed on active service. Above the Memorial is a life size statue of a ‘Tommy’. I understand that there are two designs for ‘Tommy’ used throughout the land for each Memorial has one or the other design.
The Memorial becomes a make-shift church – open air – on 11th November and the ceremony is definitely Christian and NOT multi-faith. Very powerful as Canon are used to signify eleven a.m. and closure of the service. Always a large turn-out as the road opposite which the Memorial is situate is closed to traffic.
It is notable that after 1919 the Feminist rush to replace men calmed down for fifty years.
@AR:
WW1 didn’t kill Western Civ. What it did was remove the bulwark that allowed corrupt leaders to corrupt everything. There was no opposition to demonic corruption. England, specifically, had spent a good 300 years, to that point, reminding their monarchs to abide within Christian understanding. The ones that would have prevented the disasters were all dead.
At this point, it’s probably safe to say that was one of the intended objectives of driving Europe to war. Figure out who keeps the society together and find a way to send them into the death grinder.
Because Christians are almost all fools (and everyone one else is, by definition), they miss the fact the Devil is a whole lot smarter than they are, and he is simply playing a much bigger game than they can understand.
@AnonS:
Yes it is. The problem is the churches were hollowed out well over a century ago, so there’s been no one to defend the ground. And by “defend”, I don’t mean by talking to others. Some people are evil and there is only one way to deal with them, but, unless you’re in a position to carry it out, you’re going to have to deal very differently. (Related to that, but Christianity normally thrives as a minority religion compared to a majority one.)
@Damn Crackers:
I agree to a point. However, head covering hasn’t always been universal (or practical in some localities), but when it stops is the first sign of trouble.
@J. J. Griffing
Thank you.
@Dalrock:
The Enlightenment was the exact same model, but it was targeted at the Moral Theology. It’s point was always to subvert it, making all things the opposite of their actual meaning.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Orwell not only recognized the activity of it all, but he even honed on the very specific attacks on Christian Theology that the Enlightenment brought about.
So, the Courtly Love movement was simply the forerunner to the more successful attack on Christianity that was to come a few centuries later. That’s two strategically identical attacks on the Faith that span centuries. As I said in the previous comment, the Devil is playing a much bigger game than we are.
@Damn Crackers:
The other one, that comes to mind, is either Usury or some Legalism approach within & from without upon the Church. It’s an attempt to subject God to worldly authority.
Dalrock, I know your love for bloggueuses and Youtubeuses… let’s not wait any more and I introduce you, and the community in the comments, Lisa Schwartz, in her very recent video for Undivided ATTN. Lisa Schwartz speaks about marriage :
Her very instructive Youtube Channel, with several hits as
We’re Getting Married?!!?!
lisbug
2,7 M views
5 years ago
to
MY OPEN RELATIONSHIP!?
lisbug
139 k vues
3 years ago
to
Explaining My Breakup
Enjoy!
@Nick Mgtow re: Lisa Schwartz. Do you think if someone pointed that timeline out to her, if she’d even be able to recognize it?
@Nick Mgtow From the first video “Every 10% increase in women’s income leads to a 7% decline in marriage.”
I think we could end most social problems in the U.S. by getting women out of the workplace and ending women’s suffrage.
Zman has blogged recently, and I agree; women were the bulwark of community, religious and social life. When they’re working 40+ hours a week, the time for that stuff just goes right out the window. And we allowed it, acted like being a wife wasn’t as meaningful as some crap job.
Cloudbuster says:
August 9, 2018 at 4:00 pm
@Nick Mgtow re: Lisa Schwartz. Do you think if someone pointed that timeline out to her, if she’d even be able to recognize it?
Recognize what, Cloudbuster? ( Her role in the downfall of her relationship?)
Cliff Richard is a Christian!? God in holy heaven, stunned. Well he’s good at hiding it, I’d say. Still, it makes sense when examining the fullness of their works, not all of which are semi-Christian. If not anti.
Cliff best start speaking up about it or his ass might just get left.
It beggars belief that a young, feminine woman like Lisa Schwartz could not or would not easily recognize well in advance that Shane Dawson was gay as a picnic basket.
@Nick Mgtow ( Her role in the downfall of her relationship?)
Yep. That.
@Dalrock
Here’s the dilemma around the word “chivalry”: It is still used within the context of a soldier’s obligations and duties to nation, king, the Church and/or one’s enemies. I’ve recently read two modern books that use the word “chivalrous” or “chivalry” to describe conduct during war, one being King Henry V’s actions at Agincourt and another during WW2. It is an effective word to describe a code of honor and duty to companions and institutions; that I think is why it is so effective in controlling Western men, because that is what they actually think of when they hear the word.
Do you think the word for all intents and purposes means what feminists and tradcons say it means, i.e. courtly love and “women and children first”? Or do you believe that it is still a valuable word worth trying to salvage?
The reason this matter is because if chivalry as a word is beyond saving, then men will have to find another one to accurately describe that sense of duty and code of honor as originally intended. If they don’t, then they will not be able to communicate those ideas and values the same way the people of Oceania lost the word “freedom.”
I can’t decide whether Ray is joking or being serious about Cliff. Anyway: that is an opportunity for me to give a quick plug for his Christian movie Two a Penny (1967) surely the only British Christian movie ever made and the only Christian Movie with a recognised star (well he is around here) in which Cliff against type plays a thief and a blackmailer but then his girlfriend goes to a revivalist meeting led by Dr Billy Graham – you know the rest.
The year 1958 was the year in which Cliff had his first hit single and I presume it is that to which Callum Brown tacitly refers by referencing the year – nothing else bad happened in Britain in 1958 so you can see just how wild it was here in those days. I know I am jesting but in those days middle aged people saw the new Rock and Roll as being the end of civilisation. My parents had friends of whom the wife would not allow her elder teenage son to even listen to it on the wireless. This is Americas fault.
I have heard that Cliff Richard was or is a practicing Christian. As I recall Opus, there was a character on that British TV show “The Young Ones” who was obsessed with Cliff Richard
I’d do it to see what reaction is elicted.
I also like it when they give the ‘you got to live for yourself’ speech after the breakup. I doubt they ever get that was probably their true intention the whole time.
And just in case if you were wondering if she rebounded…yeah the carousel spares no woman from the Chad.
Palm Springs? That’s the weekend getaway “hook up” place out of LA. Doesn’t surprise me. He must have money, I am sure he paid for the stay
Nah man, they went to visit her grandfather. That’s why they had to get a hotel room together.
I mean if these ladies are going to use flimsy excuses…then they shouldn’t record everything.
And nothing makes a trip more complete than complaining about everything. I guess that carnal fun does lead to spiritual bitterness.
I’ve been to Palm Springs. Amazing sixties architecture there…household, and commercial. Complaining in Palm Springs? She must be a miserable person
The carousel spares no woman.
Much obliged and I will examine Cliff’s non-musical works more closely. Of course I hope you’re right, that’ll be one less to hunt down.
Rock n roll is dangerous. Part of the allure, and many bargains of tragedy were made. Those trad folks warned correctly. It’s sex drugs and rock n roll, after all. Bad company.
I play and catalog it, because music and film in the Fifties through, say, the Seventies proceeded under a certain territorial/national spirit. After then, most music and film gradually and inevitably took on the character of the nation’s rising ruling spirit. Which around that point turned from one personage, to the possessing spirit of Jezebel. The Almighty People did clamor for her! :O)
In the earlier period, much profitable wisdom was conserved in both music and film, reflecting the earlier guiding spirit, but far more importantly, announcing the Parousia of my beloved King. The best of those arts partook of Him, a vast and powerful umbra cast backward into ‘time’ as Annunciation. This stuff will grok more readily later.
Among American evangelical college folk, Cliff Richard during the ’70s was our musical link to British evangelicalism. His 1978 “Small Corners” album was as good a CCM album as almost any released at that time (“Yes He Lives” from that album was a single but didn’t chart). Every one of his albums from the mid-70s until the mid-80s had at least overtly Christian song, mixed in among more secular songs “Devil Woman” and “We Don’t Talk Anymore”.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/why-the-left-is-so-afraid-of-jordan-peterson/567110/
I know many here love to bash Jordan Peterson, but the article about him makes clear the positive influence he is having on the younger generation by destroying the foundations of identity politics. Identity politics which folks on the left, and some on the right use to push their agendas, and stifle debate about other ideas.
earl says:
August 9, 2018 at 5:28 pm
And just in case if you were wondering if she rebounded…yeah the carousel spares no woman from the Chad.
Wonder if she will post about her STD tests?
About Cliff Richard, I overheard some middle aged women in 1980 talking about Cliff Richard, and one was mentioning to the other about an interview with some of his young 16 yo female fans. The girls said they liked his songs because they did not have dirty lyrics. How times have changed.
I mean the video there pretty much sums up the carousel. A non-married couple taking a trip ‘to see grandpa, ha!’ sharing a hotel room, pretty much naked with each other (or at least implying it)…complaining most of the time, and coming back to her fur kid. I bet her father is proud (if he’s available for comment).
I’m completely fine bringing back virtues like chastity. I think this whole free love garbage is the reason why most people are misrable about everything.
People on Dalrock hate Jordan Peterson for precisely the same reasons they hate Jack Donovan and Dennis Prager. These men are taking a sledgehammer to feminist ideology, and people on Dalrock need feminism to explain their own failures in life.
Such is the way of the world.
Did you watch her marriage video? I think she knew. She was probably sad the guy broke up with her so he could be with his boyfriend.
I’ll say it again…there are just some women out there who CHOOSE that type of guy because they want to be the ‘man’ in the relationship.
I would agree with your analysis here Dalrock. I would add, if I may, a small anecdote that would explain just how that collapse came so suddenly.
Spike: (to close, Christian, female friend, circa 1985): ”Hi Mary. You went to the doctor….”
Mary: Yeah. I had irregular periods and pain & (some sort of menstrual-related issue).
Spike: ”Oh. What do you do about that”?
Mary: ”She put me on The Pill”.
Spike: ”The Pill? Isn’t that for married people*?”
Mary: (laughs) “Yeah, but I’m on it now”
Spike: ”How do you feel about that?”
Mary: ”Awesome! Now that I’m safe (can’t get pregnant), I’m going to go for it!”
…and, so, there goeth the virtue of the godly Christian woman….
*Yeah, I know. I was naive.and just on 20 y.o.
I think it’s also possible that such wimminz don’t actually want to be married. They just want an engagement and a wedding. They want the parties, the drama, the social status, all without the prospect of actually doing any homemaking or child-rearing. Gays and other weirdos provide such wimminz the perfect opportunity. They’re similarly stunted, emotionally, and they also want to cover for their lack of honor and commitment. A match made in Hell, as it were.
@Dalrock
The only real “chivalry” that still existed was Bushido. What chivalry would have looked like without courtly love.
The bushidō code is typified by eight virtues:[33]
Righteousness (義 gi)
Be acutely honest throughout your dealings with all people. Believe in justice, not from other people, but from yourself. To the true warrior, all points of view are deeply considered regarding honesty, justice and integrity. Warriors make a full commitment to their decisions.
Heroic Courage (勇 yū)
Hiding like a turtle in a shell is not living at all. A true warrior must have heroic courage. It is absolutely risky. It is living life completely, fully and wonderfully. Heroic courage is not blind. It is intelligent and strong.
Benevolence, Compassion (仁 jin)
Through intense training and hard work the true warrior becomes quick and strong. They are not as most people. They develop a power that must be used for good. They have compassion. They help their fellow men at every opportunity. If an opportunity does not arise, they go out of their way to find one.
Respect (礼 rei)
True warriors have no reason to be cruel. They do not need to prove their strength. Warriors are not only respected for their strength in battle, but also by their dealings with others. The true strength of a warrior becomes apparent during difficult times.
Honesty (誠 makoto)
When warriors say that they will perform an action, it is as good as done. Nothing will stop them from completing what they say they will do. They do not have to ‘give their word’. They do not have to ‘promise’. Speaking and doing are the same action.
Honour (名誉 meiyo)
Warriors have only one judge of honor and character, and this is themselves. Decisions they make and how these decisions are carried out are a reflection of who they truly are. You cannot hide from yourself.
Duty and Loyalty (忠義 chūgi)
Warriors are responsible for everything that they have done and everything that they have said and all of the consequences that follow. They are immensely loyal to all of those in their care. To everyone that they are responsible for, they remain fiercely true.
Self-Control (自制 jisei)
.
Peterson? The guy who said, “I’m not anti-feminist”?
The same guy who offers “assertiveness training” to career whores, said that men and women were “oppressed by nature” and who called an actual anti-feminist a misogynist? If he’s taking a sledgehammer to feminism, it’s made of rubber.
From reading the stories about Cuchulain, the ancient Irish hero, and also noting that “bastards” became kings of the Frankish tribes, I believe “Courtly Love” existed since the beginning, but you guys are right, the manly chivalry code for male cohesion was used as the carrier; the tolerance of adultery among the upper classes was positively ancient in old Europe. When the Roman church is trying to castrate every male, starting with its own priests (forbidding them to marry and calling sex a sin) then adultery and fornication are the natural response. If the standards of behavior are unnaturally hard, who will even try to keep them? The Puritans on the other hand, read the Bible, and had a very positive view of sex, and they were the most Patriarchal Germanics there ever were.
@JRob agreed, I’m glad sites like Dalrock’s exists. I knew something was deeply off with how women were behaving when I was in college, but couldn’t put my finger on it. Figured it was just degenerate women (of other denominations) doing their typical degenerate stuff. Was really surprised to see it in my own group, and especially to see it explicitly in my face recently.
Hmm — “Among American evangelical college folk, Cliff Richard during the ’70s was our musical link to British evangelicalism. His 1978 “Small Corners” album was as good a CCM album as almost any released at that time (“Yes He Lives” from that album was a single but didn’t chart). Every one of his albums from the mid-70s until the mid-80s had at least overtly Christian song, mixed in among more secular songs “Devil Woman” and “We Don’t Talk Anymore”.”
Thank you. My apologies. I’d confoozled him with Keith from the Stones. Thus my abject shock.
Sharkly — “I know many here love to bash Jordan Peterson”
Criticizing Jordan — who isn’t a Christian, not really — is not bashing and it’s dishonest to characterize those criticisms as such.
Jordan adheres far more to Jung than to Jeshua. Thus he is without real strength. Draw your conclusions.
Boxer — “People on Dalrock hate Jordan Peterson for precisely the same reasons they hate Jack Donovan and Dennis Prager. These men are taking a sledgehammer to feminist ideology, and people on Dalrock need feminism to explain their own failures in life.”
Get behind me, satan.
How dumb can these girls get? Like damn, if you’re trying to catch a beta, at least try to act like you’re wife material.
I seriously doubt that most American women have the vaguest clue what “acting like ‘wife material'” means. In fact, if it were to be explained to them what “wife material” consists of being and doing, they would probably fly into an offended rage.
As Captain Capitalism is fond of saying: “Stay the f*** frosty, boys.”
Debt free virgins with no tattoos was enough to do it.
The funniest bit in Lisa Schwartz’s breakup video was when, tears streaming down her face, she declared that she and Shane were still soul mates and that wasn’t going to change.
Really? Soul mates?
Her entire speech can be summarized as ME, ME, ME. I’m so noble. I have a gay best friend. I’m so self-sacrificing. I’m hurting because I’m so full of love. Look at me! Admire me! Tell me I’m awesome and amazing! Like me on Facebook!
It beggars belief that a young, feminine woman like Lisa Schwartz could not or would not easily recognize well in advance that Shane Dawson was gay as a picnic basket.
Her new “Chad” also sounds gay.
earl says:
August 10, 2018 at 1:17 am
“In fact, if it were to be explained to them what “wife material” consists of being and doing, they would probably fly into an offended rage.”
Debt free virgins with no tattoos was enough to do it.
You forgot “nonobese and young enough to still have a decent-sized family, e.g., pre-age-28”.
@Myrcroft Jones
”The Puritans on the other hand, read the Bible, and had a very positive view of sex, and they were the most Patriarchal Germanics there ever were.”
What’s your thoughts on the common perception on the fact that they banned fun in England and America.
As well as what they did to Easter or Christmas?
And the charge that they hate aesthetics.
It seems the more sexually degenerate a man is, the more they act like a homosexual. Almost like promiscuity turns them into that.
”From reading the stories about Cuchulain, the ancient Irish hero, and also noting that “bastards” became kings of the Frankish tribes”
They were still polygamous or it was a holdover from it at the time. So as long as “bastards” were sons of the King who was also raised by him.
Women of a certain age – almost all of them – adore Cliff Richard. The rest of us have had for sixty years to endure him – including his impromptu singalong whilst rain-stopped-play at Wimbledon, his romance with a former British Tennis Star (which went nowhere) the murdered Lady Di lookalike Jill Dando and even Olivia Neutron Bomb before Travolta impelled her to superstar status in Grease as well as the annual reissuing of his Xmas Hit ‘Mistletoe and Wine’ which is overtly religious. The Young Ones stole the name of their show from Cliff’s movie of the same name – God knows how many times the BBC have broadcast the clip of him singing the song of the same name to a young Susan Hampshire – likeable song that it is. There was a time when a new Cliff Movie had the same drawing power at British cinemas as the latest from Elvis but I understand his only American hit was Devil Woman. Recently he has been treated shamefully by the British Elite and his recent Court victory against the evil BBC is thus well deserved.
Ray,
I don’t recall claiming Jordan Peterson followed Jesus. Last I checked he hadn’t even claimed to. I did draw a conclusion. My conclusion was that he has a great outreach to many young people, so we should not needlessly make an enemy of him, but instead should try to share as much Red Pill thinking and God ordained patriarchy concepts with him as possible, since he is preaching to more young people than 1000s of pastors combined. And we should pray for him also. Last I checked he did have real strength. He has tens of millions of people who have watched his videos. We can argue about why, but that didn’t happen without God foreordaining it. So, since God allowed him a global reach to tens of millions of hearts and minds, should we not try to influence him for good? Should we not be wise as serpents? Or should we just criticize the guy all the time, so that he perceives us as having nothing positive to offer him? And never a good word to say about the good things he has done? To ignore that he has done well, and been helpful, just because we don’t agree with him on religion, is to spitefully refuse to give another man honor for the good he has done. I’m not going to nominate him for sainthood, or claim he won’t turn into a devil tomorrow, but for today, I find him to be a strong potentially ally who reaches more young hearts and minds than thousands of churchian pastors combined. He is making history and shaping the future, we would do well to be praying for him and reaching out to him respectfully to influence him towards God and further righteousness.
Jordan Peterson,
In case you read this, I have said a prayer for you, I respect the great work that you are doing, and would like to help you if I could. Keep up the good work. May God go with you in your fight. Also, check out the rest of Dalrock’s site. There is a wealth of great stuff here.
Lol, pontification will get you nowhere. Hate is a mighty fine word, taken with a pinch of salt. Taking a sledgehammer to feminist ideology when he agrees with most of it is highly doubtful (he does agree with both 1st and 2nd wave). Hardly any sane human being agrees with any 3rd or 4th or whatever wave feminists are on now. Jordan Peterson isn’t hated, he just doesn’t have any real, practical solutions to the hegemony of the feminist nightmare we live under besides telling others to get their lives in order.
When these men come with concrete solutions to the problems outlined on this blog and others, I’ll lend an ear. Till then, they are merely another voice scattered amongst the many.
My life is somewhat in order Boxer. I am not unhealthy, nor near death, nor homeless, nor on welfare. My room is tidy. I have moved on and found my own niche within which I can live my own life on my own terms. That really is good enough for me.
@Dalrock: “the angel in the house” is most assuredly a Victorian trope–a trope most fully fleshed in an E.M. Forster novel. No need to reach back into literary history when the period’s namesake explains it, “Defender of the Faith” and all. Likewise who’s been the putative defender since 1953?
Sharkly — “Last I checked he did have real strength. He has tens of millions of people who have watched his videos. We can argue about why, but that didn’t happen without God foreordaining it.”
Tens of millions of people wait daily upon the word of Kim Kardashian too. That doesn’t mean Kim has real strength — which can ONLY come from God. NEVER from worldly popularity.
Soon, the ENTIRE planet will wait daily upon the word of the Anti-Christ. He will be vastly persuasive, including to ‘Christians’. The ‘real strength’ he demonstrates in drawing millions/billions to his side does not come from God. It comes from satan and from satan’s world, and thus is ephemeral and without lasting power.
God allows/foreordains that many evil persons hold temporary power in this world, including vast popularity on the internet. You insist this constitutes ‘real strength’ although your fan-boi infatuation with Jordan — the Classicist and non-Christian — demands that he be endowed with zeal from the lap of God. Because he’s your guy and you want it to be.
You are argumentative and rebellious when being made to confront your own false statements — here, e.g., that a person not serving Christ still is endowed with spiritual strength, wisdom, and understanding such that he should be feted and followed, instead of persons already designated by God as His advocates and representatives. This is a subset of the tactics of Duggie Wilson: turning folks to himself, and away from authentic servants and counselors. Shutting the mouths of the prophets and guiding the sheep to the wisdoms of Jung and Plato. Ptooey.
@info What’s your thoughts on the common perception on the fact that they banned fun in England and America.
Pure projection by those that hated them. The Puritans had a lot more music fun and dancing than the Anglicans did.
As well as what they did to Easter or Christmas?
Have to clear out the deadwood to make room for God’s ordained holy days (found in the Bible, unlike Christmas and Easter)
And the charge that they hate aesthetics.
Never heard that charge. I find it very unlikely. If you are dancing and singing and enjoying life, why would you eschew beauty? If you want gargoyles, go look at a Catholic cathedral.
Also about Christmas and Easter, the Puritans found them to have no Biblical support as practiced, but to be full of native English paganism and ancient polytheistic remnants. Since Christmas and Easter are nowhere commanded in the Bible, it was easier to jettison them entirely; as long as Christmas and Easter are practiced, the Roman pope has his toehold.
God lets many things happen He doesn’t want. A large following is not a guarantee of success in His eyes. Are you now going to argue that all mega church pastors are on a completely proper path, such as Joel Osteen?
Keep in mind which path is highly populated. Hint, it is not the one to Heaven.
Mycroft, no holy days are mandated for Christians. Even Sunday is not (and it is definitely not “The Sabbath”). Some can make days, as Paul noted, but none are mandated. Anyone is free to ignore Christmas and Easter (Ishtar), but doing so is more than a little stupid if you are trying to reach people since the first is the only one where songs praising God still remain and can be freely played. The latter draws many in and is a chance at beginning the discipleship process.
To ray, & BillyS,
Y’all are twisting my words.
Ray said: Jordan adheres far more to Jung than to Jeshua. Thus he is without real strength.
Sharkly said: “Last I checked he did have real strength. He has tens of millions of people who have watched his videos. We can argue about why, but that didn’t happen without God foreordaining it.”
Ray said: You are argumentative and rebellious when being made to confront your own false statements — here, e.g., that a person not serving Christ still is endowed with spiritual strength, …
You are just being contentious ray. You said he didn’t have real strength, I pointed out that he did, and that God even allowed it to be that way, then you switch the topic to spiritual strength, and yet call me argumentative when you argue with some strawman made up in your head of things I didn’t say.
BillyS says: God lets many things happen He doesn’t want. A large following is not a guarantee of success in His eyes. Are you now going to argue that all mega church pastors are on a completely proper path, such as Joel Osteen?
No, BillyS, I am not going to argue that success is a sign of God’s approval. I never have. You’re also fighting a strawman made of things I did not say and do not believe. I believe that God promises that those who are his true children will often suffer. I quit the megachurch. You’re preaching to the choir.
I just pointed out that, even as an unsaved man, Jordan Peterson is doing a lot of good, and yet some of Y’all are too niggardly to acknowledge any thanks or respect for him. Your disrespect for other men made in Gods image, even when they do better than many self-professed Christians, just make others less likely to respect you, and they see that you are also unwilling to honor other men. For your criticisms of Jordan Peterson to seem level minded, you also need to be able to acknowledge that he does much good also, otherwise you just sound contemptuous.
BillyS, when Christmas and Easter are full to the brim with old pagan practices, it doesn’t make sense to the Puritan to celebrate it on the off chance you can make a convert. Do you go into a gay bar to convert the gays?
We agree that Sunday is not the Sabbath. Neither is Saturday. However, the idea that Christians have no commanded holy days is not supported by a close reading of Scripture. The one verse that appears to say that, doesn’t. Did you know that the words in italics are ones that the translators added? Take the italics words out of that verse and read it again. Pay attention to the original Greek text, and the variant translations of the different words. Read it so it flows and makes sense. Suddenly you see that it says “Let no man judge you… sabbaths and new moons … EXCEPT the Body of Christ.” That is, the Body of Christ very much has the right to judge you in matters of sabbaths, new moons, and holy days. But no outsider can.
Apostle Paul went to great effort to be in Jerusalem for Passover and the other Holy Days, as testified in the Acts and the Epistles. Jesus kept the Sabbaths and Holy Days. Other than that one verse that has been misread, where does it imply that the holy days are done away with?
The prophet Isaiah and Zechariah said that in the age to come, every nation will have to keep sabbaths and new moons, and whoever doesn’t attend the feast of tabernacles will have rain with-held. But Christians are exempt? Does this mean the world in the future will be a non-Christian world?
Isaiah 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one
sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith Jehovah.
Zechariah 14
16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations
which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the
King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain;
there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come
not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations
that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.