(That is Zoism, the politically incorrect term for primitive religion, not Zionism, the theory that Jews need a homeland and heavy weapons because people keep trying to kill them)
Theoretically, most western people still consider themselves Christian – including those that think that Jesus gay married Buddha and from time to time the loving couple visit earth in a flying saucer. But it is not the Christianity of 1950 or 1960. In the period 1900 to 1970, “Christianity” underwent changes that would have rendered it scarcely recognizable to anyone from the past two millenia, changes that render it psychologically inconsistent and no longer viable as religion. Christianity’s time has ended, and the question is what system shall replace it, the main contenders now being Islam, itself afflicted by a related deadly ailment, and state sponsored Gaia worship. Mormonism and Orthodox Judaism are the healthiest remaining deistic religions, and will win in the long run if deism wins, but it is not obvious that deism will win.
An essential part of the definition of Zoism is that it is a magical belief system that resembles those of savages. The term is part of the now forbidden frame work for understanding cultures and civilizations that assumes that civilization is better, that some races and cultures are better than others due to race and or culture, and that savages are apt to be savage, simple minded, cruel, ignorant, and self destructive.
Unwin categorizes religious belief in four levels:
- Zoism – subhuman, animal level culture.A zoistic society has no religious beliefs – it is not that they do not believe in the supernatural, but rather that they do not believe in the natural. At a zoistic level of culture all influential and high prestige people engage in magical thinking, attributing to themselves and other people capabilities rationalists would consider supernatural. They dispose of the dead like garbage, and do not tend the graves of the dead.
- Manism. Some special men are attributed supernatural powers, much more than regular men. These men engage in mystical chants, and rattle magical stones and necklaces, as for example, the expert witness in a silicone or asbestos lawsuit. These special men can smell out other men who use their magical powers to do harm, thus witchfinders and radioactive pollution.
- Deism: We all know what deism is. Deism with god far away, a god who dumped problems on us and commands us to solve them as best we can, is pretty close to being rationalism.
- Rationalism: There is no supernatural, or if there is it is far, far away, and long, long ago, in the next world, not this one.
Notable exponents of Zoism are Oprah, and the best selling book “The Secret”. “The Secret” is teaching the popular message that optimism will cause magic, that if you expect good things to happen they will.
If you expect good things to happen, you may well be more inclined to take the risk of trying to make them happen, but this is not what “The Secret” preaches. It preaches that you can do magic, that good things will be caused by your thoughts, not by an empirical chain of cause and effect wherein your thoughts cause you to act, and your actions cause good things to happen.
Unwin’s studies of various societies suggests that where paternity is uncertain or unimportant, where fathers lack authority, societies tend drift down the scale of religions, from rationalism to Zoism, hence the death of Christianity. Patriarchal socities tend to move up the scale, matrilineal societies down the scale. Abrahamic religions are the religions of patriarchs.
Christianity used to be an unambiguously patriarchal religion. From the death of Jesus to before the second world war all Christians, all of them, one hundred percent believed, or at least made a pretense of believing, that at marriage the wife promised to love honor and obey till death do us part. All of them, one hundred percent believed, or at least made a pretense of believing, that a divorced women should not remarry, nor should a man marry a divorced woman. They notoriously tended to weasel around this in practice, but hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue. All Christians, all of them, one hundred percent believed, or at least made a pretense of believing, that in marriage a man and a woman consented to sex once and forever, that the wife had no right to withhold sexual gratification from the husband, nor the husband from the wife, that sex in marriage did not require continuing mutual consent, rather, to abstain from sex required mutual consent.
The Christian position on consent sounds in form as equalist as any modern leftist could desire, but in practice, because of unadmitted large differences between men and women, tended to favor the authority of the husband and undermine the power of the wife.
However the contrary position, that sex requires continuing mutual consent, as well as empowering the wife, necessarily leads to the result that marriage requires continuing mutual consent, necessarily leads to no fault divorce at will, abolishes marriage as Christians understood marriage for two thousand years.
These three positions:
- That the wife honors and obeys,
- that divorce is forbidden (especially for females),
- and that withholding sex from one’s husband or wife is forbidden,
are social conservatism. For two thousand years, Christianity was socially conservative.
One cannot today find a single Church that maintains these principles, and it is hard to find a Christian rightist so extreme as to endorse any of these principles. From everyone endorsing all three positions we have gone to no one endorsing any of these positions, with most of the change occurring in my lifetime.
There are some churches that equivocally tell us that the husband should “lead”, but the marriage oath did not say “follow”, it said “obey”. In my marriage, I am the boss and always have been, and any marriage where the husband is not the boss, is apt to fall apart pretty quickly. You will not find any Church that says the husband should be the boss.
Today, there are no Christian social conservatives, none. If we are to revive social conservatism, must revive it on Darwinian grounds, or perhaps on the basis of a religious or quasi religious movement as yet unimagined.
If you abolish marriage (what social conservatives mean by marriage) empirically the consequence is apt to be the abolition of Abrahamic religions. Abrahamic religions caused socially conservative marriage, and correlation suggests that socially conservative marriage caused Abrahamic religions.
In a previous post I gave a more detailed account of these various kinds and levels of religion, and other examples of zoistic thinking by influential and powerful people in our society.
The distinguishing feature of Zoistic thinking is that mere desire or belief is sufficient to allegedly be the cause of the effect, without any need for the Zoist to provide a material explanation of cause and effect. Bad beliefs supposedly lead directly to bad outcomes and good beliefs supposedly lead directly to good outcomes without any real effort to provide a material account of belief causing actions and actions directly causing effects. Thus, for example, black criminality and female unreliability is supposedly caused by people expecting blacks to be criminal and females unreliable. Conversely, all government programs supposedly accomplish their intended effect, even if the intended effect is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to accomplish. For example Obamacare will supposedly accomplish numerous logically incompatible objectives, because it creates numerous bureaucracies to accomplish these objectives and tasks them to create regulations to accomplish all these logically contradictory objectives simultaneously. Costs are budgeted on the assumption that these bureaucracies will successfully square the circle.
Zoistic societies tend to high levels of conflict, eventually erupting in high levels of violence, because if anything bad happens, it is supposedly someone’s fault, someone caused the bad thing by thinking bad thoughts, with no need to provide any causal mechanism, any concrete deeds, wherein this bad person’s bad thoughts caused bad consequences through bad deeds. Consider, for example, the various pollution, medical malpractice, and discrimination lawsuits. One does not have to do anything concrete to discriminate or pollute.
The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) regulations on micro particulates are a good example of this. The EPA finds it unnecessary to provide any evidence of concrete deeds that may have raised dust levels, nor concrete evidence that the dust has harmful consequences. Insufficient faith in the EPA is supposedly sufficient to cause harmful levels of dust, and proclamation by authority is sufficient to prove dust harmful. Supposedly the proclamation is based on empirical “studies”, but ordinary mortals are not allowed to see the contents of these studies, providing the nominal form of empiricism and rationalism, but not the substance. The EPA is regulating not dust, which is in practice difficult or impossible to regulate, for reasons painfully familiar, but dangerous thoughts about dust. The EPA therefore, makes state sponsored Zoism mandatory.