Book Sale

Wednesday 30 September 2020

Satanic Feminism Two: The Wicked Subverted The West With Story


How do you change a western world where blasphemy is illegal?

By way of subversion.

In the first instalment of this series we discussed how the wicked decided that the West needed to change. This is a statement that many people struggle with because progress towards a greater future is just assumed by many people, whether on the left or the right. This is one of the reasons why it is so hard to have this conversation with some people, because so many people do not understand just how inverted the world in which we live is, they do not realize that we have given up much that is good, and received bad in return. Most people are avowed modern supremacists, who think our modern society is just inherently superior to the past. So, what I am going to do here in part two of this series is first give a simple illustration which highlights just how inverted out modern culture is, and then I will begin to summarize how the West was made from Christendom into Satandom, with more to follow in future articles.  

People are generally poorly equipped to question the cultural assumptions of the society they grew up in. In an era where history is poorly taught, this inability is only exacerbated. So, perhaps I can step outside of our topic to use an illustration from C.S. Lewis that will help us here. In his powerful book Mere Christianity, Lewis makes a series of arguments that show the intellectual soundness and solidness of the Christian faith. While making his case for the superiority of the Christian perspective on sexuality morality,  to try and highlight just how fallen his culture was, he reaches into what he considers to be the realm of absurdity to make his point:

You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act—that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us?”[1] 

What I find fascinating about this illustration here is that when C.S. Lewis first published this in 1952 the entire premise of his illustration was ridiculous; and that is precisely the point. Lewis is seeking to highlight in Big Neon Letters that something had gone wrong with the sexual appetite of the western man, and the way he can think to best describe this is to highlight how crazy it would be to the man of 1952 to see a world where people gathered around to watch food revealed to a lusting audience. I find this so fascinating because without intending to, Lewis has described our western world today. This is what many competition cooking shows are: food lusting events where people gather around to drool over the fancily prepared blow torched whatever it is. We are a culture of gluttons. Whether in the Church or outside the Church, many of our instincts for what is good, and what is not have been thoroughly inverted.

Meditate on this for a second: the most ridiculous morally dystopian world that C.S. Lewis described is the world we currently live in. Evil is wickedness, it is rebellion, it is that which stands against God, but it is also craziness, insanity, stupidity, because at heart evil is rebellion against God and his good order. That which creates chaos is foolishness, foolishness often with wicked intent. So, the fact that our society reflects in high definition detail the absurdity of C.S. Lewis’s illustration is a big sign we have been directed down an evil path, even more so, than when Lewis was alive.

Lewis’ world was not perfect, by any means, it was the era of Stalin, Hitler, and of Churchill bombing civilian centres like Dresden, and leaders lying their peoples into destructive wars, and much, much more. But it is clear we have digressed even further since Lewis’ day in many ways. If we have not become more violent, we have become more decadent, and there are scores of the unborn dead who would dispute that we are not more violent…if they had a voice that is. Now that we have established that we are not necessarily morally superior to our predecessors, we will reflect on how we got here.

Let’s situate ourselves in the early modern period, England in the 17th Century. This is an era where blasphemy is still quite illegal, and even if you subscribe to one of the various Christian sects, you may still be labelled a heretic, or dissenter and punished. In various decades whether or not you were a Presbyterian, Anglican or Catholic was of imminent consequence, and if you were Baptist then in every decade of the 17th Century England you were unpopular[2]. Legislation like the Test Acts of 1673 were designed to weed out Catholics and other dissenters from public office.[3] This was the era that the famous Baptist preacher, John Bunyan was imprisoned for unauthorized preaching,[4] that Cromwell replaced the monarchy for a time, that Anglicanism was seeking to establish it’s hold over England, and various other Christian movements vied for legitimacy, if not supremacy. It was an era where blasphemy was dangerous.

Indeed, even the famous Acts of Toleration in 1689 did not grant full religious rights to dissenters, even dissenters who were thoroughly Christian, like Bunyan.[5] So how do you direct a western world toward Satanic values, when to even express such values is punishable in many ways?


You change society by telling stories, and you do it in such a way that you can get around the blasphemy codes. This is precisely how Satanic feminists and socialists did it from early on.

We all recognize the power of story. Hollywood is famous for pushing certain agendas through the medium of story-telling. Both good, and bad, but mostly bad. I remember growing up one of my favourite films was John Wayne’s, The Green Berets. I used to watch it as a kid. But when I got a little bit older, I realized it was some over-the-top pro-Vietnam war propaganda. Hollywood and propaganda are well known bedfellows, indeed, much of our modern morality has been driven by the values represented on the silver screen. Some people may wonder what comes first: the values as presented in the movies or the movies that present the values? Well in some cases it might be both, but regarding feminism there was a clear push from certain literary figures to influence society in a certain direction through story.

Per Faxneld’s well researched work Satanic Feminism: Lucifer as Liberator of Woman in Nineteenth-Century Culture shows a large proportion of how this change was pushed. In fact, part of his case is that Satanism has not been given the credit it deserves for our modern society. He shows how Satanic feminists subverted the idea of Lucifer being the agent of wickedness in the garden, and transformed him into the ‘Lightbringer’, the ‘Prometheus’, the enlightener, or liberator and specifically the liberator of women. And he shows how this was instrumental in destabilizing Christianity’s dominant role in West.[6]

Faxneld[7] traces this trend as far back as Milton. Though he does not claim that Milton was a Satanic revolutionary himself, he suggests that when you combine Milton’s ambiguous representation of the devil in his Paradise Lost, with the context in which Milton was a republican revolutionary and Oliver Cromwell’s private secretary, you can draw the conclusion that Milton is making the revolutionary Lucifer the hero of the story, rather than the villain. Afterall, was Milton not himself a revolutionary and part of a plot to overthrow a king? Does he not also present the Devil as simply convincing the woman to eat the fruit to raise her lot, and achieve equality? Something many moderns see as righteous and just, and a foundation stone of republican ideals.  

But this conjecture aside, explicitly “…the phenomenon of writers declaring themselves to be of the Devil’s party first arose among German and English-speaking Romantic poets in the late eighteenth-century and would soon become observable all over the western world.”[8] It is important to understand that this was not a fringe movement in literary circles, rather it was “…both highly visible and stemming directly from writers that were among the most famous of their time.”[9] Just as today’s Luciferian morality is pushed by the most famous and most loved actors and performers…

Milton himself argued that his intent was to ‘justify the ways of God to men’ and not at all to glorify lucifer”[10], and scholars generally accept this as correct. However, this did not stop others interpreting Milton’s Lucifer as the ideal revolutionary and being inspired to write with this intention in mind. For example, inspired by Milton,

Goethe’s poem ‘Prometheus’ (written in 1772-74, published 1789), in which the Greek Titan expressed his defiance of God (Zeus) and relished his own independence, displays a congruent spirit of rebellion against an oppressive divinity, but cloaks it in a less offensive Greek garb.[11]

Goethe took what he saw in Milton to another level. Faxneld lists an impressive array of writers who were similarly inspired by Milton’s Lucifer: Edmund Burke, Mary Wollstonecraft, William Blake, Schiller, Goethe, Robert Burns, and William Godwin, among others.[12] Godwin even wrote, “Poetical readers have commonly remarked Milton’s devil to be of considerable virtue.”[13] He then goes on to argue,

[Why] did he rebel against his maker? It was, as he himself informs us, because he saw no sufficient reason, for that extreme inequality of rank and power which the creator assumed. It was because his prescription and precedent form no adequate ground for implicit faith.[14]

In other words, Satan presumed to be as great as the one who was better than him. Godwin, here, has identified Lucifer as his ideal hero, who stands against what he considers illegitimate and inherited authority.[15] The ultimate symbol of revolution! In the circles which Godwin ran in, his views on Lucifer were considered acceptable.[16] Indeed, Godwin’s feminists bona fides are top notch, as he is notable for later marrying the “first” feminist, Mary Wollstonecraft, herself.

So, whatever Milton intended, is besides the point. The entire corpus of

Romantic Satanism was based on an interpretation of the Miltonic Lucifer as a hero, and there are instances where feminist scholars themselves return to Milton and apply their own combination of Romantic Satanism and late-modern ideologies of women’s liberation.[17]

In other words, by arguing from the Devil’s perspective, unknowingly or not, Milton inspired an entire following of literature gurus to take up that argument and carry it on to its logical conclusions. What did they say that Satan argued for specifically?  

In Gilbert and Gubar’s reading of Milton, Satan and Eve share a preoccupation with equality, and both stand to gain from a rebellion against the hierarchical structure epitomized by God the Father and Adam the Husband. This interpretation of Paradise Lost, they further claim, was widespread among nineteenth-century woman authors…their basic assertion is indeed accurate.[18]

So where did this grand movement of feminist equality in the West stem from, according to Paxneld? The Bible, as many modern Christians like to assert? No, at least not in the sense that they intend. Rather, it was inspired by Lucifer’s offer to the women in the Garden, as expounded by Milton, and interpreted through the Romantic poets. Lucifer’s offer to the woman of equality with God, and usurpation of her husband’s role was the impetus for feminist revolution; the literal beginning of the modern chant: “Down with the patriarchy!” This always meant, down with God and man, and it was literally inspired by the Devil. The prophecy of Scripture was surely fulfilled: “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he will rule over you.”[19]

Milton’s story, inspired many, literally Satanically minded people, to take up a cause, that is nowhere spoken of in a positive light in the Bible; that of equality, and specifically feminist equality. Milton did not originate the idea of equality, nor even the modern conception of it, but he did inspire radically minded people to take up the torch of enlightening the world with this Promethean idea.[20]

There are great examples of this, but the poet that I want to focus in on, and one who stands above many in influence, is Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822). Shelley, who married Mary Shelley, the famous author of Frankenstein, and who was Godwin’s and Wollstonecraft’s son-in-law, was not ambiguous about his love for Satan at all:

Nothing can exceed the grandeur and the energy of the character of the Devil as expressed in Paradise Lost…Milton’s Devil as a moral being is far superior to his God, as one who perseveres in some purpose which he has conceived to be excellent, in spite of adversity and torture, is to one who in the cold security of undoubted triumph inflicts the most horrible revenge upon his enemy, - not from any mistaken notion of bringing him to repent of a perseverance in enmity, but with the open and alleged design of exasperating him to deserve new torments.”[21]

Shelley is smitten with the devil. This is not to say that Shelley, or even many other Satanic feminists, genuinely believed in the being called Lucifer, many did not. But that is beside the point, the issue is that they were inspired by him and all that he stood for. They wanted to push society in a direction which was consistent with Satanic values, rejection of a biblical worldview being one of those values. For some, their lack of belief only made some of them less restrained in their approach to push against the structures of society, and they particularly pushed their views through the mediums of story and poetry.

Shelley’s most notable example of this is his poem The Revolt of Islam, dedicated to his equally famous wife, and capturing her father’s sympathy for the devil, and her mother’s feminist ideas.[22] Though Shelley does not use any of the traditional names of Satan in the poem, it is evident who he is writing about, and that he presents Lucifer as the hero:

A serpent battles with an eagle in the sky, but is defeated and falls from the heaven. These two animals are the shapes taken by the spirits of good and evil respectively: ‘Two powers o’er mortal things dominion hold/Ruling the world with a decided lot, Immortal, all-pervading, manifold.’ The serpent is identified as the Morning Star, making it obvious just who the figure is.[23]

Consistent with the writer’s loyalties, it is the Serpent who is identified as the good guy by the peoples of the world, in Shelley’s poem.[24] God is blamed as the originator of death, earthquakes and blight, and “his enemy the serpent in the benefactor of mankind and the enemy of all oppressors.”[25] It is abundantly clear who Shelley views as the liberator. Can you now see the inversion at work?

Shelley did this cleverly, as blasphemy is still punishable in this period. He “made God the author of evil and Satan the bringer of good, while simultaneously removing himself to some extent from Christian mythology by not using their actual names.”[26] It is thinly veiled blasphemy, designed to subvert in a Christian world.  

This serpent, that is cast to the earth, takes on a sexual relationship with a woman. This is significant that the freedom loving Satan’s primary ally in the story is a woman, because Shelley is harking back to Milton, and the Serpent in the Garden with Eve. In the poem, “Woman and Satan are both part of nature, while God and males are connected to a hierarchical, unjust civilisation.”[27] In other words: down with the patriarchy, but less obnoxiously presented than a modern feminist.

The main part of the poem presents two siblings, Cyntha and her brother Laon, who struggle against a tyrannical sultan, for liberation. The story presents Cyntha as a breaker of gender stereotypes, hell bent of the liberation of women, and as the leader of the insurrection that takes the fight to the oppressive Sultan. The revolt fails, however, and Cyntha and her brother are burned at the stake, as revolutionaries often were in the past.[28]

In this story, Shelley was actively seeking to push against the positions of the Church on women’s issues and gender roles, and presenting Cyntha in the heroes role as the rider on the glorious steed who rides to her brothers rescue highlights this.[29] As Shelley tells us he writes “in the view of kindling within the bosoms of my readers a virtuous enthusiasm for…doctrines of liberty and justice.”[30] Read: social justice, but before the term was coined.

Shelley believed that one day all gender distinctions would be abolished, and so he presented this “utopia” in some of his works.[31] While it did not sell well by itself, Revolt went on to influence many later nineteenth century feminists, and was even described by some as the greatest feminist poem written in English.[32] It was also disseminated widely in collections of Shelley’s writing, and was not his only work so explicitly lauding feminist ideals.[33]

Of course, more examples can be given, and Faxneld does provides many. But we can start to see how society was slowly influenced towards change; through story.

Stories are rarely, if ever, neutral. Most of us think that propaganda has only been pushed more blatantly in modern Hollywood films as the left gains more ascendancy. But it has always been an undercurrent of pop culture and indeed film making, and hard left agendas are anything but new. To paraphrase the comedian Owen Benjamin’s analysis on Mary Poppins, for example: this beloved children’s classic is about a witch who flies into town, to help administer behaviour modifying drugs to children, who are always behaving badly, because their mother is more focused on getting voting rights, than raising her kids. And, rather than admonish the mother, the film admonishes the father for taking his job seriously. This is blatant feminist propaganda, woven into a beloved Children’s fantasy tale.

These ideas have been subtly and often not so subtly, pushed into people’s homes, from at least the times of the Romantics. As many historians have noted, the success of Christianity in the West did not eliminate Satanic religion or ideas, it simply pushed it underground. How do underground movements gain power? Through subversive means, and frankly many of us in the West, and in the Church have been slow to wake up to this.

Satanic Feminists used story to help subvert and invert the West. People imbibed them whether in prose, verse, or novel form, or any other media. And this has accelerated with film. Indeed, the conservatives who eschew story telling should learn from this, our entire society was undone by story tellers with wicked intent. Was it one of the Greek philosophers who said control the poets, control society? At the very least, we need to recognize how this process was done, so that we can think how to undo it.

Story is powerful, and it can be used by either side. We need to recognize when it is being used against us, and it is a tool we have to take up, if we wish to see evil’s work undone.

List of References and Notes:

[1] Lewis, C.S. 2002, Mere Christianity, Harper Collins Publishers: p96

[2] Ah, the good old days of all the Baptists standing side by side against the man!

[3] Trevelyan, G.M. 1997, Life Under the Stuarts, St Edmundsbury Press: p338. 

[4] Weaver, C.D. 2008, In Search of the New Testament Church: The Baptist Story, Mercer University Press: pp11-12.

[5] Ibid, p12.

[6] Faxneld, P.2017, Satanic Feminism: Lucifer as Liberator of Woman in Nineteenth-Century Culture, Oxford University Press: p5.

[7] Ibid, p75.

[8] Ibid, p74.

[9] Ibid, p74.

[10] Ibid, p75.

[11] Ibid, p76.

[12] Ibid, pp75-76.

[13] Ibid, p76.

[14] Ibid, p77.

[15] Ibid, p77.

[16] Ibid, p77.

[17] Ibid, p19.

[18] Ibid, p19.

[19] Genesis 3:16.

[20] It is important for the reader to note, that I am aware that there were currents arguing for different versions of society wide equality predating, and also concurrent with Milton. I have written about that in other works and am continuing to write about that in other works. At this stage, I have traced the idea of “Equality” in the sense that we think of it: “All men being created equal” to Nicholar of Susa, it is transmitted through Hobbes, and is exposited by Locke, who had great influence on the American founders who nearly exactly quote Locke in the Declaration of Independence. So, I am in no way arguing that Milton invented the idea of equality, I am showing that he put it, in its right context: as a Luciferian ideal, not an actual righteous ideal. For further discussions about the idea of equality, refer to my article (here, or here), read Martin Van Creveld’s, Equality the Impossible Quest, or you can continue with this series, and another I am writing on where equality comes from. It is fundamental for this piece to recognize this: the great socialist and feminist movement, which has wrought great change in our society were not inspired by Christianity, but were deliberate attacks on Christianity, which is patriarchal and hierarchical, not egalitarian.

[21] Faxneld, P.2017, Satanic Feminism: Lucifer as Liberator of Woman in Nineteenth-Century Culture, Oxford University Press: P79.

[22] Ibid, pp80-81.

[23] Ibid, p81.

[24] Ibid, p81.

[25] Ibid p81.

[26] Ibid, p82.

[27] Ibid 82.

[28] Ibid, pp82-83.

[29] Ibid, p83

[30] Ibid, p83.

[31] Ibid, p84.

[32] Ibid, p84

[33] Ibid, p84.


All scripture references are from the ESV translation.

Saturday 19 September 2020

The Danger of the Incel, Is Really The Danger Of Polygamy


“But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2).

When I was in my early twenties I was influenced by a preacher called Mark Driscoll. This was 10 years ago now. Driscoll was quite a radical preacher in some ways, and exhibited some unhealthy leadership styles, as a result his ministry flamed out in a big way. I have not followed his ministry for many years now, but there is one thing that he often said that has really stuck with me: men are like a pickup truck, until you put a load on their back, they don’t drive right, they are bumpy, their grip is lose in the back, but once you put a reasonable load on their back, they drive safe and smooth. Whatever else you can say about Driscoll, he was right about this, and he was right to be seeking to influence young men to get married, work hard, and take on the responsibility of leading their families. This is a basic necessity for most young men to grow into Men.

One thing I remember from those days is that the Young, Restless and Reformed movement was focused on influencing young men to be strong for Jesus, strong for their wives, and strong builders in their local communities. That movement was largely rocked by bad leadership, and hence it has dissipated somewhat, but the need to be steering young western men in the right direction is still there. This is true in many ways, but a very dangerous issue which is now facing the West that needs to be prioritized is that of the Incel, or Involuntary Celibate, male. This is young men who would like to be in relationships and having sex, but aren’t able to make it happen. This problem is going to cause all sorts of issues for the West.

In fact, it is a clearly growing danger, that till this point, appears to be only on the radar of feminists and the fringe man-o-sphere of the internet. Occasionally a conservative commentator will talk about it, usually in a mocking way, which to be honest is understandable to some degree, but I want to take a different approach. I think the problem of the Incel is the result of the unhealthy way we have structured the modern western sexual market place, rather than just a problem of certain individuals not being able to get a date. You can call these guys losers, you can call these guys left behinds, you can call these guys a plethora of things if you want. But that is not going to help us work towards solutions, and we need to find solutions. This issue is going to increasingly become our issue, as in all of society’s issue, and probably quite soon. History, and even societies around the world, teaches us what the dangers of the numbers of such men growing too high, is.

First, let’s explore in more detail what an Incel is? As I said above this stands for Involuntary Celibacy, and is a growing community of young men who are upset at the world because of their inability to have sex. The Incel community actually sprang up in the late 90’s:

…a lonely teenager on the West Coast fired up his dial-up modem to find someone to talk to. He was a shy kid, too introverted to feel fully comfortable in the real world, and he logged on to the early internet’s bare-bones web forums for a sense of connection. There he found friends: other people who were awkward in real life, particularly when it came to sex and dating. The group eventually became a community, one that began using a phrase to describe their romantic troubles — “involuntary celibacy.”[1]

So, the Incel community began as an online support group for people who were having troubles in the dating world. They were people who wanted to be in relationships, to be having sex, enjoying human touch and connection, but found it much harder to achieve than they expected. The reason they found it hard, is because the sexual market place of the modern West has become hyper-efficient and incredibly deregulated, and this often makes people feel incredibly horrible, shunned, and rejected.[2]

While this community is largely and correctly associated with sexless young men today and often right-wing young men, the irony is that it was originally set up by a woman, named Alanna, who is progressive, queer and an active artist.[3] In other words, the precise opposite of any Incel stereotype. There is nothing inherently right-wing or left-wing, progressive or conservative, about seeking support and comfort in other people, it is a thoroughly human endeavour.  

Hence we can all understand why Incel’s would seek for, and long for human connection, and would reach out for it, in any way that they could. Even though this movement is now often associated with extremism and hate, it is important to understand that it was not set up for that purpose. The genesis of the community was really quite benign:  

Incels in the late ’90s, ReformedIncel explains, didn’t see themselves as victims of female cruelty in the way today’s incels do. Many of them were in a rut, a sexual dry spell, and like current incels were seeking support from others with similar experiences.[4]

This is human, this is good. When you are struggling you should look to others for help and support. But though this may have been the case originally, the movement has changed, and it has taken a very dire turn. Rather than being just an online community for support, it has become, at least in some areas of the community, a place for hate, a place for demeaning women in ways that both feminists and Christians can agree to be horrified about. “In the past few years, a subset of straight men calling themselves “incels” have constructed a violent political ideology around the injustice of young, beautiful women refusing to have sex with them.”[5]

And, as is the case in any context of escalating rhetoric, this took a turn for the worst. In 2014, a self-identified Incel went on a killing spree in Isla Vista, California.”[6]

His name was Elliot Rodger. He,

began his attack by stabbing two male roommates and a visiting friend: Cheng Yuan Hong, Weihan Wang, and George Chen. He then drove to the Alpha Phi sorority at the UC Santa Barbara campus, opening fire outside and in other nearby locations. He killed three more people — Katherine Cooper, Christopher Michaels-Martinez, and Veronika Weiss — and wounded 14 more before turning his gun on himself. All of the dead were UCSB students.[7]

In all of the articles that I read about the Incel community, they all noted that this action by Eliot Rodgers was a turning point. Long before this Incel young men had encouraged each other to say and think and even do horrible things, but to more moderate Incels like the aforementioned ReformedIncel, this was the moment they knew that their more moderate side had lost, and parts of the community were taking a very dark turn.

And Elliot Rodgers has not been the only one to a lash out in violence,

The incel ideology has already inspired the murders of at least sixteen people. Elliot Rodger, in 2014, in Isla Vista, California, killed six and injured fourteen in an attempt to instigate a “War on Women” for “depriving me of sex.” (He then killed himself.) Alek Minassian killed ten people and injured sixteen, in Toronto, last month; prior to doing so, he wrote, on Facebook, “The Incel Rebellion has already begun!” You might also include Christopher Harper-Mercer, who killed nine people, in 2015, and left behind a manifesto that praised Rodger and lamented his own virginity.[8]

Now, if you would like to read more about these accounts of the darkening of the Incel community, I refer you to this New Yorker article here, this Vox article here, and this much better Unherd article here (the links are also in the references). There is a heavy feminist bias in these articles, especially the first two, but they all give a similar account of a growing social issue we need to start thinking about how to address. For our purposes in this piece it is important to note that there is a growing number of young men in the West who are being given over to a violent political ideology around the injustices of our modern deregulated sexual market place.[9] Not all Incels would fit into category, as we have noted, but many do. This is not only not surprising it is to be expected, there will never be equality in this world, because it is impossible, but where inequities grow too large, this has serious ramifications for the rest of society.

Effectively what the feminist revolution and sexual revolution, the pill, and abortion have done is caused our Western sexual marketplaces to become a free market zone, where high sexual capital can buy you lots of sex and pleasure. The prettier the woman, the more sexual capital she has. The better looking and more successful a man is, the more he can corner the market on attractive women. This has created a defacto polygamous culture, or more accurately polygynous, society in the West. That is we have created a society where most of the women are hoarded by a much smaller group of men. Since human beings are created for relationship, and sex within a trusting, committed, and loving marriage, this is leaving many young men frustrated.

This is the natural effect of deregulation of sex. In a society where there is none, or very few, sexual mores, the highest value men, will corner the market on many of the highest value women, leaving a growing number of low value men out in the cold, relationally and sexually. As women are the gatekeepers for sex, they will largely drive this market. This is born out in the well known statistic that close to 20% of men, get access to 80% of women on Tinder.[10] Women largely determine who gets to have sex with them, and in today’s world it is easier and easier for them to bypass the guys in their local communities who may not quite cut the mustard, and hone in on the top 20% of men, through dating apps and other means. Before feminists celebrate this seemingly unstoppable power of feminine sexuality, we need to understand that this will turn out very badly for women, and men, and hence society in general. This is creating a ticking time bomb.  

One of the saddest tales of history, is how often you read of different civilisations making the same mistakes as other civilisations prior to them, or around them. Now you can forgive the Aztecs for making the same mistakes at the Sumerians, or the Babylonians making some of the same mistakes at the Egyptians, or even of the Romans making mistakes similar to the Persians. You can excuse much of this to some degree because there was not as much historical knowledge that was easy for all of the leaders of these societies to access, let alone the general populace. Sure, it was there to some degree, but you had to really search it out. Now the information about why past civilisations fell, and what makes society unstable, is very easy to find, in fact it is all over the place, but still largely ignored. But whether it was Augustus in the late first century BC and early first century AD, or the Catholic Church in the early medieval era, or even the regulations on marriage in the Hebrew Old Testament, you can see various efforts of powerful leaders seeking to stabilize their societies by regulating marriage, and making sure their society had a stable base to be founded on.

One of the founding principles of Western civilisation is the family unit, one man, one wife, and their children. The Church was often at pains to stamp out polygamy, and divorce and remarriage as much as it possibly could. The early Church, and the Medieval Church were very strict on divorce and remarriage, and some of this influence lasted until well into the modern era. Yes, the Romans and the Greeks tended to frown on polygamy as well, but between allowing masters to have sex with slaves and owning concubines they effectively allowed it. The Church went much further in seeking to outlaw all of these practices, and was really quite successful. Indeed, one of the reasons for the success of the West can be credited to how well the Church regulated the sexual relationships of its people. Of course, this is in no way to say that every westerner was a chaste, upstanding, righteous person in this regard. But the Church recognized that if sex was deregulated, all hell would break loose. The Bible is filled with warnings about why this is so.

Now, I know that most readers are aware that the Bible teaches that sex is a sacred gift to be expressed and enjoyed in a loving marriage. But what you may not realize is that history and even many cultures today, vindicate the Bible’s teaching on marriage, and show why our society is in such danger right now. You see, this issue is not unique to our modern culture, it is actually quite common. Having large groups of sexually frustrated young men in our society is very dangerous, indeed it is dangerous to any society. There are a plethora of examples that can be given.

Perhaps the most interesting example we can give of this, is the utter destruction and restructuring of much of Europe by several centuries of Viking raids. A lot of people are not aware of this, but an ancient, Scandinavian version of involuntary celibacy was largely behind these raids. A French scholar, Dudo of St. Quention, writing in the 11th century tells us:

Spread out within the huge space between the Danube and the edge of the Sythian Sea, there dwell savage and barbarous peoples, which are said to have sprung forth in various different ways from the island of Scanza, hemmed in on both sides by the Ocean, like a swarm of bees from a hive, or like a sword from a scabbard; as barbarians will…Now these people burn with too much wanton lasciviousness, and with singular depravity debauch and mate with as many women as they please; and so, by mingling together in illicit couplings they generate innumerable children.” [11]

This is a people who are incredibly sexually unrestrained compared to the contemporary Christendom. But when it tells us that “…now these people burn with too much wanton lasciviousness, and with singular depravity debauch and mate with as many women as they please…”, we have to understand, that it was the powerful, the successful, the desirable men who go to do this. Not every man. Many of the younger, and poorer men, went without. Just as in the economy, so in the sexual marketplace; when it is highly de-regulated you end up with the haves, have-nots, and the have-a-lots.  

Dudo goes on to tell us:

When these have grown up, the clamour fiercely against their fathers and their grandfathers, or more frequently against each other, for shares of property; and as they are over-many, and the land they inhabit is not large enough for them to live in, there is a very old custom by which a multitude of youths is selected by lot and expelled into the realms of other nations, to in kingdoms for themselves by fighting, where they can live in uninterrupted peace.”[12]

The results of these male raiders, which is what Viking means, are famous to all of us who are aware of the Viking raids. But Dudo’s description of these men is quite vivid:

For they are exiled by fathers, boldly to batter kings. They are sent away without wealth from their own people, that they may enrich themselves out of the plenty of foreigners. They are deprived of their own lands, that they might be settled undisturbed on those of others. They are expelled as exile, that they may be rewarded as warriors. They are thrust out by their own people that they may share with aliens. They are separated from their own nation, that they may rejoice in possessing others. They are abandoned by their fathers, perhaps never again to be seen by their mothers. The ferocity of the young men is aroused, and the nations are destroyed…“Wives are repeatedly raped, and lamentable led off for the stranger. The whole virgin sex is basely deflowered by those men.”[13]

A seventeenth scholar, Camden makes the same point, and explains that “‘Wikings’ were selected by lot from among the young men of an overpopulated area and sent abroad to avoid civil strife, after they had ‘multiply'd themselves to a burdensom community’.”[14]

These young men were unleashed on the world, with the blessing of their gods, their nation and their fathers, and were sent to ravage foreign lands, and make for themselves wealth, families and lineages. In other words, what we see here, is that young men were driven to rape and pillage by the effect of the highly unregulated sexual market place of their home cultures. The powerful men monopolized everything, money, land, women and more and the young men were sent off to find it elsewhere, which they did, with wanton destruction. The results are burned into the cultural memories of most westerners.

Modern scholars explain the cultural pressures in Scandinavia in the 8th to 11th centuries that drove the Vikings to murderous rampage, raping and pillaging this way:

Because polygynous marriage increases male–male competition by creating a pool of unmarried men, its occurrence within a society is predicted to increase risky status-elevating and sex-seeking behaviours among men, potentially leading to increased rates of murder, theft, rape, social disruption, kidnapping (especially of women), sexual slavery, prostitution, and – among high-status men – risky bids for political power.[15]

As I said, the problem we are facing with Incels is not unique, these trends are based in inherent human desires and needs. Young men are created to desire young women, and to pursue them, if they don’t have healthy ways to achieve this, then this turns bad for a nation, or surrounding nations. Despite what many of the feminists are writing, this is not a phenomenon that exits just in the straight-white-men they love to demonize and vociferously write against. All we have to do is look at the African continent today, to see how destabilizing polygamous cultures are.

Africa serves as a stark warning to the West because polygamy is still a common practice across the African continent, and is deeply engrained in many African countries, and has incredibly harmful effects. For example, in Sudan,

Men in South Sudan typically marry as often as their wealth—often measured in cattle—will allow. Perhaps 40% of marriages are polygamous. “In [our] culture, the more family you have, the more people respect you,” says William, a young IT specialist in search of his second wife (his name, like some others in this article, has been changed). Having studied in America and come back to his home village, he finds that he is wealthy by local standards. So why be content with just one bride?[16]

In Sudan, if you can afford more than one wife, then you will take more than one wife. But look at the effect this has on such societies like Sudan:

Wherever it is widely practised, polygamy (specifically polygyny, the taking of multiple wives) destabilises society, largely because it is a form of inequality which creates an urgent distress in the hearts, and loins, of young men. If a rich man has a Lamborghini, that does not mean that a poor man has to walk, for the supply of cars is not fixed. By contrast, every time a rich man takes an extra wife, another poor man must remain single. If the richest and most powerful 10% of men have, say, four wives each, the bottom 30% of men cannot marry. Young men will take desperate measures to avoid this state.[17]

The result of this is not hard to imagine, because we just saw the result of it in the Viking lands of Scandinavia. If you cannot find a wife in your community, or if you cannot find one the honest way you have to find one the good old-fashioned Viking way. So in Sudan, and similar countries, young men will form bands to raid other communities to steal their cattle, to get the riches they need to find a wife.[18] Or they will go to even greater lengths as well:

This is one of the reasons why the Arab Spring erupted, why the jihadists of Boko Haram and Islamic State were able to conquer swathes of Nigeria, Iraq and Syria, and why the polygamous parts of Indonesia and Haiti are so turbulent. Polygamous societies are bloodier, more likely to invade their neighbours and more prone to collapse than others are. The taking of multiple wives is a feature of life in all of the 20 most unstable countries on the Fragile States Index compiled by the Fund for Peace, an NGO.[19]

How many men have been spurred on to terrorism just to get the notoriety and wealth they needed to start a family? This may seem foreign to us, but this is a reality in many parts of our world, both present, and past. Precisely because they do not adequately regulate the sexual market place, and caused too many young men to turn to wicked means to get what their fathers and wealthier neighbours already have.

So, while to many men the idea of polygamy might sound good, hey if it was ok for King David, why not for a modern business executive right? The truth is that it undermines the ability for your society to function in a healthy way. It creates vast quantities of young men, with nothing to lose, and lots to gain from illicit and dangerous behaviour. It is not hard to see that the West has a ticking time bomb sitting right within its borders, and this is a direct result of the sexual revolution.

So as I said women, your new found sexual power might seem liberating, but your daughters or your granddaughters might suffer terribly from your loose feminist sexual mores, because as we see in history, there is a massive snap back that comes as a result of any social inequity that grows to large. Just as the lavish wealth of the French nobility made the French revolution inevitable, so does the hoarding of women by less and less men, make societal unrest inevitable. The evidence is there, all around in the world today, and all through history. Polygamous societies are dangerous, and the West is now effectively a polygamous society in all but name.

If you read some of the articles on Incels that I have mentioned above, or referenced below you will see that there are some dangerous currents in the Incel movement, and the people who wrote those articles are rightly concerned. But I could not help but note that some of the feminists behind those articles were forgetting that some early feminists could be just as dangerous as some Incels are appearing to be today. Unbeknownst to many people is that the early suffragettes were given to acts of terrorism as well

In the years leading up to the First World War, the suffragettes conducted a ferocious and prolonged bombing campaign across the whole of the United Kingdom; planting improvised explosive devices (or IEDs) in places as varied as Westminster Abbey, St Paul's Cathedral, the Bank of England, the National Gallery, railway stations and many other locations.[20]

Indeed, the first terrorist bomb that that exploded in Ireland in the 20th century was Planted by suffragettes, not the IRA.[21] “They also invented the letter bomb.”[22] Who says women cannot be pioneers hey? These were not just lone wolf attacks either, they were being directed and supported by the feminist suffragette leadership.[23] The picture of suffragettes being only peaceful protestors and concerned citizens is quite incomplete. There were deep connections between the feminist movement and radical socialist movements, indeed, the feminist movement was a wing of the radical socialists of the era.[24] It still is today. Indeed most equalitarian movements are. And so if modern Incels tend towards extreme right wing ideology today, it is important to remember that many feminists tended towards extreme left wing ideology in the past, as well.

None of this is to excuse the excesses of these young men who are tending towards radicalism. It is just to highlight that when people are desperate and become radicalized they will be much more likely to engage in very dangerous behaviour and take out their grievances on those whom they consider to be the cause of their woes. This is what we don’t want to happen. What we want to see is young men get married, get a wife, and build their societies for future generations.  

However, if our society continues to practice this highly deregulated sexual market, with very few men monopolizing most of the women, then we are in a very high danger of social instability reaching war like levels. One needs only need look across the Indian Ocean to Africa, or even north to India and China to see the size of the potential dangers:

India and China both have an extremely ‘burdensom community’ of spare males. The normal ratio of newborn boys to girls is around 105:100. But as Mara Hvistendahl documents in Unnatural Selection, thanks to prenatal ultrasound and sex-selective abortion the ratio in China is around 118:100, and 108:100 in India. In some regions of India, the ratio rises as high as 150 males to 100 females. Though sex-selective technology is now banned in India, it’s still widespread, and the country now has some 37 million more men than women. Studies estimate that China has around 30 million excess men.[25]

Historically, in China, these men have been referred to as ‘bare branches’,[26] and China, as well as other nations have redirected the energy of their bare branches exactly as you would expect:

Historically a common solution to the problem of ‘bare branches’ has been to divert them from domestic trouble-making to foreign expansionist warfare. The Viking raids on Britain were one result of this; so was the conquest of Ceuta. Joao I of Portugal, the illegitimate son of King Peter I, came to power with the help of their own variety of ‘bare branches’ in 1385. But when he realised that their piracy and robbery posed risks to his own rule, he sent them off to seek status and resources by invading North Africa instead, kicking off a long and ugly history of European colonialism on that continent, the repercussions of which still echo today.[27]  

If the effects of there not being enough wives in a small, poor and remote country like Sudan are dangerous for that society, and those surrounding it, what is the potential danger when two of the fastest rising powers find that they need to deal with this issue? Add to this, the growing number of young men in the West who are tending towards extreme views because of their involuntary celibacy, and you can see that we have a real problem on our hands. I don’t even think it is potential, I think it is guaranteed, something is going to give, if we don’t find a way to solve it now.

Thankfully, as with so many other issues, the Bible gives us the solution to our Incel issue:

…But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband…8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.[28]

In other words, we need to regulate the sexual market place, so as to give every young man and young woman a reasonable chance of finding a spouse. Some level of competition is inevitable, but there is productive competition, and destructive competition. A free-for-all, causes most people to lose out in the long term. This regulation should ensure that that the competition for sexual partners is competition for who can get the best bride or husband, not who can get the most women. It is clear to see that the Bible’s morality is not theoretical, it is foundational to a healthy and stable society. God knows best.

Now right away, I imagine people saying: wait a second, God permitted polygamy in the Old Testament, surely then it is ok? But he commanded people not to take too many wives,[29] also the Old Testament gives us many examples of the pain that polygamy causes (see the account of Jacob and his wives for example), and in Genesis 2 it shows us God’s intention for the perfect creation was one man, and one wife: “24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.”[30] God clearly intended the marriage relationship to be a union between one man and one woman, and he himself reiterated this when he walked the earth:

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.[31]

This teaching was then continued by Paul, in his household codes:

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’[32]

This has been the consistent teaching in the Church since its inception. “Marriage was regarded in the Church from the beginning as a sacred union of body and soul for the propagation of civil society, and the kingdom of God, for the existence of virtue and the promotion of happiness” (emphasis mine).[33] Is this, frankly, not obvious? The early church saw one man and one woman as the basis for a civil and virtuous society and they, as we have seen, were absolutely right.

Some, like Tertullian, were so against polygamy that they condemned both successive and simultaneous polygamy.[34] That is he condemned remarrying after divorce or after a wife dies, and having more than one wife at once. I think condemning remarriage after a spouse passes goes too far, and is beyond scripture which supports marrying after your spouse has passed on, but it does highlight how dangerous polygamy has been viewed in Church history, and therefore we should take note of this. The early Church was at pains to make sure that sexual behaviour had a healthy outlet, and was regulated. Sex is like a tiger, you let it roam free in a civilized area and it will create much death and destruction. This is not theoretical at all.

Indeed, the early Church was at pains to see that Christians who committed adultery were punished, precisely because they took seriously the warnings about how destructive sexually unregulated societies were:

[Marriage] was in its nature indissoluble except in the case of adultery, and this crime was charged not only to the woman, but to the man as even the more guilty party, and to every extra-connubial carnal connection. Thus the wife was equally protected against the wrongs of the husband, and chastity was made the general law of family life.[35]

This was a big step ahead of Roman, and other pagan societies which allowed men to commit adultery, but punished the women. The Church was determined that this “sacred union of body and soul for the propagation of civil society, and the kingdom of God, for the existence of virtue and the promotion of happiness” was the basis of any society in which it had influence and power. Because it is the best structure for a stable society, and it honours how God created humans to be.

Sex is an ever-pervasive force in our society, and therefore as Paul says above “…because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” We should again start to frown on things like wanton divorce and remarriage, in fact adultery is so destabilizing for a culture, we should seriously consider ways to legally disincentivize it. Sexual promiscuity should be seen as the civilisation destroying force that it is, not just as a lifestyle choice. You might find it abhorrent to even think of legally regulating such behaviours, but look at Sudan, large swaths of North Africa and the Middle East, the Vikings and more. The results of allowing our sexual culture to progress, as it is progressing, will be much more abhorrent to those who face the consequences of our inaction.

Not so long-ago marriage was more prevalent in the community, more men had a reason to get up in the morning to provide for their families, and Incels were a much rarer phenomenon. But now it is a growing one:

The number of American men under 30 who have never had sex tripled between 2008 and 2018 — but hasn’t risen nearly as rapidly for women. The only plausible explanation is that women are still having sex, but they’re competing for a smaller pool of desirable men and leaving the rest on the shelf. So even with normal sex ratios, our culture is creating a sort of flotsam of sexual no-hopers, composed of those males who simply aren’t impressive enough to attract anyone even for a fling, let alone a committed relationship. In case anyone is tempted to dismiss this as harmless losers posting misogynistic memes, remember incels go on actual killing sprees.[36]

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know what is going to happen if this problem grows and escalates. You don’t even need to be a Christian. You just need to open your eyes, observe many countries in the world today, and many in history, and see what the effects of large numbers of dissatisfied, frustrated men can do to society.

But this problem can be mitigated by working towards the advice Paul the Apostle gives us: “…but because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” I know I am repeating myself here, but I think it is necessary, and what is cool is you don’t even have to look to Christian countries to see this advice being taken. A “Saudi Arabian deradicalisation programme essentially involved getting extremists married, and has proved very effective.”[37] Of course it did, a married man has every reason to work for a stable society, not an unstable one.

Put a load on a ute and it drives straighter and better. Put a loving load on a young man’s back, and it has the same effect. The occasional young man who doesn’t have a wife is sad, a growing number of such men is a tragedy, if it grows to large it is a danger to our whole way of life. It is time for the modern West to stop playing with fire. The problem with modern society is really that it has the collective wisdom of a 21-year-old. It thinks it knows everything, but basically knows nothing. There is a solution to this growing issue, it’s time to reject the modern sexular culture, and revive the morality of our ancestors, the morality of the teachings of Jesus and Paul, and the morality, that helped make the West great: each man with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 

List of References (all scripture references are from the ESV, unless otherwise stated).

[2] Tolentino, Jia, 2018. “The Rage of the Incels - Incels aren’t really looking for sex. They’re looking for absolute male supremacy.” New Yorker:, accessed 17/09/2020.   

[3]Beauchamp, Zach, 2019. “Our incel problem - How a support group for the dateless became one of the internet’s most dangerous subcultures.” Vox:, accessed 17/09/2020.  

[4] Ibid.

[5] Tolentino, Jia, 2018. “The Rage of the Incels - Incels aren’t really looking for sex. They’re looking for absolute male supremacy.” New Yorker:, accessed 17/09/2020.

[6] Beauchamp, Zach, 2019. “Our incel problem - How a support group for the dateless became one of the internet’s most dangerous subcultures.” Vox:, accessed 17/09/2020.

[7] Ibid

[8] Tolentino, Jia, 2018. “The Rage of the Incels - Incels aren’t really looking for sex. They’re looking for absolute male supremacy.” New Yorker:, accessed 17/09/2020.

[9] Ibid

[10] Worst-online-dater, 2015. “Tinder Experiments II: Guys, unless you are really hot you are probably better off not wasting your time on Tinder — a quantitative socio-economic study.” Medium:, accessed 18/09/2020.

[11]Dudo, Dean of St. Quentin, 1998. History of the Normans, translated by Eric Christiansen, The Boydell Press: Woodbridge, p15.

[12] Ibid, p15.

[13] Ibid, p16-17.

[14] Collar, Mark et. al, 2015. “Male-biased operational sex ratios and the Viking phenomenon: an evolutionary anthropological perspective on Late Iron Age Scandinavian raiding.” Evolution and Human Behaviour, issue 38, pp315-324. p315.

[15] Ibid, p318.

[16] Lahore and Wau, 2017. “The perils of polygamy: The link between polygamy and war.” The Economist:, accessed 18/09/2020.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid

[20] Sky News Opinion, 2018. “Letter bombs and IEDs: Were the suffragettes terrorists?” Sky News:, accessed 19/09/2020.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Faxneld, Per. 2017. “Romantic and Socialist Satanism” in Satanic Femisnism: Lucifer as Liberator of Woman in Nineteenth-Century Culture, Oxford University Press, New York: pp74-108.

[25] Harrington, Mary, 2020. “Incels could become the new Vikings: Our culture is creating a flotsam of sexual no-hopers — with disastrous consequences.” Unherd:, accessed 19/09/2020.

[26] Ibid

[27] Ibid

[28] 1 Corinthians 7:2, 8-9

[29] Deuternomy 17:17

[30] Genesis 2:24-25

[31] Matthew 19:3-6

[32] Ephesians 5:25-31

[33] Schaff, Philip, 1987. A History of the Christian Church. William B. Eerdmans: Michigan. P363.

[34] Ibid, p367.

[35] Ibid,

[36] Harrington, Mary, 2020. “Incels could become the new Vikings: Our culture is creating a flotsam of sexual no-hopers — with disastrous consequences.” Unherd:, accessed 19/09/2020.

[37] Ibid.