ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Relativists regret consequences of relativism

It is becoming increasingly obvious that abandoning traditional Christian moral values comes at a very heavy societal cost. Unfortunately, even those who belatedly recognize this can't quite bring themselves to do the obvious and call for a return to the traditional white Christian civilization of Western Christendom:
The health of society is primarily determined by the habits and virtues of its citizens. In many parts of America there are no minimally agreed upon standards for what it means to be a father. There are no basic codes and rules woven into daily life, which people can absorb unconsciously and follow automatically.

Reintroducing norms will require, first, a moral vocabulary. These norms weren’t destroyed because of people with bad values. They were destroyed by a plague of nonjudgmentalism, which refused to assert that one way of behaving was better than another. People got out of the habit of setting standards or understanding how they were set.

Next it will require holding people responsible. People born into the most chaotic situations can still be asked the same questions: Are you living for short-term pleasure or long-term good? Are you living for yourself or for your children? Do you have the freedom of self-control or are you in bondage to your desires?

Next it will require holding everybody responsible. America is obviously not a country in which the less educated are behaving irresponsibly and the more educated are beacons of virtue. America is a country in which privileged people suffer from their own characteristic forms of self-indulgence: the tendency to self-segregate, the comprehensive failures of leadership in government and industry. Social norms need repair up and down the scale, universally, together and all at once.
There is no easy way out. Humanity is not going to magically, or rationally, invent a better moral system than those that a) were handed down from on high, or if you prefer, b) evolved through trial-and-error. In light of the failure of secularism and multiculturalism, the nations of the West are going to embrace some past moral structure, absolutist judgments and all.

The only question is if it will be pagan or Christian. And the former is considerably less pretty than its historically ignorant proponents understand.

Labels: ,

162 Comments:

Anonymous Leonidas March 11, 2015 12:19 PM  

When I was a teenager I used to have lofty dreams of inventing my own religion. It would be smart, it would be wise, it would be everything a religion should be.

As an adult, I wised up and realized that it already existed.

OpenID shallowthoughtswithgeoff March 11, 2015 12:20 PM  

What's hilarious is that the contradictions within the current zeitgeist are apparent and remain to be suggested as deleterious to civilization public discourse. Examples:
1. Shame is evil and nobody should ever feel it for ethical violations, unless they offend me or my cause.
2. Gender is a construct and male/female is outdated...Women's rights are violated by men in women's restrooms.
3. Talking about moral problems in terms of ethnicity is evil. White people are bad.
4. Marriage is outdated and bad for you. It's hateful to have a narrow definition of marriage.
5. Women can beat up men and brag about it in public. Men shouldn't fight women.
6. All religions are myths and they hurt us. It's bad for the strong to oppress the weak.
7. Jesus should be co-opted into any cause. People who believe in Jesus are bronze age faith heads.
8. Gamers are socially inept nerds. Female gamers are awesome always.
9. Black and female lives matter. Black and female fetuses should be aborted because of rights and stuff.

This guy notes the cost of relativism, but he still won't note the basic failure of logic at the root of it.

John Henry Newman was talking about his own era, but his thoughts are relevant today:
It were well if none remained boys all their lives; but what is more common than the sight of grown men, talking on political or moral or religious subjects, in that offhand, idle way, which we signify by the word unreal? “That they simply do not know what they are talking about” is the spontaneous silent remark of any man of sense who hears them. Hence such persons have no difficulty in contradicting themselves in successive sentences, without being conscious of it. John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated (London: Basil Montagu Pickering, 1873), xvii.

Anonymous Anonymous March 11, 2015 12:21 PM  

I JUST returned from our reserve Brigades best Warrior competition... I was a sponsor for a young 23 year old Specialist with 15 brothers and sisters (step, half, full etc) ALL of whome have been sexually, physically, or psychologically abused. This kid completed a PT test (75+ Push ups in 2 minutes, 75+ sit ups in 2 minutes, ~13:30 2 mile run, Zeroed and qualified on the M-16, completed a leadership STX lane (leadership exercise involving leading a squad into a building, engaging one enemy with a SAW, evaluating a casualty, rendering TCCC, carrying him 100+ yards, engaging in ANOTHER firefight, then calling for extraction), then a Land navigation course, then an obstacle course and FINALLY a 10K ruck march with full kit, weapon and 35 lb rucksack. Note: all of this was in Arizona where the temperature was 40 degrees warmer and it was 1200 feet higher than what he was used to. he didn't just beat the competition, he obliterated them! He finished the ruck march in 74 minutes, I finished it in 84 minutes... without a ruck! I caught up to this kid ONCE and then he started running (I was jogging) and I never got close again. (I am 38). The otehr 4 competitors came in just behind me between 94 and 98 minutes, (the cut off was 100). In any case, my point is: He is the embodiment of what IS wrong, but MAY again be right about this world. A hero.

Anonymous Anonymous March 11, 2015 12:22 PM  

oops the above is me, jeremiah....

Anonymous p-dawg March 11, 2015 12:25 PM  

"Develop" a moral language, eh? You mean the one we've had for about 5k years isn't good enough? (Note: that was a rhetorical question)

Blogger Moor March 11, 2015 12:26 PM  

I often think of this in terms of Maya Angelou's quote, which goes something like this: "I did then what I knew to do, but now that I know better, I do better."

This, of course, is a lie. It is the same pagan and gnostic trope that's been circulating in culture since at least the time of the Greeks. The idea that somehow knowledge, and the increase of knowledge, is going to usher in the dawn of human flourishing is one of the great lies we are all so prone to buy because it puts us on the throne.

Anonymous p-dawg March 11, 2015 12:27 PM  

@Leonidas: I had similar dreams, except they were of a cynical cash grab based on misleading the stupid. Then I grew up, and realized it already existed.

Anonymous Anonymous March 11, 2015 12:29 PM  

Jeremiah says: Oh man oh man, please forgive me. This is how you learn to read everything carefully before you hit publish. Clarifications: #1 This was all in one day #2 We're not Infantry or anything, just paper pushers, but he's a former combat medic, #3 I'm a former scout who dangerously overestimated his physical abilities! #4 He had a written exam and a board examination in front of 5 Sergeants Major the next day, 3 of whom used the word "outstanding" to describe his performance. I have a LOT invested in this kid, obviously. I cite his example to show that there is still hope. The neckbeards of the world may fall like chaff, but there are a few diamonds in the rough out there.

Anonymous Stickwick March 11, 2015 12:31 PM  

And [paganism] is considerably less pretty than its historically ignorant proponents understand.

The first couple of seasons of Vikings ought to be required viewing for anyone who has an idealized view of paganism. It isn't like the goofy modern renfest version that calls itself Asatru; it's brutality, slavery, bleakness, and death. The episode where they travel to Uppsala for a ritual that includes human sacrifice was especially harrowing.

Anonymous Leonidas March 11, 2015 12:32 PM  

I had similar dreams, except they were of a cynical cash grab based on misleading the stupid.

Yeah, I had that dream, too. I will admit that I had a hard time picking between them.

Anonymous Wyrd March 11, 2015 12:33 PM  

It's hard to know what is right when you've been a chest-less man all your life. Most can't even fathom where to begin.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction. -Proverbs 1:7

Blogger darkdoc March 11, 2015 12:34 PM  

Guilt is a very civilizing emotion.

It should be generated and used regularly.

Anonymous PA March 11, 2015 12:36 PM  

TPTB tried to replace Christian and natural identitarian morality with a new politically correct ethical system. But where the rubber hits the road -- in raising the next generation -- PC is too much at odds with human nature to be a viable ethical system.

What this switcheroo accomplished is at best a nominal adherence to its values along with lip-service, with massive hypocricy as a way of life in order to not be destroyed. Lawrence Auster called this hypocrisy "unprincipled exception."

True believers are rare. Peter Biehl was one. His faith was not aligned with his responsibility to the second generation. Therefore, his ersatz ethics fail in their primary purpose.

Blogger Josh March 11, 2015 12:38 PM  

This is one area where libertarians and economic conservatives generally have nothing useful to say.

Anonymous Porky March 11, 2015 12:46 PM  

"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which over-arches rulers and ruled alike...Unless we return to the crude and nursery-like belief in objective values, we perish."

-C.S. Lewis

Anonymous clk March 11, 2015 12:47 PM  

".. pagan or Christian "... while being a Christian (RCC) I have some problem with the choices being either pagan or Christian .. there are religions of a non Christian path (and by Christian lets use bible OT/NT based as our guide as to what is Christian - so we dont argue about Jew vs RCC vs Ortho vs Prot vs Islam -- I dont know where to place Islam in the spectrum) that also have fairly sophisticated moral structures... for example Buddists, Hindu, Daoists, Shinto .... I do believe that the RCC version is the best, most evolved path to know God ... but I also believe that God would have provided many paths for humanity know him.

I dont view this as nonjudgementalism -- you dont have to be a zealot to be religious ..(and dont start quoting Revelations folks .. Ihave read it as well) ... I am a self admitted, sane moderate with a strong belief that the truth is often found in the space between the extremes.

Blogger Marissa March 11, 2015 12:48 PM  

I'd like to see Carthage portrayed in all its ritualistic baby-slaughtering glory on film somewhere. It might hit a little too close to home for the pro-aborts, though.

Sometimes I wish there existed a Rome to our Carthage.

Anonymous A Visitor March 11, 2015 12:49 PM  

Since I have a fairly good idea of what general race the author was talking about, having read the article in its entirety, I have one other suggestion: Stop self criticizing your own kind that try to make something of themselves as, "acting white."

Anonymous zen0 March 11, 2015 12:53 PM  

@ Stickwick

... it's brutality, slavery, bleakness, and death

Much like a season of Sons of Anarchy then. (Mrs. zen0's fave..)

Blogger Josh March 11, 2015 1:00 PM  

Much like a season of Sons of Anarchy then. (Mrs. zen0's fave..)

OT: it's telling that the most dangerous threat on that show was when Wendy threatened to call child services to take away the boys.

Think about that.

IRA terrorists, cartels, biker gangs, ATF, cops, etc...

All pale in comparison to the threat of child services.

Anonymous zen0 March 11, 2015 1:01 PM  

@ clk

I am a self admitted, sane moderate with a strong belief that the truth is often found in the space between the extremes.

Have you not been paying attention to the GamerGate tutorial?

I dont know where to place Islam in the spectrum

7th century. No progress since.

but I also believe that God would have provided many paths for humanity know him.

John 14:6New King James Version (NKJV)

6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.


Blogger David March 11, 2015 1:03 PM  

To eschew evaluation is to deny the mind. Those telling us not to draw conclusions about the wisdom of others' behavior were trying to get us to turn off our minds. This was always an obvious con job.

Josh confuses libertarians with libertines. Only the latter eschew judgment of others' conduct as it relates to rules required for social harmony.

Blogger Joshua_D March 11, 2015 1:05 PM  

Stickwick March 11, 2015 12:31 PM

And [paganism] is considerably less pretty than its historically ignorant proponents understand.

The first couple of seasons of Vikings ought to be required viewing for anyone who has an idealized view of paganism. It isn't like the goofy modern renfest version that calls itself Asatru; it's brutality, slavery, bleakness, and death. The episode where they travel to Uppsala for a ritual that includes human sacrifice was especially harrowing.


Yeah, I was watching that show, and the first time some guy offered his woman to another guy, I thought, "Well that would never happen, even in a pagan society." And then I got to the episode you're talking about where the dude sacrifices himself, and I thought, "Screw that. I'm not watching this death cult shit."

Blogger Josh March 11, 2015 1:07 PM  

Josh confuses libertarians with libertines. Only the latter eschew judgment of others' conduct as it relates to rules required for social harmony.

No I'm not. Hell, I'm probably one of the more libertarian/anarco-capitalist folks here.

If you don't understand that there's a wide gulf between "not eschewing judgement" and making a case for normative behavior and morals, you don't grok what I'm trying to say.

Anonymous Alexander March 11, 2015 1:10 PM  

America is a country in which privileged people suffer from their own characteristic forms of self-indulgence: the tendency to self-segregate, ... Social norms need repair up and down the scale, universally, together and all at once.

I hate to break it to him, but that's not an indulgence, it's one of the 'social norms' that needs repairing'.

Anonymous Porky March 11, 2015 1:15 PM  

Yeah, I was watching that show, and the first time some guy offered his woman to another guy, I thought, "Well that would never happen, even in a pagan society."

Read the journals of Lewis and Clarke. Natives were handing over their wives like candy in hopes of subsequently absorbing some of the white man's godlike power through coitus.

Blogger IM2L844 March 11, 2015 1:20 PM  

There's nothing quite as annoying as the relativist's delusive enlightenment.

Anonymous hygate March 11, 2015 1:22 PM  

Do you have the freedom of self-control or are you in bondage to your desires?

I doubt if he knows that he is discussing Christian Freedom.

Blogger Joshua_D March 11, 2015 1:22 PM  

Porky March 11, 2015 1:15 PM

Read the journals of Lewis and Clarke. Natives were handing over their wives like candy in hopes of subsequently absorbing some of the white man's godlike power through coitus.


If that's the case, then I stand corrected. Of course, at least the Indians were trying to get something in return rather than just sharing their women for the hell of it. Or maybe they just shared shared their women for the hell of it, too. Still, screw that.

Anonymous Feh March 11, 2015 1:27 PM  

But where the rubber hits the road -- in raising the next generation -- PC is too much at odds with human nature to be a viable ethical system.

But comrade, human nature is infinitely malleable! The Vanguard of the Proletariat will create a New Soviet Man under the guidance of scientific socialism and the genius of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin!

Blogger Marissa March 11, 2015 1:27 PM  

Read the journals of Lewis and Clarke. Natives were handing over their wives like candy in hopes of subsequently absorbing some of the white man's godlike power through coitus.

Eskimos do it too. It's very strange that men would want to raise another man's child. Were the natives (or the Vikings) otherwise monogamous (excluding mistresses)?

Blogger rumpole5 March 11, 2015 1:36 PM  

My personal recolection is that the theological/moral world was relatively coherent until Vatican II (1962-1965). From that time on the secular tail has been wagging the spiritual dog. Those WWI and "Greatest" generation folks, who were in charge at that point certainly have much to answer for. -- I wanted to get my shot in before the "blame the boomers" rant began.

Anonymous Roundtine March 11, 2015 1:38 PM  

David Brooks sucks.

Blogger Moor March 11, 2015 1:38 PM  

Great quote on this from Cotton Mather (Puritan minister):

"Faithfulness begat prosperity, and the daughter devoured the mother."

Anonymous PA March 11, 2015 1:42 PM  

"Eskimos do it too."

Gypsies in Eastern Europe are also known for their nonchalance about their women getting knocked up by white men, typically via prostitution.

Anonymous PA March 11, 2015 1:44 PM  

"Of course, at least the Indians were trying to get something in return"

Mejorar la raza?

Anonymous Leonidas March 11, 2015 1:45 PM  

Yeah, I was watching that show, and the first time some guy offered his woman to another guy, I thought, "Well that would never happen, even in a pagan society."

Yeah, that's when I stopped watching, too.

Read the journals of Lewis and Clarke. Natives were handing over their wives like candy in hopes of subsequently absorbing some of the white man's godlike power through coitus.

Apples and oranges, though. In your description, they're doing it for a reason. In the show... well, I guess there was a reason, only it was "let's make it more sexually titillating so that it'll get us more ratings."

Blogger Vox March 11, 2015 1:46 PM  

I am a self admitted, sane moderate with a strong belief that the truth is often found in the space between the extremes.

You're absolutely, hilariously wrong. The amusing thing is that people like you so often like to describe yourselves as "thoughtful", which is one thing that you most definitely are not. Here is the fundamental flaw in your approach: the truth is not negotiable.

When there are two extremes, the truth is often found completely outside the box. The one place it will never be found is the middle.

OpenID alphaisassumed March 11, 2015 1:53 PM  

There are no relativists.

To be a relativist is to be a moral vacuum, one who believes in nothing (and even the nihilist believes in emptiness). The closest thing we have to a relativist is one who is in a temporary limbo after he's left one moral code before he's adopted another.

However, relativism is most decidedly real. It's the rhetorical tool used to break down another's beliefs, merely a trick you can use before filling their brains with your beliefs instead of theirs. The man who claims that there are no objective moral standards one minute will invariably want to rip your throat out for the sin of homophobia the next. He SAYS he's a relativist, but that's just until he breaks down your own sense of discernment. The ostensible relativist (aside from the rare aforementioned exception) has a moral code that's just as strident as yours, even if it's only "whatever I want is right because I'm superior to you." The relativistic statements listed by shallowthoughtswithgeoff exists ONLY for the purpose of promoting the absolute (if incorrect) standards that follow.

Fortunately, relativism can be turned back on them. First, get them on record saying relativistic crap like "it's wrong to judge" or "who are we to impose our values on anybody" as often as possible. Second, call them on it. "If no culture is superior to another, then what right do you have to look down on Southern Baptists?" "If there's no real right or wrong, then how can you be so certain that the Western Civilization is evil?" "If it's so wrong to judge, then why do you hate Republicans so much?" "Moreover, if there is no right or wrong, how can it be wrong to believe in right and wrong?"

Yes, they have answers and ways to mumble through, but when you call somebody on a contradiction they're on the defensive and it's easy to make them look like fools.


~Martel

Anonymous patrick kelly March 11, 2015 1:55 PM  

"The real problem with egalitarianism is that it rarely seems to involve pulling one group of people, or standards, up. It always seems to involve pulling people and standards down."

Standards

Blogger Marissa March 11, 2015 1:57 PM  

I am a self admitted, sane moderate with a strong belief that the truth is often found in the space between the extremes.

Sounds pretty lukewarm.

Anonymous Heh March 11, 2015 1:57 PM  

It is obvious to all thoughtful moderates who reject extremism that 2 + 2 = 4.5

Anonymous Heh March 11, 2015 2:00 PM  

In the show... well, I guess there was a reason, only it was "let's make it more sexually titillating so that it'll get us more ratings."

From the woman-sharing, the tats, and the head shaving, it is obvious that the Vikings were just medieval hipsters looking to gentrify England.

Blogger Jourdan March 11, 2015 2:01 PM  

It's very amusing to see the NY Times notice its preferred policies have devastated the White working class.

The root problem is the Liberal Revolution, which has been tied to American values in much the same way the Canadian Liberal Party was able to make its values Canadian values.

Or, as Justice Kennedy put it, American liberty now means that:

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

So, each father has to define his role individually without reference to organic ties or obligations. We can see in our daily lives how this is working out.

This is the key failure of Liberalism and why, in all its forms, it is destined to fail. The only question is how much damage it will cause first.

I suspect quite a lot.

Blogger hank.jim March 11, 2015 2:06 PM  

People have no codes because everyone is asked to be non-judgemental, non-hypocritical, and non-discriminatory. This can't work. I might have my own codes and beliefs, yet I can't share them since someone else might feel bad. They'll accuse you of judging others. Since my views are not respected, it is only safe to adhere to the ethics and laws at the workplace and the community. It is telling that some think it isn't good enough, but it is what it is.

OpenID alphaisassumed March 11, 2015 2:10 PM  

@ hank: " I might have my own codes and beliefs, yet I can't share them since someone else might feel bad."

Unless you're a black transgendered differently-abled victim of sexual assault, in which case you can tell absolutely anybody to go to hell and you'd be perfectly justified.

~Martel

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey March 11, 2015 2:12 PM  

Our Germanic pagan heritage is attractive to some of us precisely because it is so brutal. If only traditional Christianity could resurrect some of that killer instinct.

Anonymous Alexander March 11, 2015 2:12 PM  

Heh,

I'll be stealing that and not giving you credit. Excellent line.

Anonymous kfg March 11, 2015 2:13 PM  

"It is obvious to all thoughtful moderates who reject extremism that 2 + 2 = 4.5"

For sufficiently large values of 2.

Anonymous Jonathan March 11, 2015 2:13 PM  

Self-segregation as the new taboo? Absolutely hilarious. People have been self-segregating by social status for as long as archaeologists can figure and all of a sudden they expect that to become suddenly taboo. Utterly delusional.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 11, 2015 2:13 PM  

"These norms weren’t destroyed because of people with bad values. They were destroyed by a plague of nonjudgmentalism, which refused to assert that one way of behaving was better than another."

He's a liar. Evil judgments were imposed by law and supported by propaganda every day of the year.

The "nonjudgmentalism" was a lie of the same type as "we tolerate everybody but fascists. Everybody except us is a fascist."

Anonymous Urban Flight Risk March 11, 2015 2:15 PM  

Crap, my fault again. Here I was, thinking that since Progressives taught the underclass to behave that way, it was their fault (can't blame the underclass, not their fault the don't know how to act like civilized beings since they were never taught to -- in fact, were specifically taught not to stay in school, study hard, get a menial job to work your way up, the whole Acting White thing).

Turns out, it's my fault, for moving away from the all gentle giants with their hands up so my kids could grow up acting white and go to college to follow the upper half of the scissors. Damn us Conservatives, anyway.

I feel bad about that. Well, not real bad. Okay, not bad at all. I actually feel pretty good that David Brooks agrees the place I fled is a hellhole and my kids needed to be taught what I taught them. I've been vindicated and validated. Cool. Thanks!

Anonymous Donn March 11, 2015 2:16 PM  

It's funny in a sad way. He understands neither the problem nor the solution.

Blogger ray March 11, 2015 2:17 PM  

'Yeah, I was watching that show, and the first time some guy offered his woman to another guy, I thought, "Well that would never happen, even in a pagan society."'


Fertility cults have been the staple of human societies for thousands of years, and are certainly dominant currently across the planet, especially in the West. The anglosphere -- sexually, politically, legally, psychologically and socially -- are modern forms of these goddess-worshipping, sexually libertine cults. They -- and not Christianity -- were and are the standard models for human behavior. Often these cults required a fixed term of prostitution from females, who were housed for that time and purpose in a vast variety of pagan temples (typically dedicated to Aphrodite, Venus, Persephone, etc.) This was their way of 'serving the Goddess'. The males who trekked to the temples to engage the females sexually, likewise were worshipping The Goddess -- in the form of the female's body. This is one reason why the many 'Venus figurines" from the Upper Paleolithic are faceless. They represent The Herd, i.e., female-as-goddess. As today, fertility cults offered 'sexual liberation' but instead fronted psycho-spiritual enslavement.


The modern Western system of Romanticism is gnostic (anti-Christian) including the boyfriend/girlfriend concept, the delay or rejection of marriage, the pseudo-legality of prostitution and 'call girls', feminism and related domination by females, and so on. Been going on for thousands of years. There are so many different versions of these cults a full book couldn't begin to cover their historical (or current) ubiquity and popularity. Most modern Christian churches likewise are utterly Romantic in their assumptions, sermons, and practices, especially as regards the moral and spiritual superiority of females. Nothing to do with Jesus or Scripture.

Blogger Thordaddy March 11, 2015 2:18 PM  

In others words, the "white" male of the West chooses white Supremacy or radical autonomy and self-annihilation. There is no inbetween, third way, moderately centrist equilibrium. No Neo's reaction. The "white' male will concede the existence of Perfection or he will be swept away by the machinations of those seeking to "perfect" man (into a dispirited, deracinated, and homosexualized "nothing in particular").

Blogger Alexander Thompson March 11, 2015 2:19 PM  

He's still in a liberal mindset when he complains of self segregation.

Anonymous Harolds 3393 March 11, 2015 2:20 PM  

"When there are two extremes, the truth is often found completely outside the box. The one place it will never be found is the middle."

Killing another human being is always wrong: Incorrect.
Killing another human being is always right: Incorrect.

I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle.

So, there's the lie in the quoted statement above. Shall we provide other examples?

Anyone who thinks that truth never lies in the middle of the extremes can most often be found occupying the middle reach of a fantasy world.

Blogger Thordaddy March 11, 2015 2:20 PM  

Paganism = multiple daddies = severe identity crisis....

Anonymous kfg March 11, 2015 2:25 PM  

"I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle."

Right, I'm off to beat everyone I know within an inch of their lives.

OpenID alphaisassumed March 11, 2015 2:27 PM  

@ Johnathan: "Self-segregation as the new taboo? Absolutely hilarious."

But it's by no means a taboo; ever been to a college cafeteria? Notice the racially-segregated tables?

When I sat at the black table (tried it once for shits and giggles) I was treated with utter contempt. Were I to treat a black who sat at my table even 10% as rudely, I would have been called before a tribunal.

Thus, it's only a taboo for some of us.

It's no accident that the same people who insist on shutting down universities because they've been offended support "transgressive" "art" that has no other purpose than to offend.

There are still taboos. There is no actual relativism. It's just about what group you belong to and your politics.

~Martel

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 11, 2015 2:29 PM  

Jourdan: "Or, as Justice Kennedy put it, American liberty now means that:

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

So, each father has to define his role individually without reference to organic ties or obligations. We can see in our daily lives how this is working out."

Supreme Court of the United States: from the majority opinion by Justices O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter, PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), 852.

Pro-abort judgments such as this mean that if a man's wife is going to abort his unborn son or daughter, he can dream of any concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life he wishes, so long as it cashes out as "whatever you say, honey."

Otherwise the law will smash him.

At point after point thereafter, should a father put his foot down, insist on his authority, and try to live up to the ancient unwritten codes of fatherhood, the law will smash him, and the media and all other institutions, clerical and secular, will defame and abandon him. Blind luck and a wife that's not too bad are his only hope -- and the machine constantly invites wives to become intolerably bad.

The problem is not that codes such as the code of fatherhood happen to be absent, so that "intellectuals" should invent and impose some. The problem is that they themselves are the guilty parties, suppressing by propaganda and law codes that are innate, and were well understood thousands of years ago.

Blogger ScuzzaMan March 11, 2015 2:30 PM  

As Vox notes, he sees the failure of his own philosophy, but refuses to give it up. You can see this most clearly as he flails around searching desperately for a convincing solution.

"America is a country in which privileged people suffer from their own characteristic forms of self-indulgence: the tendency to self-segregate, the comprehensive failures of leadership in government and industry."

There is no doubt a degree of self indulgence in the self-segregation of the wealthy and powerful (here again, he apparently thinks that the privileged and the leadership of government and industry are separate categories, yet they categorically are not) but the more pertinent and accurate observation is that the wealthy and powerful, the privileged the "leaders" (not mine) of government and industry, have deliberately destroyed the Christian foundations of western civilisation precisely BECAUSE those shared moral values of the large majority of the population, were what held them back from achieving their authoritarian dream of full spectrum dominance. It was precisely the ubiquity of common standards of moral and ethical restraint that led to the death of kings and the distribution of power, to the industrial revolution and the very existence of the first world.

Having destroyed already much of what restrained the majority from storming their private Bastilles and cutting off their heads, they are wise to segregate themselves.

And those people, that majority with shared, common, learned and taught, moral standards inherited from centuries of religious self-discipline? They were what we call the middle class.

It has long been the foundation of public policy, no matter which pretend ideologue sits in the big chair this week mouthing his inane rantings, to advance the destruction of this class. We were the foundation of our civilisation and so, to destroy it, we had to be destroyed.

THAT is the what mass immigration is about.
THAT is what wealth redistribution is about.
THAT is what deliberately instilled gender confusion is about.
THAT is what the wars on drugs, poverty, crime, terror, and anyone who resists, are about.

That is what they are FOR.

None of this is new, by the way. Frederick E Douglass said it best and long ago:

"The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. … If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

And nothing else. No paper, no founding document, no constitution, no bill of rights, no parliament of fools, no system of justice designed and operated by the very people who oppress you, will ever do it. Nor can ever do it.

It is only the shared moral standards of the mass of the people that can and will do it.

Ergo, divide and conquer.

Blogger Rabbi B March 11, 2015 2:32 PM  

" . . . the truth is often found in the space between the extremes."

Spoken like someone who couldn't discern the truth if it bitch-slapped him.

Anonymous Alexander March 11, 2015 2:33 PM  

Are you living for short-term pleasure or long-term good? Are you living for yourself or for your children? Do you have the freedom of self-control or are you in bondage to your desires?

Outside of a Christian society, this is the police state.

Freedom is defined by limitations, bondage is defined as freedom of choice. The concepts described when applied to the law of God are reasonable, which is why he writes them - but when the moral authority is defined by the state, the result will be ghastly.

It's for the children!

Blogger hank.jim March 11, 2015 2:33 PM  

@Martel "Unless you're a black transgendered differently-abled victim of sexual assault, in which case you can tell absolutely anybody to go to hell and you'd be perfectly justified."

That's all? White people have carved out entire segments of nonjudgementalism like women, trans, gay, bi, lesbianism. Then there's entire races, mixed races, illegals, foreign nationalism. There's atheism, non-traditional Christian, eastern religions, and other religions. Then there's the political realm of liberalism that gives license to bad behavior.

Telling people off can only give grief to yourself. While I might be willing to do much for my religion, I am useless if I must abandon my family as that will be the result.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 11, 2015 2:34 PM  

"There are still taboos. There is no actual relativism. It's just about what group you belong to and your politics."

It's who/whom all the way down.

Blogger Chiva March 11, 2015 2:40 PM  

Truth is never extreme. It is always true.

Anonymous Muddled middle March 11, 2015 2:40 PM  

Harold 3393: that "truth is in the middle" bit only works if you carefully select your sets to make it come out the way you want it to. Two can play that game.

Forcible rape of an infant is good. Incorrect.
Forcible rape of an infant is bad. Also incorrect?

Is that your position, Harold, that raping an infant is sometimes good? It would have to be, if the truth always lies in the middle.


Blogger swiftfoxmark2 March 11, 2015 2:42 PM  

And the former is considerably less pretty than its historically ignorant proponents understand.

What's wrong with the ritualistic rape and sacrifice of the king's consort after he has died?

Blogger Quadko March 11, 2015 2:45 PM  


Killing another human being is always wrong: Incorrect.
Killing another human being is always right: Incorrect.

I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I think you are being sarcastic, but it came out correct. I'm sorry if I misread you. It's always wrong to murder another human being, but there are many instances where it is not wrong to kill them. Only fringe pacifists hold a different stance, as far as I know; everyone else draws the line somewhere and says it is OK to render non-living some form of living coherent human DNA on the path to dying naturally of old age. The current most common lines are self defense, war, criminal execution, and abortion, and suicide is debated. All of those are considered 'killing', but aren't considered murder by their practitioners. (Obviously there is debate on them all!)

Anonymous The moderate position March 11, 2015 2:51 PM  

Clearly, the conclusion is that killing another person is right half the time you do it.

Blogger JDC March 11, 2015 2:52 PM  

Jeremiah 6:15
Are they ashamed of their detestable conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen; they will be brought down when I punish them,” says the Lord.

Blogger David March 11, 2015 2:53 PM  

Josh, I thought judgment implied reaching conclusions, and then deducing rules.

If one starts with life, and adds readily observed axioms, one arrives at a single path for right and wrong, with relatively little gray area.

If you self-describe as libertarian then you grasp the full implication of the nonaggression principle.

Stephan Molineaux has written extensively on this.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey March 11, 2015 2:53 PM  

It's who/whom all the way down.

This.

Blogger David March 11, 2015 2:58 PM  

I concur, there is but one path that codifies a single set of rules for a society of individuals.

We each recognize the value of our life in others and act accordingly, or we accept this cesspool of folly now in place, where people are used at will and collectivism treats all but the queens as interchangeable insects.

Blogger David March 11, 2015 2:59 PM  

I concur, there is but one path that codifies a single set of rules for a society of individuals.

We each recognize the value of our life in others and act accordingly, or we accept this cesspool of folly now in place, where people are used at will and collectivism treats all but the queens as interchangeable insects.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 11, 2015 3:01 PM  

Thordaddy: "Paganism = multiple daddies = severe identity crisis...."

No; this is simply solved by appropriate killing.

Consider the Vestals, rightly admired as models of holiness. While they were good, they were at a social pinnacle. If they became unchaste, they were buried alive -- no excuses, no apologies, no redemption for a price: the end.

Many people who comment on this blog think women lack discipline. Set up a house of Vestals in every Western country, uphold the laws with undeviating rigor, and I think you'll find role models of feminine self-control will not be lacking.

Yes it is that simple.

Many problems can and should be solved like this. This is the best way for us to be saved, collectively, in the long run, and visibly. Which in my opinion also implies individually, in the longest run, and invisibly. The doom that faces us is equally moral and demographic; the purest and best form of fighting this doom should also have a united and comprehensive character. That's just my opinion of course.

Blogger Noah B March 11, 2015 3:03 PM  

"It was precisely the ubiquity of common standards of moral and ethical restraint that led to the death of kings and the distribution of power, to the industrial revolution and the very existence of the first world."

This statement is not supported by history. Christianity and the moral code that accompanies it was ubiquitous in the western world for almost two millennia before monarchies were replaced with representative democracies and the industrial revolution occurred. Although it did not directly oppose the power of kings, the common system of Christian morals did largely constrain kings to act within that framework of morality. For example, Henry VIII went to great lengths simply to justify a divorce, and the ramifications of his decision are still being felt today with the division he created in Christendom.

What makes the events of today so sinister is that our would-be rulers want the power that the kings of yesterday enjoyed without the restraint and responsibility that traditionally accompanied such power. And that is why they want to crush Christianity and anything resembling a common moral code.

Blogger Thordaddy March 11, 2015 3:07 PM  

Christianity = Supremacy
Christian = Supremacist
white Christian = white Supremacist

These are the hard equations which exist and stand as an affront to all liberationists who then wield their own false equation with an inexplicable near universal "success." Even the realiest real race-realist realizes white Supremacy = white degeneracy = white Christianity. Even Neo's reaction assumes Christianity as the source of white self-annihilation. The demise of white man is as simple as ALL emerging "white" males embracing anti-white Supremacy. This is in fact the case except it is actually ALL "white" males have embraced anti-white Supremacy even those who call themselves "Christians."

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 11, 2015 3:11 PM  

Laguna Beach Fogey: "Our Germanic pagan heritage is attractive to some of us precisely because it is so brutal. If only traditional Christianity could resurrect some of that killer instinct."

The Pope invites Muslims to settle Europe. (And Protestant churches are generally worse.) Suppose His Holiness were to enforce his will on this topic by having those who disagreed burned -- that would be brutal, but would it be what's needed most?

I think blood loyalty is most needed. After that one can talk about the severity with which this loyalty might be upheld.

Anonymous The OASF March 11, 2015 3:26 PM  

I find it amusing that those who go to Church never notice that the "preacher" or "evangelist" or "reverend" or whatever only and always lecture the peasants, paupers, slaves. Never is their faux visceral directed at an elite or an elite organization (except for very exclusive preordained stooges like Obama, Putin, Ahmadinejad, etc.). Never is an elite called out by name, such as a CEO or government managerial elite... and any Christian vigilante who does so from the pulpit is locked up so fast... and the keys thrown away so far... that it would have made Hitler and Stalin blush with envy.

America has become one of the most anti-Christian countries in the world. The fact that the suppression is done with such viciousness and stealth is harbinger of the continued evil to come.

Blogger ScuzzaMan March 11, 2015 3:40 PM  

Noah B:

I dont disagree in any particular respect.

That is why I very carefully wrote "led to" and not something implying rather more direct and immediate cause.

Civilisations never arise in a moment and rarely end that way, either.

(On that note, I once heard a fascinating treatise by a preacher whose name I cannot now recall, on the subject of cultures which had been completely eradicated. History knows very little of such, the glaring exceptions being solely (or almost so?) biblical, iirc).

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 11, 2015 4:00 PM  

The OASF: "I find it amusing that those who go to Church never notice that the "preacher" or "evangelist" or "reverend" or whatever only and always lecture the peasants, paupers, slaves."

By friends' reports: they bid the already tolerant to be more tolerant, and to search their hearts for hints of intolerance and bigotry. In sum, they do whatever they can to make those who are being victimized and displaced easier to victimize and displace. They are on the side of the wolves. If they were more brutal, they would still be enemies, but more brutal about it.

Blogger IM2L844 March 11, 2015 4:12 PM  

There is no actual relativism. It's just about what group you belong to and your politics.

You know what "about" means...right?

Anonymous A.B. Prosper March 11, 2015 4:27 PM  

Ignoring whether the religious aspects are truth , the greatest gift Christianity gave the West was the concept of a greater civilization, the idea that everyone who shared your faith was in some way your brother.

This was a huge improvement from Roman tyranny and from the narrow kinship systems such as Frith that dominated before its coming. In theory Islam has this as well even extending this to other people of the book but of course theory and reality aren't always the same. Its telling that Judaism isn't like this at all , its quite tribal

If Christianity is replaced with Paganism or fades into a remnant , that ideal is what we will lose and moving to a world where "you ain't my set, you ain't my friend." would be a huge loss.

Anonymous Harold March 11, 2015 4:32 PM  

"If Christianity is replaced with Paganism or fades into a remnant , that ideal is what we will lose and moving to a world where "you ain't my set, you ain't my friend." would be a huge loss."

When you discard an inadequate system you don't discard it wholesale. One embraces that or those parts of the system that still offer benefits.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 11, 2015 4:34 PM  

ray: "Fertility cults have been the staple of human societies for thousands of years, and are certainly dominant currently across the planet, especially in the West. The anglosphere -- sexually, politically, legally, psychologically and socially -- are modern forms of these goddess-worshipping, sexually libertine cults."

The sterilizing, aborting, "gender theory"-promoting, queer this and poly that official consensus we live under can be called a lot of things, but a classical fertility cult it is not.

Any temple of Venus Genetrix -- equipped of course with guards ready to kill any Pussy Riot style mockers if they showed up -- would contradict the whole of Judeo-Christianity about as thoroughly as possible.

And if more contradictions were needed: add more temples.

OpenID alphaisassumed March 11, 2015 4:41 PM  

@ IM2L844: "You know what 'about' means...right?"

I'm not sure what your point is, but I'll grant that I should have said here "there are no actual relativists" (like I did in a previous comment) instead of "[t]here is no actual relativism." Relativism does in fact exist as a rhetorical device but as an actual belief system it merely serves as a stopping point between belief systems (usually very brief). Otherwise, it's a mask for subjective power ethics, for the ostensible relativist DOES believe in absolute right and wrong, he just defines right and wrong according to what pushes his political power agenda.

~ Martel

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 11, 2015 4:48 PM  

A.B. Prosper: "Ignoring whether the religious aspects are truth , the greatest gift Christianity gave the West was the concept of a greater civilization, the idea that everyone who shared your faith was in some way your brother."

Current practice shows that's the "gift" of betrayal and extermination.

Here come the hordes of your "brothers," millions strong, to live at your expense, take your cities, end your entire race, and leave nothing but the kind of genetic traces Neanderthal Man has left. Is this good? It's a matter of religious perspective, ultimately.

A.B. Prosper: "This was a huge improvement from Roman tyranny and from the narrow kinship systems such as Frith that dominated before its coming."

I dissent.

A.B. Prosper: "In theory Islam has this as well even extending this to other people of the book but of course theory and reality aren't always the same."

Hence Islam being more workable in practice than in theory.

A.B. Prosper: "Its telling that Judaism isn't like this at all , its quite tribal "

Admirable.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 11, 2015 4:52 PM  

Harold: "When you discard an inadequate system you don't discard it wholesale. One embraces that or those parts of the system that still offer benefits."

Quite.

But in the 21st Century, I think there's reason to disagree on what counts as a "benefit".

Anonymous Varenius March 11, 2015 5:00 PM  

clk: ...(and dont start quoting Revelations folks .. Ihave read it as well)

Are you sure?

"`I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth." Rev 3:15-16

Plus you have the name wrong.

Anonymous Harold March 11, 2015 5:01 PM  

Titus, I'm betting there was reason to disagree about benefits back in the 3rd Century.

In any case, the retreat of serious Christianity doesn't amount to a betrayal of every value championed by the faith. Just as earlier values found their way into the christian faith, some christian values will live on in the coming spiritual synthesis.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 11, 2015 5:07 PM  

Harold: "Titus, I'm betting there was reason to disagree about benefits back in the 3rd Century."

Heck yes. Christianity had a lot going for it.

Harold: "In any case, the retreat of serious Christianity doesn't amount to a betrayal of every value championed by the faith. Just as earlier values found their way into the christian faith, some christian values will live on in the coming spiritual synthesis."

If there's a synthesis for us, that implies there'll still be an "us". That's in doubt, but I'm all in favor of it.

Blogger ScuzzaMan March 11, 2015 5:08 PM  

Harold, there aint nothing coming after this. The people squeezing the civility out of civilisation are determined to rule over the entire planet. They have already demonstrated they will destroy races, nations, civilisations, kindreds, tongues and people, to do it.

For the first time in history, they believe, they have the power to impose themselves on an entire world. That's what the words "unipolar moment" mean.

That's what the ongoing destruction of Russia as a world power signifies.
That's what the coming destruction of China as an opponent of western hegemony will demonstrate.

When you see it happening remember, you read it here.

OpenID cailcorishev March 11, 2015 5:09 PM  

Truth is never extreme. It is always true.

Exactly. Aristotle's Golden Mean only applies when the two "extremes" are two opposing virtues, like frugality and generosity. Both are good virtues but either can become a vice if taken to the extreme.

There's no Golden Mean between truth and falsehood, good and evil, healthy and unhealthy, or working and broken.

Anonymous Heaviside March 11, 2015 5:14 PM  

>They were destroyed by a plague of nonjudgmentalism, which refused to assert that one way of behaving was better than another.

Go tell strangers that the gas chambers are a myth and see this "nonjudgmentalism" in action!

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 11, 2015 5:20 PM  

ScuzzaMan, suppose we give up and accept as unalterable truth that our foes are bound to win; what reward can we expect to receive for this resignation?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 11, 2015 5:21 PM  

Heaviside: "Go tell strangers that the gas chambers are a myth and see this "nonjudgmentalism" in action!"

:D

Anonymous Heaviside March 11, 2015 5:26 PM  

Conservatives stupidly accept the Left's own position that it has no moral standards. Of course they have moral rules, claiming not to have any just makes them impossible to attack.

Anonymous Stickwick March 11, 2015 5:31 PM  

clk: I am a self admitted, sane moderate with a strong belief that the truth is often found in the space between the extremes.

IIRC, you're the person who more or less said in a previous discussion that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says. Anyway, I'm starting to think "moderate" just means mindless, because it's certainly not a philosophy based on first principles.

Joshua_D: And then I got to the episode you're talking about where the dude sacrifices himself, and I thought, "Screw that. I'm not watching this death cult shit."

I almost quit watching at that point. What made it particularly depressing was that the man who sacrificed himself was in the prime of his life, an excellent warrior, a brave man, and he died for nothing. I nevertheless made it into the second season, but quit watching after that.

Anonymous Harold March 11, 2015 5:32 PM  

Is there really a belief out there that that there is no right or wrong, just different ways of thinking or understanding? I've never seen this and certainly never seen any group of consequence adhere to this notion.

Blogger Kirk Parker March 11, 2015 5:36 PM  

"people like you so often like to describe yourselves as 'thoughtful' "

Yeah, I think a more accurate word would be "hesitant".

Blogger ScuzzaMan March 11, 2015 5:41 PM  

Titus

You misapprehend. I said nothing about giving up. I'm a member of a religion that believes in turning my enemies into brothers. Giving up is not on the menu.

But nor is kidding myself that I (or we) can defeat Lucifer using his own weapons.

Anonymous p-dawg March 11, 2015 5:41 PM  

@David: "If one starts with life, and adds readily observed axioms, one arrives at a single path for right and wrong, with relatively little gray area."

You're joking, right? This must be a joke. If you think you have evidence of naturally-derived morality, please post an example of one of these "readily observed axioms".

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 11, 2015 5:46 PM  

ScuzzaMan: "You misapprehend."

Yes I did.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 11, 2015 5:50 PM  

p-dawg: "You're joking, right? This must be a joke. If you think you have evidence of naturally-derived morality, please post an example of one of these "readily observed axioms"."

We can start with the Gods of the Copybook Headings, or C.S. Lewis' Tao, or Thomas Aquinas, or Roman law, for example on principles of natural justice. Do you have a preference?

Anonymous Varenius March 11, 2015 5:51 PM  

p-dawg: If you think you have evidence of naturally-derived morality, please post an example of one of these "readily observed axioms".

He's channeling Ayn Rand.

Blogger IM2L844 March 11, 2015 5:51 PM  

Relativism does in fact exist as a rhetorical device but as an actual belief system it merely serves as a stopping point between belief systems (usually very brief).

Why pick on relativism? If absolutism is true, and I believe it is, then any and all other philosophical positions with respect to the source or existence (in the case of nihilism) of morality are only ostensible and not actual.

OpenID bc64a9f8-765e-11e3-8683-000bcdcb2996 March 11, 2015 5:53 PM  

"or if you prefer, b) evolved through trial-and-error."
But..but...it's only because the alternitives just haven't been done RIGHT yet!
(Since "civilisation" first used a stick to plant stationary "gathering" crops on a flood plain)
CaptDMO

Blogger SirHamster March 11, 2015 6:09 PM  

Anyway, I'm starting to think "moderate" just means mindless, because it's certainly not a philosophy based on first principles.

The moderate has one principle: Your principle(s) is wrong.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper March 11, 2015 6:31 PM  

Titus Didius Tacitus, your point re: Rome and Christendom are quite important . Actually they are in many ways the core of the debate.

1st The Roman system was a multi-cult as well and ended up devoured by its foreigners. It lasted a long time but its not a real solution. Its just a reversion to an older form of what wee have now,.

2nd re: more Pagan -Pre-Christian systems

A: I don't think Thordaddy's "White Nationalist Christendom" is either good Christianity or workable. Its also to my mind a bit absurd to be worshiping a Semitic Jewish Rabbi and claiming his message for for your folk only when it was clearly aimed at everyone. Its outright heresy. This doesn't mean the State can't have a no foreigners policy but that religious inclusion drive and the secular needs will ever be at odds.

B: I basically agree that almost every White person in the West and many others would benefit from more kinship and larger families. This can be compatible with being a Christian if we see fit but its not IMO compatible with Christendom. The reason is one of loyalty, in kinship systems ones first, maybe ones only loyalty is too ones tribe or clan and other alliances of honor. This precludes loyalty to the message of Christianity in any form since it opens you to as you say a lot of foreigners whom are obliged to be treated as brothers, Clannish Christianity does exists but its by no means common especially among modern Protestant strains

C: The State hates larger families with a passion. Anything larger than an extended family is a threat to consumerism, the loyalty to the state

This is why the Church back when it was the State and the Nobles spent millenniums encouraging nuclear families, its the smallest possible successful family unit Now in fairness in a 200 person village context its not terribly problematic but in the modern era it makes people meat for the State.

This whole nuclear family BS started to make it easier for the church and the nobles to have power over people they did not have kinship with. Now certainly large clans can be defeated at a cost or divided but are often a huge threat and if everyone was clannish or it was the default model, neither feudalism nor Christendom would have a chance.

We can see a modern version in the Middle East though its complicated by Islam . Simply its going to be difficult to have a Frith based or similar system and modernity. People do not want to give modernity up and in truth its not all bad The question than is how do we balance the needs to kin and race with the technological and security benefits of modernity and against the impulses of the current system, the satanic heresy of the multi-cult. a real Christendom, something pagan or even a rational secular state ?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 11, 2015 6:53 PM  

A.B. Prosper, very interesting comment. I don't have a knee-jerk reply; I'd rather think about it.

Anonymous p-dawg March 11, 2015 7:21 PM  

@Titus: Yes, my preference would be for an example of a naturally-derived tenet of morality, which is probably why that's what I asked for. I asked David, but if you believe you can actually provide an example, please feel free to do so.

Anonymous Harold March 11, 2015 7:38 PM  

"@David: "If one starts with life, and adds readily observed axioms, one arrives at a single path for right and wrong, with relatively little gray area."

You're joking, right? This must be a joke. If you think you have evidence of naturally-derived morality, please post an example of one of these "readily observed axioms"

The task of describing a moral system NOT derived from supernatural or spiritual origin and that possesses examples of its utility beyond simply obeying a command are easy to come up with and derive. Altruism is perhaps the most obvious.

However, many will take issue with this way of developing a "path for right and wrong" by asking, "what is your warrant for saying X is good and moral". In the end "nature" or observations or even experience provide that warrant, but it's not a definitive warrant of the type theists want to demand of other moral systems (as well as their own).

This last problem for the theist however is just that. A problem for the theist. It's unlikely a problem for David nor for friends of David.

Blogger MATT March 11, 2015 7:49 PM  

A system of purported morality derived from rationality, the merit of which is measured by its utility , functions only as a system that deems a set of actions either to be rational or irrational based on its utility at that moment or as a part of a set of actions within a greater plan of utility.

The secular humanist materialist whatever-ist must admit that morality is entirely subjective. The Christian (etc) does so whether he realizes it or not, just as the Christian is a polytheist whether he realizes it or not. Or should be, anyway, depending on hw dep you want to go in describing belief. For our purposes, its a given.

You cannot believe in morality without believing in God. Youd think the rationalists would realize that. Maybe they call themselves this ironically. Like Liberals.

Anonymous Harold March 11, 2015 8:04 PM  

"The secular humanist materialist whatever-ist must admit that morality is entirely subjective."

It's not a concern them I don't think. I think their concern is that they lead an ethical life based around a series of tenets they believe benefit themselves and mankind (and probably nature too in many cases). If you ask this person why is wrong, they can tell you a number of very convincing, succinct and rational reasons (as well as a number of spiritual though non theistic reasons) why killing is wrong.

Theists do the same sort of thing. God gives us a choice to believe or not believe. We either choose to believe (and presumably to embrace His commandments and laws) or we choose not to. The latter group will look at the ethics derived from the believers' faith and likely say, "yea, commandment is both a useful and proper way to live from my view—good for you" as well as say, "No, I cannot embrace that commandment as it does little to help or better (name the person or people or thing they want to help thrive).

The "humanist" isn't a threat. They are nearly all very good people you can trust to do what you believe is right. The threat is those who believe there must be punishment for others not doing as they believe ought to be done, whether humanists or theists.

Blogger ChicagoRefugee March 11, 2015 8:23 PM  

Mr. Brooks may indeed have a point, but as an American I refuse to be lectured to by someone whose son is currently serving in the IDF.

Blogger Danby March 11, 2015 8:41 PM  

"...just as the Christian is a polytheist whether he realizes it or not. Or should be, anyway, depending on hw dep you want to go in describing belief. For our purposes, its a given."

Herpderp sez: "I don't understand Christianity, so I'll apply an inappropriate label that's bound to piss off Christians. And I'll insist that the reason they're mad is because they don't understand even the most basic parts of their own belief. That'll be fun. Hurrr."

Blogger MATT March 11, 2015 8:52 PM  

@Harold practice trumps theory, and its clear from the social trenda of the past century that the more people move away from Christianity, which laid the ground work for our civilization both as a moral frame as well as an organizing focalpoint, the further into batbarisn we fall. Many will say "blah blah other cultures have said this and accomplished that etc blah " and imagine this diaproves the claim that we need Christianity, but it does the opposite. It helps to prove this claim.

Blogger MATT March 11, 2015 8:56 PM  

Danby, all youve done there is show us all you cant understand what you read, or didnt bother to read it at all. Just look for things to be offended by. Christianity is polytheistic. Theist means you believe. It doesnt mean worship. Or is Satan an atheist? I dont think so.

Blogger MidKnight March 11, 2015 9:01 PM  

@Vox
You're absolutely, hilariously wrong. The amusing thing is that people like you so often like to describe yourselves as "thoughtful", which is one thing that you most definitely are not. Here is the fundamental flaw in your approach: the truth is not negotiable.

The truth is not negotiable.. - that has to be the most succinct way I've seen of putting paid to the "moderation is always the right position" argument.

Anonymous p-dawg March 11, 2015 9:09 PM  

@Harold: "Altruism is perhaps the most obvious." Bullshit. There is nothing in nature to suggest altruism is a natural law, and there is no way to derive altruism as a law from nature. If it's so obvious, then you should be able to easily prove my previous sentence wrong. Please do so. I will provide a single counterexample which should suffice to disprove your assertion about altruism. It is this: Animals eat each other to live, and kill each other for sport. This proves that altruism is not natural law, since nature does not follow it.

Blogger Danby March 11, 2015 9:27 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Danby March 11, 2015 9:31 PM  

@MATT
all you've done there is show us all you cant understand what you read, or didn't bother to read it at all. The resources needed to understand Christianity are freely available. I'm not responsible for your failure to understand basic Christianity.
Satan is not a god, nor is he God. Show me a single Christian source that calls him such. 2000 years of Christian thought do not bow before your redefinition of basic terms.
You, you fraud, are being deliberately provocative, and pretending to be surprised when you provoke. I would classify your deliberate redefinition of basic terms in order to provoke by it's more classic name, a lie.

Anonymous Big Gay Ed Gibbon March 11, 2015 10:03 PM  

Okay, could we make up our minds, please? Is America/the West on the verge of collapse or is it about to subjugate Russia and China? Because those two things don't match. Dying civilizations don't just up and annihilate their most powerful rivals.

Blogger David March 11, 2015 10:05 PM  

Josh, I thought judgment implied reaching conclusions, and then deducing rules.

If one starts with life, and adds readily observed axioms, one arrives at a single path for right and wrong, with relatively little gray area.

If you self-describe as libertarian then you grasp the full implication of the nonaggression principle.

Stephan Molineaux has written extensively on this.

Anonymous Heaviside March 11, 2015 10:18 PM  

Molyneux is a fast-talking cult leader. His arguments are just retarded versions of Kant, and Kant was wrong.

Anonymous Jack Amok March 11, 2015 10:54 PM  

even those who belatedly recognize this can't quite bring themselves to do the obvious and call for a return to the traditional white Christian civilization of Western Christendom:

Seems to me the bulk of the more-or-less legitimate complaints modern anti-Christians voice about traditional white Christian civilization can be laid at the feet of either the meddlesome blue-nose SJWs that currently infest the anti-Christian movement, or the grifters currently infesting government.

A Church, like any other human institution, can be abused by Carrie Nations style control freaks and Freezer-Cash Jefferson style crooks. But at least in exchange for the occasional eruptions of witch-burning or embezzlement, we got civilization in return. Leftists "solution" to the "problem" of religion turns out to have all the drawbacks and none of the advantages.

Anonymous Harold March 12, 2015 12:25 AM  

"the more people move away from Christianity, which laid the ground work for our civilization both as a moral frame as well as an organizing focalpoint, the further into batbarisn we fall..."

You claim that we've fallen into barbarism is a value claim based on an christian world view. So I'm not surprised you'd come to this conclusion. But even putting that aside, I'm not convinced of the claim that we've fallen into barbarism. I'd like to hear your case for the fall you describe.

Anonymous Harold March 12, 2015 12:43 AM  

"@Harold: "Altruism is perhaps the most obvious." Bullshit. There is nothing in nature to suggest altruism is a natural law, and there is no way to derive altruism as a law from nature."

I agree, P-dog. But I don't think that David (or I) ever made the case that it was nature (birds, bees, plants, evolution, natural forces, etc) that suggested or proved or demonstrated that altruism was a natural law. You interpreted David's comment this way.

David said this:
"If one starts with life, and adds readily observed axioms, one arrives at a single path for right and wrong, with relatively little gray area."

I don't see this as the claim that natural laws concerning morality can be derived from nature. I see this as a clam that a useful moral code can be derived from observing life as it is lived along the with noticing the consequences of actions.

You however took it as a claim that observing nature leads to the discover of natural moral laws when you responded this way:

"You're joking, right? This must be a joke. If you think you have evidence of naturally-derived morality"

So, I agree with you. No useful moral code will be derived from watching a bird let out a warning call.

However, while altruism can be observed in the "natural world" and might serve as a natural example of he benefit of altruism, my claim is that a human being can more readily see the the benefits of an altruistic approach to life by observing the impact of altruism among human beings. This in turn would help a person discover a useful "path for right and wrong", as David called it.

I'm not a religious person, let alone a Christian, but I'd have to be an idiot not to see that within the Christian world view there are very useful lessons for how to live a good and righteous life if you are inclined to believe that the well being of your fellow man is in general is a laudable thing to stick near the top of your moral system. And I do. And it guides me.

But I also see that just as human derived moral codes have at times failed to advance the well being of man, so have some religious-derived moral codes. So, I think that David is not too far off the mark...assuming he wasn't suggesting, as you think he was, that we can derive useful moral paths simply by looking at how nature works. As you note, in nature, the young are often eaten.

Blogger MATT March 12, 2015 1:30 AM  

Harold: Divorce rates, breakdown and breakup of families, abortion rates, std rates, children born out of wedlock, low birthrate amongst native born americans (especially white), are all signs we're heading towards barbarism. Sex is everywhere and the traditional male icon is ridiculed in the public sphere. People worship and idolize celebrities as some kind of demi gods they secretly wish to destroy, hoping to see them fall, serving as a god and sacrificial lamb all in one. Its perverse soft paganism. I dont use this word barbarism to mean any alternative to Christianity, but the inevitable destination of OUR civilization which was made possible chiefly because of the organizing belief in Christianity and all that was made possible by the Christian family unit serving as the central cog. I do not say a pagan civilization could not accomplish this. I say our civilization did not accomplish this as anything other than a Christian civilization.

It wouldnt matter that some people always behave this way. It matters because most people are behaving this way. Im half asake and this was poorly worded and put together, if you dont know what Im saying, i dont know what to say.

Btw im not saying I am Christian. Om just saying you cant smash the foundation of a building and expect it to stand. And to roll your eyes at what came before is to do just that. Its arrogant and short sighted. And disrespectful.

Danby, youre ridiculous. "You shall worship no other gods BUT ME". This implys there are other gods. They just arent the capital G YAHWEH, the God of Moses and Abraham and Isaac, the maker of this world and all that is, as described in The Holy Bible, the book you claim to have read, or seem to be claiming to have read.

Blogger MATT March 12, 2015 1:33 AM  

"Gypsies in Eastern Europe are also known for their nonchalance about their women getting knocked up by white men, typically via prostitution."

So they arent strict patriarchal and protective of their daughters virginity as their American counterparts are portrayed in that dumb reality show?

Blogger Danby March 12, 2015 2:00 AM  

I may well be ridiculous, but you're dishonest, or maybe just an idiot. You aren't a Christian. You don't get to define our terms, you don't get to tell us what we believe. In fact, if you had any decent respect for the opinion of honest men you'd do yourself a favor and hold your fool tongue until you had the least understanding of the subject.

But I guess failure to refrain intellectually humiliating yourself is kind of your signature move, like a village idiot masturbating in a pool of his own urine.

Blogger WildClaw March 12, 2015 2:41 AM  

How much bloodshed and whose blood are you willing to spill in order to "restore" White western society?
Also, in Genesis, God created everything in the universe. Other gods were not one of those things. the first commandment means to put nothing else before God.
And as for paganism, I can't see it getting much support from any sizeable strata of society.

Blogger Danby March 12, 2015 2:46 AM  

@WildClaw,
Don't bother, he's not arguing honestly, dialectic is wasted on his type.

Blogger MATT March 12, 2015 3:11 AM  

Danby, ironically, its you who cant be reached using dialectic, and Im.not surprised you dont understand what dialectic means. Whether Im christian or not is irrelevant. You clearly don't understand what you read on your own and have trouble understanding whats spelled out for you in clear terms.

Wildclaw, Genesis makes no specific mention of many things that exist.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 12, 2015 5:55 AM  

p-dawg: "@Titus: Yes, my preference would be for an example of a naturally-derived tenet of morality, which is probably why that's what I asked for."

OK. first attempt: courts have a duty to act fairly.

Naturally this needs elaboration, which has been done. For example, a person should be barred from deciding a case where they may reasonably be suspected of being a biased, interested party. There are other safeguards, and different nations may (and will) disagree on what safeguards are best. But the basic postulate is: courts have a duty to act fairly.

This postulate is derived from the affairs of homo sapiens, which is part of nature. One can see widespread legal systems and courts, and with them, implicit and often explicit calls for fairness. So in legislating to bring about fairness in the courts, and in thinking about what that would be and how to ensure it, your Roman lawgiver was not arbitrarily inventing, and saying, "whatever we say shall be this arbitrary thing 'fair' shall be considered 'fair'," rather he was consciously and carefully being guided by nature, with the widespread existence of courts aspiring to fairness and having safeguards of more or less worth considered as a natural phenomenon.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 12, 2015 6:53 AM  

There are at least two ways to take the idea of reading from the book of nature to get your moral code: an atheist way and a theistic way.

On the atheist path, you are or should be looking for a warrant for morality, a foundation stone. Because this is a crisis: you've declared that Zeus' golden scales of justice do not exist, there are no gods etc., so where is your warrant for morality?

That is not where the theistic view on deriving morality from nature comes from. On this track, which is held in common by many pagans (historically) and Christians, the problem is, you may have a supernatural starting point, but it doesn't give you enough. The fact of Zeus' golden scales adequately warrants a demand for justice, but it doesn't provide nearly enough detail. Not even the elaborate codes of the Jews would provide enough detail. So one reads the book of nature to see what its author(s) seem to be about, concerning mankind, and in this way (among other benefits) one prevents oneself from flying off at some harsh supernatural tangent divorced from reality. For example, one does not interpret marriage in a purely legal, supernatural or rhetorical way, but one points to the natural end, children, and demands that judgments concerning marriage as an institution keep this essential purpose in mind, rejecting what is contrary to that as unnatural and wrong.

Thomas Aquinas thought this was a great way to reach moral judgments, and I think the same thing.

Which is why I'll be reaching the same sorts of judgments most of the time, give or take improved evidence from modern science (such as ultrasound), what I take to be the fact of evolution (not abiogenesis), and so on.

I hope this explains why I'm picking up the challenge to derive morality from nature, and what I mean by doing so.

By the way, there was a nice example of this line of thinking in one of the plays of Aeschylus (which unfortunately is lost). It is in the Danaid Tetralogy, which begins with Suppliants. Long story short, a woman who has been married off by force as part of a package deal is commanded for good reason (the force) to kill her husband, but she does not. She's put on trial for neglecting duty in favor of sentiment -- and Aphrodite, goddess of love in person, rocks up to be her defense lawyer. You couldn't get a clearer illustration of the idea that the authors and defenders of nature have an interest in what's right. In this conception, "nature red in tooth and claw" is not the whole story; there's also nature demanding that a wife act as wives should act, loving her husband and not killing him.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 12, 2015 7:34 AM  

WildClaw: "And as for paganism, I can't see it getting much support from any sizeable strata of society."

Right. Partly because Christianity, or nowadays Judeo-Christianity, is uninhibited in bad-mouthing paganism, which is harmless, but servile to Judaism, which is hostile, and increasingly deferential to Islam too.

When Christians tear down the Altar of Victory and nobody can stop them, where is your heart? Is it on your own side, even if it is losing? Or is it on the side of those who have proven that they have power and are the winners, even if this requires you to take a larger view of what "your" side is, even perhaps to approving the end of your nation?

When the Popes beckon the brown and black hordes to come and take Europe (and all other white nations too) (and Protestants are mostly worse) where is your heart? Is it on your own side, even if it is losing? Or will you loyally stand with Christ and his supreme representative on Earth?

I prefer the narrower view of loyalty. But that's a small minority view.

Most people will cheer "Yay the winner!" That's just the reality.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 12, 2015 7:39 AM  

There is no easy way out. Humanity is not going to magically, or rationally, invent a better moral system than those that a) were handed down from on high, or if you prefer, b) evolved through trial-and-error. In light of the failure of secularism and multiculturalism, the nations of the West are going to embrace some past moral structure, absolutist judgments and all.

Or perish, utterly and forever.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 12, 2015 8:05 AM  

The only question is if it will be pagan or Christian. And the former is considerably less pretty than its historically ignorant proponents understand.

OK, cancel the beauty parade.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 12, 2015 9:08 AM  

p-dawg, here's another readily observed postulate derived from nature, stated by Frank Salter: every creature has an interest in perpetuating its own kind. This includes human beings of course, and it implies ethnic genetic interests.

Put negatively: you will not find any warrant in nature for asserting that living creatures have no interest in the perpetuation of their own kind.

This interest is legitimate, or at least there is no way to declare it illegitimate.

Moral opinions deriving from a view that people have collective interests in perpetuating their kind are natural; those that deny any such interest are unnatural. (So, for example, the view that "gender" or really sex should be assigned arbitrarily and without regard for the proper goods of family life including reproduction is unnatural.)

At least by default, a creature, including a human creature, acting on a legitimate interest is good. That it, this person is directing himself to a proper end, therefore to some extent at least they must be good of their kind. They are in harmony with their place in nature.

So, for example, is a rabbi directing himself single-mindedly to the survival of the Jewish people good? Yes, very good. He is a good creature, justified by the fact that he is doing what he should be doing, striving for the future of his own breed, which he has a totally legitimate interest in doing. (That he may see his work mostly in a supernatural context is not a problem, as nature and super-nature need not be at odds, especially if you think both realms have the same author(s).)

If you reject this view and decide with Agent Smith that "the purpose of life is to die" (or an arbitrary denial of values than amounts to the same thing) that's your choice and I won't argue with it. It's enough for me that my view is harmonious.

Blogger ScuzzaMan March 12, 2015 2:23 PM  

"Theist means you believe. It doesnt mean worship. Or is Satan an atheist? I dont think so."

You know the difference between a-moral and im-moral?

Well, Satan is an i-theist.

It's a popular view.

Blogger IM2L844 March 12, 2015 2:46 PM  

p-dawg, here's another readily observed postulate derived from nature, stated by Frank Salter: every creature has an interest in perpetuating its own kind. This includes human beings of course, and it implies ethnic genetic interests.

It's not a readily observable axiomatic postulate. The implications are not unarguably intrinsic. It's a hypothesis derived from a correlation that, applying Occam's Razor, is more readily explained as mere coincidence rather than any sort of general moral calculation on the part of the animal kingdom.

It shouldn't be surprising that man, created in God's image, would occasionally and independently from one another create ethical systems that frequently resonate with divine command theory. Likewise, it shouldn't be surprising that fallen man should also occasionally and independently from one another create systems of ethics that are at odds with divine command theory.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 12, 2015 2:56 PM  

IM2L844: "It's not a readily observable axiomatic postulate. The implications are not unarguably intrinsic."

I don't need unarguability, just concordance with observed reality. If I demanded unarguability, I could never get past Hume's disintegrating arguments.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 12, 2015 2:58 PM  

By the way, what's your view of: courts have a duty to act fairly?

Blogger IM2L844 March 12, 2015 4:31 PM  

By the way, what's your view of: courts have a duty to act fairly?

Duty to who? Fairly by who's standard?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 12, 2015 4:41 PM  

No, before we get to the details, which will naturally vary from culture to culture, we see the pervasiveness of courts across the world, and in them, demands for and promises of fairness. That is a natural fact, is it not so?

Blogger IM2L844 March 12, 2015 5:23 PM  

As I implied, humans, created in the image of God, are imbued with the sense that there should be inviolable rules for systematically distinguishing between right actions and wrong actions. This says nothing about how we allow ourselves to be influenced by various relative factors in the construction of such a system. Let's not go 'round in circles.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 12, 2015 5:47 PM  

What's your point? I was asked to provide a naturally-derived tenet of morality and I provided two. I've talked through the process of derivation in loose terms, and if you want tight terms: go to Aquinas. Your problem with this is what? You just seem to be repeating a claim that everything is about moral intuitionism based on a supernatural event, but lacking any argument, rather than an implied claim, that one can't effectively "read from the book of nature" there's nothing there requiring a response.

Blogger IM2L844 March 12, 2015 7:28 PM  

What's your point?

I was responding to your implication that the "pervasiveness of courts across the world" is somehow indicative of something axiomatically explicated by evolution without any evidence to justify that interpretation. Have I misunderstood your position?

My point is that the "pervasiveness of courts across the world", contra evolution, is due to the fact that humans have an innate desire, imbued by our creator, to approximate a system of objective morality. But, as Jesus taught us, legalism isn't equivalent to morality.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 12, 2015 8:17 PM  

Oh! OK, now I understand you.

No I wasn't making a claim that the existence of courts across the world had to be explained by evolution.

I was giving the viewpoint of excellent ancient Romans, who looked around them and saw different people in every direction with courts and laws, and tried to abstract out what was valid in this activity.

Of course Darwinism was no part of their thinking; it hadn't been invented yet.

The point is much simpler: their attitude was, the truth is out there! They were not arbitrary, whimsical or needlessly subjective. They didn't think they could make "justice" be anything they pleased as long as they had the legions to back it up. Like Yogi Berra said: "You can see a lot by observing." They observed, and their goal was to do court procedure better, but not in a way that a modern painter does, by doing something novel and calling it "better" to sell it, rather by working the kinks out of what every nation has to do in some fashion, and making it philosophically consistent and harmonious.

This is different from the attitude of ancient Thrasymachus who said "justice is the advantage of the stronger" and moderns who deny any inherent value in the natural world (the "just a pile of atoms" view) which takes us straight back to Thrasymachus.

The best men of early Rome, when they fell short of justice (as all men do) were genuinely failing in competence; their attitude to law was not cynical at all. So their work has to be taken seriously.

Vox said: "In light of the failure of secularism and multiculturalism, the nations of the West are going to embrace some past moral structure, absolutist judgments and all."

I agree with that. (Mostly. I think we are being extinguished by force, and this is the over-riding issue. But that's another story.)

I gave early Roman republican legal philosophy as an example of this kind of moral structure: non-secular, non-multicultural, absolutist and as far as was possible objective and fair. And I was pointing out that this began with observation, with "reading the book of nature".

(Which Thomas Aquinas went on to do vastly better than I could, but without the benefits of modern science, e.g. advanced medicine.)

Why fairness and duty (or violations of both) are out there to find in history and the world is a different topic. At this point it only matters that they are. We are not living in a world where there are no moral postulates to observe. We are not reduced to capriciously making stuff up.

Blogger WildClaw March 12, 2015 10:04 PM  

I will follow Jesus over any state. To side with an imperfect institution over a divine, holy, and perfect deity is extremely foolish. It's the equivalent of giving God the middle finger and saying that other things are more important and that you will only follow him when its personally convenient. Also, God has a plan and purpose for everything, even if it has unpleasant worldly effects on humans. That does not mean to do whatever the pope says (I'm Protestant.) Deus Vult

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 12, 2015 11:38 PM  

WildClaw, have you seen A Man for All Seasons, either the movie or the play? You sound like an ideal person to appreciate it.

Anonymous Discard March 13, 2015 1:22 AM  

Titus: I saw the play, with Charleton Heston as Sir Thomas More. I count myself privileged.

Blogger WildClaw March 13, 2015 1:34 AM  

I have not. Reading its wikipedia page, it does seem interesting. However, since it is written by an agnostic, I am am not sure of its theological accurqcy. The fate if man's soul is independent of his consciousness. If a man accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior and keeps the Law at heart, he will have a clear conscience hopefully and act according to the Word If he rejects the Word and has a different conscience, then he might be acting immorally even if he acts according to his conscience. Likewise, are you saying that you will pick your tribe over God if there is a conflict? That would almost certainly dam your soul. as for me, since I am a Chinese Christian, I have the luxury of rejecting my race in favor of Christ while still finding Chinese Christian girls in a similar position. I can pick dictatorship by Christ, by state, or by family. With all the oppressiveness if Confucianism society, I'd much rather pick Christ.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 13, 2015 8:25 AM  

Discard: "Titus: I saw the play, with Charleton Heston as Sir Thomas More. I count myself privileged."

Wow! You should count yourself privileged.

Blogger CM March 13, 2015 9:19 AM  

I have not. Reading its wikipedia page, it does seem interesting. However, since it is written by an agnostic, I am am not sure of its theological accurqcy.

If anything, I think the point was that you would appreciate the story of a politician who stood by his faith even when it meant death.

Sir Thomas More was an excellent man and his story is worth hearing. Agnostic or not, the director was respectful and positive towards More.

Blogger IM2L844 March 13, 2015 12:48 PM  

Well then, we were mostly talking past one another, Titus. I would only quibble over the nature of the book of nature and the beginning of the beginning. You go back to observations of the great philosophical thinkers. I go back to observations in the book of Genesis.

In either case, I would concede that it's a huge topic that deserves much more consideration than anyone could possibly provide in the comments section of a blog.

As for the coming reversion Vox referred to, which way it goes might hinge on whether the societal thinking is weighted more toward the teleological or the deontic. A balanced approach doesn't seem to be in the cards.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 13, 2015 1:24 PM  

WildClaw: "Likewise, are you saying that you will pick your tribe over God if there is a conflict?"

No. I said there already is a conflict and I have chosen my side.

WildClaw: "That would almost certainly dam your soul."

OK. I am what I am and I stand for whom I stand for, and there are no excuses or equivocations I wish to offer. Which should end that topic, I hope.


WildClaw: "as for me, since I am a Chinese Christian, I have the luxury of rejecting my race in favor of Christ while still finding Chinese Christian girls in a similar position. I can pick dictatorship by Christ, by state, or by family. With all the oppressiveness if Confucianism society, I'd much rather pick Christ."

Good for you.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 13, 2015 1:25 PM  

CM: "If anything, I think the point was that you would appreciate the story of a politician who stood by his faith even when it meant death."

Yes. And more specifically, faith over state.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 13, 2015 1:26 PM  

IM2L844 March 13, 2015 12:48 PM, now we agree.

Particularly on this: a balanced approach doesn't seem to be in the cards.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts