Christianity brought us values that are so elevated, and so world- denying, that it seems not to be practically applicable in the brutal reality that we live in today. I do not deny Christ and I do not deny that his actions are the mark of divinity in his nature.
But the nature of mankind is by and large primitive, far removed from the divine. We may strive for it individually, but as a civil society, we simply cannot. We have a flock to tend to, and to protect, with arms if need be. Civil societies must strive for a different set of virtues.
I have, for some time, been made aware of the rather spiteful term; Christian cucks. The term cuck is obviously derogatory and the individuals using it shows an obvious contempt for such traits. A person using such a term would be inclined to favour other virtues. But then what does cuck mean?
It is urban slang and the strict definition I found online states the following; "A man who is desperate for acceptance, approval, and affection from women. This desperation has led to the compromise of his beliefs and values, the desecration of his dignity and self-worth, and his inability to stand up for himself and what he deserves as a human being, eg. loyalty, fidelity, and honesty in a romantic relationship."
The term has now acquired a somewhat wider meaning. Since it applies also to people who are not just seeking approval from some woman, but perhaps also society, crowd, circle of friends etc. The ultimate Christian cuck seems in this regard, among American fictional characters, to be Ned Flanders in the Simpsons series. He is kind-hearted, pillar of society, devout Christian and in many ways a man with qualities many should strive towards. It’s just that he takes it a bit too far. In good Christian spirit, he asks himself what Christ would do. And what did Christ do? He let himself be humiliated, flogged and killed. He put up no resistance.
Many Christians may see this as a virtue to strive towards, or they just desperately want to appear as good and virtuous people. I suspect many of them would be more interested in appearances than real virtue. I would be inclined to believe that when the going gets tough, they would probably be the first to fold.
In our world, Jesus may look like a cuck, but you could also argue that Jesus was the complete opposite of a cuck. He stood up for his convictions and payed the ultimate price for it. He didn’t look for approval from some crowd, or the society of his time. He was an active and uncompromising critic of it.
Christian cucks with political power – a recipe for disaster
The former leader of the Christian Democrats Knut Arild Hareide is our own cuck of cucks. He can’t get enough Islam in our country. The more Muslims the better, all in the name of compassion. But I don’t believe in his compassion, I believe that he is a hypocrite. I could believe him if he and his family actually lived in one of those «enriched neighbourhoods». But he doesn’t. He is one of many in the elite who wants multiculturalism for everybody else but themselves.
Hareide wants to compete with the socialists in virtue signaling. Because the relativists and postmodernists have their own take on altruism. What better way of doing that than to join their ranks. Yes , he wanted to take his party into a left leaning direction, and for once he actually stood for something, I’ll give him that. But he ended up being voted down, and the party remains right of center and with a new leader who is himself as cucked as many other Christians are.
Christian democrats all over the western world are crying out to help refugees in the worst possible way. It is expensive for the tax payer and inefficient, because bringing them here is much more expensive than helping them where they should be. Crime is exploding, and we are forced by our very own societies to compromise on our culture. Christian holidays are toned down or outright banned in some cases. Pointing out the logical fallacy in this policy makes no difference to them. Their bleeding hearts have taken over and logic is out the window.
The consequences of this altruism, or appearing as if to emulate Christ on a societal level, is that we give up ourselves, our culture, our heritage and our people to another ruthless culture who will take advantage of our feebleness.
For the good that I would, I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
St. Paul considered it such that his sinful nature prevented him from reaching Christ’s nature, so he developed a theology that justified man through faith alone. This may be a simplification on my part, but nevertheless his theological perspective seems to allow people to remain somewhat true to their «sinful» nature, not seeking an impractical and ultimately damaging altruism, and thus in a sense uncucking Christianity.
I do not prescribe to a traditional interpretation of Christianity but I acknowledge the altruism of Christ. I think however, that currently it isn't applicable in a civil society. Even if I don’t prescribe to the traditional "theological solution" around altruism developed by St. Paul, I acknowledge its significance and importance. If Christians would be true to traditional theology, they would already be uncucked.
It may be that altruism can be applied in our society some time in the future, under other societal conditions. But as the way our world is today, we need a Christianity which is compassionate but without losing its firm grip in reality.
There is a term in the Hindu religion, Dharma, of which we do not find any equivalent in English or Norwegian. The closest translation, although not truly fulfilling, could be religious duty or virtue. Dharma is your fate, it is your lot in life, it is correct action at every given circumstance. Everything and everyone has a place and role in the universe. Dharma is set by gender, profession or class (cast), but may be subject to change with age. You are bound by this duty and your fate is largely set.
When applying this term in a Christian context, one should do so with caution. We must remember the difference in perspective, for Christianity promotes the idea of free will. But I don’t believe that our will is completely free, our choices are governed largely by our own nature. Some individuals may choose a life striving for the «Dharma of Christ», and they are free to do so if they wish. They have no family commitments to hinder them, but most people will choose a worldly family- life and by that your «Dharma» is set. You must go all-in and commit to the duty of being a father or a mother. Altruism, which undoubtedly plays part in Christianity, plays no part in this.
Dalai Lama said, and I would be inclined to agree with him, that altruism can take us far, but no further than what is practical. I suspect his perspective on this is related to the Buddhist understanding of the Dharma.
There is a world-denying aspect in many religions, and it is the mark of the divine in my view. But I maintain that we as human beings are by nature somewhat distanced from the divine and must relate to our earthly reality in a practical manner. So did Buddhism. Buddhism was, in it’s early days, so world- denying that absolute chastity and celibacy was required by all members. The result was that they were slowly dying out and Buddhism was on the path of obliteration. They realized before it was too late that they had to allow its members to marry and have children. They had to develop and adjust their theology to allow for this. They were forced to deal with the reality of this world.
The Sikh religion too, through Muslim aggression, had to adjust and therefore developed in a militaristic direction, in order to survive. They are still militaristic today, but very chivalrous, proud and in my view a glorious religion.
We are so often blamed in the west for the crusades, but they were only an answer to centuries of Muslim onslaught. When reality comes knocking on the door, it is time to wake up, and in some circumstances one must fight. The Dharma calls on us to fight for our family, for our kin, for our nation, and we cannot be stopped by hypocritical Christian cucks.