ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, February 10, 2018

A Churchian Response, part III

This is the third part of my critique of the Churchian response to the 16 Points of the Alt-Right. The first part, covering Points 1-4, is here. The second part covering Points 4-8 is here.
9. I disagree completely. Politics supersedes culture and identity. Right is right no matter when, where, or who is present. A conservative seeks to do what is correct based upon the principles I laid out above. Those principles are the same without regard to my identity or location in space and time. Elective abortion is always murder. Slavery always denies human worth. We do not conform ourselves to our identity (whether social, ethnic, racial, familial, or economic) or our culture; we are to conform ourselves to Jesus Christ. All action, even apolitical action, is political because, as John Donne said, “no man is an island entire of itself.” In following Christ, we necessarily take up certain political ideas. Those ideas are always at odds with the tyranny and oppression, which is why so many nations have tried so hard to eliminate Christianity. Rome cannot fathom the abolition of infanticide and crucifixion or religious liberty. Nazi Germany has no place for such brotherly love and compassion for human life. Communism cannot tolerate any other god than the state. The American South could not allow the doctrine of the image of God because that sets all human beings as equals. No. The Alt Right is quite incorrect. Our identity only matters in how each of us relate to God individually; after that we are duty bound to conform ourselves to him and attempt to conform our world to his word by making disciples. “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” (Matthew 6:33)
Politics do not supersede culture or identity. This is not only backwards, but utterly absurd and flies in the face of all political history as well as the politics of every political entity on the planet. The churchian also contradicts himself when he asserts that Christians - a religious identity - necessarily take up certain political ideas. That is simply another case of identity dictating politics.

As the extraordinarily successful politician Lee Kuan Yew wisely noted, "In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion."
10. Well, once again we have some absolute self-refuting nonsense. According to the Alt Right, the only people who belong here are the North American Indians. Ironically, the Latin Americans the Alt Right seems so desperate to keep out of this country would be amongst the only people left here. So, to where, would you like your plane-ticket? Let me help eliminate some places you might think you can go. You probably cannot go to the British Isles; after the Roman, Saxon, Angle, Jutes, Norman, and Viking invasions as well as the immigration of Indians, Arabs, and various Allied peoples, the druidic people who first lived there have not sufficiently passed on their bloodlines. No one is truly properly British is he or she cannot trace the ancestry back to the time of Boudicca. Let me also rule out anywhere in central Europe; the Germanic tribes invaded Europe in wave after wave before the Huns and Mongols swept across the land, and it get real dicey after the Jewish Diaspora, the collapse of Rome, the Moorish invasions, the Crusades, and a couple of World Wars. I’m not ‘purely’ white. I have evidence that one of my great grandmother’s was a slave and the Landress family was originally Jewish before coming to America. Since Europe is too difficult to determine where I should go, I’ll claim that very minute portion of Jewish ancestry. If you’re ‘Jewish’, like me, you might enjoy the ancient city of Ur of the Chaldeans, after all, Israel was the land God promised Abraham, not the land of his birth. That’ll be nice; I’ve always wanted to live in southern Iraq. We’ll send everybody back where his or her families originated. I hope don’t get too carried away with such a ridiculous idea; it’s going to be awkward with all seven billion of us trying to share North Western Africa.

This concept is racist. It’s not racist in the idea that one race is superior to another; though it does indicate the Alt Right secretly believes that. Instead it is racist in the same way segregation is racist and about it I same the same thing as Chief Justice Earl Warren, “in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” As it is true in education, so it is true in life. I reject the Alt Right’s belief in blood and soil.
Why does he hate the Jews? This is a truly reprehensible, anti-semitic position. Since he rejects the belief in blood and soil, he clearly doesn't believe that the Jewish people have any right to the land of Israel. Alert the SPLC! All churchians are clearly Nazis at heart and there is no place for them in any civilized society.

It's fascinating to see that he rejects our opposition to "the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples." One wonders which group he believes should rule over the native populations in the United States, in China, and in India.
11. This is utter nonsense. To which war do they refer? There are several where racial diversity was an issue. In every one of them, the aggressors were racists. Their only defense for holding such a belief is they will champion one of the most despicable forms of bigotry and hatred humans have ever demonstrated. America exists on the idea that diversity is your right. No one has the authority by right of conformity to tell another person he or she is wrong for being different. If we follow the Alt Right to its logical conclusion, the Jews were wrong for being in Germany. That is utterly detestable. I reject in the strongest terms possible the Alt Right belief that diversity and proximity causes war.
Between whom does this moron believe wars are fought? Why does he imagine they take place? And if it is right for the Jews to be in Israel, then clearly it was wrong for them to be in Germany. Israel cannot belong to the Jews if Germany does not belong to the Germans. Again, we see that he is denying the Jewish claim to the land of Israel. What a horrible anti-semite! Why, his attack on the Alt-Right is, ironically, another Holocaust. Which, of course, makes him Hitler.

Also, America does not exist "on the idea that diversity is your right". One will search the Federalist Papers in vain for anything that even reasonably approximates this idea. It's also a bit ironic that he asserts no one has the authority to tell another person he is wrong for being different, considering that his whole rabid screed is nothing more than telling many, many people that they are wrong for holding their different beliefs in nations, borders, races, and the right of the Jewish nation to the land of Israel.
12. This is an absolute lie. No one spends more time trying to convince others what to think about themselves than do the Alt Right. If they did not care, they would not make their presence known. I reject their lie.
Oh, we genuinely don't care what people think about the Alt-Right, because the Alt-Right is inevitable. We don't care what you think about gravity or oxygen either. Reality is going to win out over time. However, that doesn't mean that we aren't going to set the record straight when very stupid, very ignorant people tell blatant lies about us and misrepresent our beliefs.

Part IV of IV tomorrow.

Labels: ,

57 Comments:

Blogger Quilp February 10, 2018 8:01 AM  

"America exists on the idea that diversity is your right."
Was he growing tired as he went down the list writing his screed? That is truly one of the more ridiculous claims I have come across, anywhere.

Blogger Phillip George February 10, 2018 8:09 AM  

....Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, ////

exactly what part of the qualifying clause is ambiguous?
No God = No Nation.
It's a grammar lesson.

conditional clause unavoidable/
In what way hasn't God specified Himself by deed and action?
Men, and peoplekind are only without excuse because they are without excuse.

OpenID retardbuster February 10, 2018 8:14 AM  

Someone who does not know Latin and Ancient Greek, which "kaonic" most likely doesn't, should simply shut the fuck up when it comes to Christianity, or as our beloved Spaniard put it:

Christianity, when it abolishes its ancient liturgical languages, degenerates into strange, uncouth sects.
Once contact is broken with Greek and Latin antiquity, once its medieval and patristic inheritance is lost, any simpleton turns into its exegete.

- Nicolás Gómez Dávila

"koanic" and the idiot taking offense at the 16 points need to do decades of
penance to atone for their imbecility. I suggest joining a monastery for
the end of your lives. Without internet access, of course.

Koanic is one of those retarded and complacent Christians that Kierkegaard unmasked.

"Snidely Whiplash" is correct: "koanic" is literally dripping with pride.

Blogger JACIII February 10, 2018 8:16 AM  

It's like reading a report from contemporary California fifth grader on everything he learned in History and Social Diversity Studies.

This screed is not something most would bother to address. It rambles, it meanders, it's retarded, it's ignorant in every conceivable way. I don't know how you do it.

1189 chapters in the bible. The word "racist" is not to be found anywhere, yet Churchians preach on it 10 times more than on the seven deadly sins or ten commandments.

Blogger Resident Moron™ February 10, 2018 8:24 AM  

God nominated three races for extermination.

You have to be exceedingly ignorant to claim God is not a racist, snd/or that He doesn’t know that cultures and races have near unitary overlap.

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales February 10, 2018 8:25 AM  

"The word "racist" is not to be found anywhere, yet Churchians preach on it 10 times more than on the seven deadly sins or ten commandments."

Careful there. Just because a word isn't mentioned in something does not mean it didn't exist or that the concept was not there, and yes, the concept of racism is in the bible even if it's not called that and even if it does not expressly prohibit it anymore than killing under certain circumstances.

Blogger Resident Moron™ February 10, 2018 8:26 AM  

Vox, looks like a copy/paste error in your opening sentence.

This is the third part ...

Blogger dienw February 10, 2018 8:31 AM  

My initial thought was that this fellow represents an extreme churchian position; for he obviously has a god-awful modern university education and he is flaunting it and as I live in the environs of a university I can expect to find such hothouse specimens; but I am thinking that he is just putting into words what most churchians believe within the miasma of their simpleness.

As for this "This concept is racist. It’s not racist in the idea that one race is superior to another; though it does indicate the Alt Right secretly believes that. ", my first though was that "We was secret kangz!" has an accompanying cry <You is secret racist!"

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales February 10, 2018 8:35 AM  

"it and as I live in the environs of a university I can expect to find such hothouse specimens..."

I do not envy you, sir. God, college was awful, but luckily, I had Vox and Mr. Wright and others to help me survive in the mid to late stages of that farce.

Blogger pyrrhus February 10, 2018 8:49 AM  

The word "racism" was invented by Lenin, as I recall, and picked up by the Frankfurt School.

Blogger pyrrhus February 10, 2018 8:58 AM  

There's a legal doctrine called "adverse possession", which means that if you openly occupy and exert dominion over a piece of land for twenty or thirty years, and the current owner doesn't do something about it, you gain title.
It seems that the Jews abandoned the Holy Land sometime after 70 AD and lost all claim and title, but have regained it by force of arms in the last 70 years....So all Israel's pretensions come down to might makes right.

Blogger dienw February 10, 2018 9:07 AM  

pyrrhus wrote:The word "racism" was invented by Lenin, as I recall, and picked up by the Frankfurt School.



Close: it was Trotsky; he also weaponized the term "anti-Semitic."

Blogger Zaklog the Great February 10, 2018 9:09 AM  

I guess this is what is meant by dialectic-free rhetoric. Where does anyone with the faintest sense of history or the law come up with the claim that the U.S. was founded on the principle that "diversity is your right"? What does that even mean? Does it mean I have the right to a dindu next door? Cuz I don't got one! I demand my rights! The government must issue me my own dindu next door!

Blogger Zaklog the Great February 10, 2018 9:12 AM  

By the way, addressing accusations of racism, I'm starting to like the take put forward by the Alternative Hypothesis. Ask the accuser if they're a suppressive person, or a giaour, or one of those insidious wreckers who are obviously the only reason the Soviet paradise has not materialized.

I don't think "racism" is a real moral category. Hatred, that's a moral category, and if you can show me guilty of that, I'll have to reconsider my actions, but racism? Nah, that's just a mirage

Blogger SteelPalm February 10, 2018 9:17 AM  

@9 pyrrhus The word "racism" was invented by Lenin, as I recall, and picked up by the Frankfurt School.

It's amazing how often this idiocy gets repeated ad naseum (usually invoking Trotsky though, not Lenin) when the commentator could have spent a few seconds finding the ACTUAL origin of the terms "racism"/"racist".

For instance, https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/01/05/260006815/the-ugly-fascinating-history-of-the-word-racism (SJW website)

or

https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/on-the-origin-of-the-word-racist/ (Swastika Panties website)

TLDR version- Richard Henry Pratt, an American captain arguing on behalf of the Indians and against racial segregation, used "racism" in 1902, its first English usage.

However, it was apparently used earlier by various French authors, such as Charles Malato in 1897.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 10, 2018 9:33 AM  

Leftist spew of whatever stripe in whatever form is not meant to convince you it is meant to break you, and obviously the author has been broken.

Blogger James February 10, 2018 9:35 AM  

If this Churchian is as stupid and ignorant as he seems to be, then, technically he's not "lying," even if many of his basic facts are not true. I wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be a deliberate liar spreading confusion and disinformation, however.
Also, thanks to VD, I can see that my own tendency to support the general idea of Israel was always based on Alt-Right principles, and was not a sentimental attitude fostered by notions of how Biblical prophecy was supposed to work out. And I'm rather pleased with my self that I was able to extend the nationalist principles from Israel and the Jews to other peoples and their nations, instead of falling for the dichotomous narrative. And I have to admit that there was always something about the UN and Globalism that I didn't like and didn't trust long before I understood why. I think it was the distinct odor of Sulphur that tipped me off.

Blogger dienw February 10, 2018 9:40 AM  

@SteelPalm, Trotsky weaponized these terms and made them part and parcel of Judeo-Bolshevism

Blogger SteelPalm February 10, 2018 9:51 AM  

@17 dienw

Shifting the goalposts, eh? Your original claim was that Trotsky invented the terms "racism" and "racist".(Presumably, as translations of a book he wrote in the early 1930s)

This turned out be a stupid lie, as it was used in English by Pratt in 1902, and in the late 19th century in French.

Now, without missing a beat, you change it from "invented" to "weaponized".

Nevermind how idiotic the idea of Trotsky making these terms part of "Judeo-Bolshevism" is, considering he was living in exile in Mexico at the time, having been thrown out of the Communist party and hunted by Stalin, whose assassin Ramon Mercader would eventually kill him in 1940. Or that Soviet communist theory had very little to say about "racism".

You and the Churchian Vox is responding to have much in common, apparently.

Blogger VD February 10, 2018 9:54 AM  

Trotsky weaponized these terms and made them part and parcel of Judeo-Bolshevism

Irrelevant. You said something that was factually wrong. Admit it and learn, don't double down and dig yourself in deeper.

This is not the place for Glen Beck-level discourse.

OpenID ratatouille February 10, 2018 9:55 AM  

I apologise for the rather harsh language I used toward "koanic"
("retarded" etc. pp.), but my basic point still stands: "koanic"
is simply too arrogant to be likeable, and his points and his pursy,
arrogant style (a bit like one of those "know-it-alls") are often meant
to stir up heated debates. Apparently, I'm not alone in thinking that.

For example, his claim that Paul wasn't even Pope and so his epistles
are of no value to a Christian is so laughably deranged that it might
indeed be a mistake to take "koanic" seriously in the first place. So,
in that sense, my apologies if I was simply feeding a troll.

In that sense, have a nice day, and work out your salvation with fear
and trembling.

Blogger mushroom February 10, 2018 10:20 AM  

"Come out from among them and be ye separate" (2 Corinthians 6:17)
That sounds kind of exclusionary to me. It sounds like Christians are required to separate themselves from those who are not Christian -- at the very least, from corrupting influences, from cultures that reject the moral constraints of Christ's teaching. Maybe the Lord knows something about the way to live in peace that the devil's disciples don't.

Blogger Lovekraft February 10, 2018 10:25 AM  

He's a 1 on the SEI and a 6 on the SII. have to clarify the six: he is a white male. That's about as far as it goes, but because he is likely weak and has a deranged look in his eyes, I cannot go any higher.

Because of the low score of 1, this would put his overall rating at 2.

In other words, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. Anything under, say, a five means he's grouped in with 'them.'

Blogger DavidRohm February 10, 2018 10:32 AM  

You’re a good man, Vox.

Blogger Felix Bellator February 10, 2018 10:36 AM  

"Well, once again we have some absolute self-refuting nonsense."

SJWs always project.

"Slavery always denies human worth."

Ah, no. They weren't being given away for free. Their worth was determined by market forces. Self-refuting nonsense, indeed.

Blogger Lovekraft February 10, 2018 10:46 AM  

@15 MrMantraMan:

Or as I like to call it: 'turned out.'

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 10, 2018 10:50 AM  

"Where does anyone with the faintest sense of history or the law come up with the claim that the U.S. was founded on the principle that "diversity is your right"?"

Hmn? Oh, Satan.

Or, if one is less spiritually aware, Aleister Crowley. "Do as thou wilt..." founded on the kabbalistic and ultimately Babylonian humanistic mysticism, placing oneself and one's wants at the forefront of the universe.

"If this Churchian is as stupid and ignorant as he seems to be, then, technically he's not "lying," even if many of his basic facts are not true."

Do the ends justify the means? The results justify if they are good. A good tree produces good fruit, a rotten tree cannot produce good fruit.

It doesn't matter if he knows he's lying or not. He's speaking with the intent of being of authority on the matter, and he is wrong. Thus, even if he is not lying because he does not know, he is lying in that he pretends to know. It is a lie and he is lying.

Blogger tz February 10, 2018 10:52 AM  

A right to diversity? Is there a right to university too?
If he is talking "freedom of association", that was dinged by the civil rights act and "bake that gay wedding cake".

If you don't know your identity, you don't know your culture. Most Americans aren't even trying to be Ameriboo. And if you don't know your culture, you won't know the politics necessary to protect or impose it (e.g. the FGM ban).

It is where the libertarians fail. A bunch of white males get together and write scholarly articles and have for a generation and wonder why the only changes are for the worse. And make up things like insurance and arbitration companies which is just the same tyrannical government (and would be a nightmare dystopia - Molyneux described it with a straight face in 3255 at 50 minutes in).

The Alt-Right will win as long as part of its identity is TRUTH. Which is implicit from Western Civilization and Christendom. That gave us real Science. Organic civil law and the idea of the rights of man. But the one key difference is part of the culture is "I MYSELF will fight to restore and defend MY liberty and do what is NECESSARY". That is why the 2nd Amendment is so important. You can see this sorting with who is leaving the death of 1000 paper cuts and parchment barrier libertarians and looking to bullets and other things.

Matt 11:12
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.

In Perelandra, there is a long battle between Ransom and Weston. Ransom tries to argue, but the points are ignored or countered, and there is the realization "this must stop". It comes down to a physical fight.

This is where we are today. Arguments don't work. The Cuckservatives just had a long train of arguments, while the left had a long train of actions. We must quarantine, expel, or otherwise eliminate the Westons among us.

That is also why civic nationalism and even the alt-lite is not sufficient. The Westons can claim "I'm as if not more American than you!" and neutralize any will to action. You must reply "No, you are not, since you are not willing to fight the present enemy on their terms".

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira February 10, 2018 11:06 AM  

"the Landress family was originally Jewish before coming to America"

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME!

LOL Really though, this pattern is 100% predictable.

Blogger James February 10, 2018 11:07 AM  

"It doesn't matter if he knows he's lying or not. He's speaking with the intent of being of authority on the matter, and he is wrong. Thus, even if he is not lying because he does not know, he is lying in that he pretends to know. It is a lie and he is lying."
The only reason I make a distinction is to determine whether I think he should be tossed in to the wood chipper feet first or head first.

Blogger Koanic February 10, 2018 11:09 AM  

> the concept of racism is in the bible

No it isn't.

Blogger Zimri February 10, 2018 11:48 AM  

"One wonders which group he believes should rule over the native populations in the United States, in China, and in India."

I can answer that: he thinks that an international caste should rule over all. In India these are in the "Indo-Anglian" stratum, who can no longer speak Kannada (or whatever) and communicate in English. He believes in a transnational Brahminate.

Blogger NO GOOGLES February 10, 2018 11:54 AM  

"the Landress family was originally Jewish before coming to America"

For all sad words of tongue and pen, The saddest are these, '/pol/ was right again'

Blogger Out of Nod February 10, 2018 12:28 PM  

Probably said in Part 1 or 2, but this person is being contrarian to be contrarian. He is trying to find fault in all 16 points, and is hardly attempting to seek truth. I wouldn't pay him any mind.

In the words of Stefan Molyneux: "Not an argument"

Blogger darkdoc February 10, 2018 12:52 PM  

The level of pure snark in this guys writing as my gaydar going off. The Jewish family reference puts further credence to that statement.

Blogger Komuzo February 10, 2018 12:58 PM  

Wouldn't surprise me too much if the Churchian went to public school or regularly listens to mainstream evangelical pastors who subscribe to one variation of Calvinism or another. Hollywood fits in there somewhere, too. Once those concepts take root in the person, they become blind to contradictions. Rhetoric really does become the only pragmatic option because dialectic can't penetrate the emotions or the dogmas. I wonder if they'll remain committed to the civic statist/anti-nationalist/anti-racist worldview if America transitions into hot civil war. Some will abandon their flawed understanding, but probably most will die like Desdemona, betrayed and confused.

Blogger dienw February 10, 2018 12:59 PM  

No, Steel, I didn't shift the goalposts; I just added a term what I wanted to add with the first post but thought better of it; also notice I wrote "weaponized;"even though you are probably right about who may have been first in the use of the terms; despite that, it took Trotsky to bring the terms together as rhetorical weapons against anti-Communists to protect the Judeo-Bolchevik. revolution.

Blogger dienw February 10, 2018 1:03 PM  

VD, I don't listen to Glenn Beck: he is nuts and a shill. As is Hannity and Limbaugh just in case someone here thinks I give a shit what those two say.

Blogger FP February 10, 2018 1:05 PM  

pyrrhus wrote:There's a legal doctrine called "adverse possession", which means that if you openly occupy and exert dominion over a piece of land for twenty or thirty years, and the current owner doesn't do something about it, you gain title.

It seems that the Jews abandoned the Holy Land sometime after 70 AD and lost all claim and title, but have regained it by force of arms in the last 70 years....So all Israel's pretensions come down to might makes right.


One might also ask Mr. Churchian his thoughts on Islam's own right to return doctrine. Muslims seem to think they still have a right to reconquer Spain 500 years later. Once a Muslim land, always a Muslim land according to their politics and religion.

Blogger Orthodox February 10, 2018 1:08 PM  

Why does every criticism of the Alt-Right descend into anti-semitism when you keep digging? Makes me wonder.

Blogger dienw February 10, 2018 1:15 PM  

In Perelandra, there is a long battle between Ransom and Weston. Ransom tries to argue, but the points are ignored or countered, and there is the realization "this must stop". It comes down to a physical fight.

This is where we are today. Arguments don't work. The Cuckservatives just had a long train of arguments, while the left had a long train of actions. We must quarantine, expel, or otherwise eliminate the Westons among us.


You are correct about it has come down to a physical fight: Pinochet and Helicopter rides; this was my desire and expectation for Trump.

Consider, when Ransom comes upon Weston, he is finally possessed and is coldly disemboweling writhing frog-like creatures and watching them writhe in their death-throws. We have to realize that those in control also are willing servants of demonic entities; aborted babies are their writhing victims.

Blogger Arthur Isaac February 10, 2018 2:21 PM  

This guy couldn't find the fight on a map, when it finds him he won't last long enough to notice.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora February 10, 2018 2:27 PM  

It's interesting he says right is right no matter the time, place, and identity of those involved. This is obviously wrong because people have a duty to their family first. And this is directly contradicted in the Bible when Christ said he came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel first. The God he claims to worship operates by moral principles he rejects. These debate posts are always so educational because they really show how people will try and bluff to make their nonsensical arguments look strong.

Blogger Lovekraft February 10, 2018 2:31 PM  

If this guy let comments be posted (he doesn't, even though there's the option for readers to do so), then something like this would be submitted (note: not my quote):

'If you occupied what was considered the ideological / moral centre ground in 1965, and went to sleep for 50 years and woke up in 2015 you'd find yourself occupying the ideological /moral 'far right'. You didn't have to budge one inch ideologically to find yourself there. The whizzing sound you heard was the ideological / cultural centre ground zooming over to the Cultural Marxist hard left.

Everything that was considered mainstream, obvious, common sense, logical and moral in 1965 is now considered by our political, academic and media elite to be bigoted, ignorant, hateful, xenophobic, racist, extremist and some form of moral abnormality.

In other words, within the space of 50 years, morality, right, wrong, evil, good, normal, obvious, extreme, sanity, truth, beneficial, dangerous and the instinct for group preservation, has been inverted and stood upside down on its head.

Never before in the entire course of human history has an entire culture, race and civilisation decided to hand over its lands, social capital, heritage and identities to competing and intruding alien cultures without a fight, and even worse, to evolve an ideology that morally justifies and glorifies it as proof of their moral supremacy.

European man is in a civilisational death dance.'

Blogger Michael Kingswood February 10, 2018 2:58 PM  

Hey Vox, sorry about my comment in Part 1 of this. Went back and looked at it, because that interchange bothered me, and yeah it was douchey and holier-than-thou. Was trying to say I could understand how the guy might honestly not get what you were saying (which is admittedly giving the guy a LOT of benefit of the doubt) and just flubbed it completely. You've probably forgotten about it, but like I said it bothered me so just wanted to come clean on it.

Mea culpa.

Blogger VD February 10, 2018 3:03 PM  

Mea culpa.

Ego te absolvo.

Blogger tublecane February 10, 2018 3:21 PM  

Yet another reason we've been losing forever: this "conservative" takes Earl Warren as an authority.

I wonder if any concept has hurt the black community in particular harder than "separate is inherently unequal."

Blogger tublecane February 10, 2018 3:43 PM  

@40-Let's say there are Absolute Duties and Absolute No-nos. How many can there be, really? Do they go beyond the Decalogue? (Which was a covenant between God and a particular people, and which contains a few points that moderns like this guy would find irrelevant. But nevermind.) How far beyond?

This guy mentions murder, slavery, and racism as wrongs. What else? Advanced civilization is complex, and simply stating you believe in absolutes doesn't get you very far.

Blogger James February 10, 2018 4:29 PM  

"This guy mentions murder, slavery, and racism as wrongs. What else? Advanced civilization is complex, and simply stating you believe in absolutes doesn't get you very far."
God does not hold us accountable to what we call "absolutes." God looks at the thoughts and intents of our hearts. He requires of us that we do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God.
Romans 12:18 says this: "18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. "
If it be possible, as much as we can stand it, God expects us to live in peace with all men. Does that sound absolute to you?

Blogger Weouro February 10, 2018 6:27 PM  

It might have been mentioned already but First Things has an article up about the alt-right. It traces the roit's back to a guy called Oswald Spengler and inevitably appeals to John Paul II and to Humanae Vitae which every Catholic article written today does like a talisman. UltimatEly it weakly states that the Catholic Church supports nationalism but of course does not go into any detail

Blogger Carl Philipp February 10, 2018 6:56 PM  

@16"If this Churchian is as stupid and ignorant as he seems to be, then, technically he's not "lying," even if many of his basic facts are not true."

I distinguish between two different types of lying. One type is where you want somebody to believe something, so you consider what sort of argument will be persuasive to them and speak to them to deliberately steer them towards this belief, in the full and conscious knowledge of what you are doing. The other is when you're presented with something that causes you pain and that you cannot honestly refute, so you twist it into your head into something that you can shout at and then play-act through the drama of shouting at something that is obviously bad, with the goal of persuading others to join in the little psychodrama of shouting at the bad thing until it goes away.

The second is a form of lying because it is deceitful; it is distinct because the first and most important step is self-deceit; it requires that you forgo the step of examining the thing that terrifies you and saying "Let's sort out what this is. Perhaps it is not the worst thing that pops into my head; perhaps it is a slightly less bad thing."

As you can see in his response, this includes flat-out ignoring the blatant signs that he has misinterpreted the 16 Points. Vox says "people are different and different groups tend to not get along," and he says, "Oh no, Vox is justifying genocide!" Then when Vox says "We also oppose oppression and genocide," this guy says, "Oh NO! Vox justifies genocide AND he lies about it! That's even WORSE!"

A more rational understanding of the 16 Points would be to combine the two and say, "Vox believes that different groups generally don't get along, and the results of that are bad, so we should keep them apart to prevent terrible things." However, this person's goal when writing his response was not to understand and honestly assess it - or at least, not for long after he saw something he didn't like. His superseding goal was "shriek at the scary thing to get other people shrieking at the scary thing until it goes away," and in such a state of mind, making sure the things you shriek are truthful isn't really a concern. That might, after all, reduce the volume and rhetorical force of your shrieking.

Blogger Raging Papist February 10, 2018 8:35 PM  

If a Christian is a "liberal Christian," and follows liberal politics and believes in progressivism, is that the liberal Christian choosing his political identity over Christianity?

I have never been able to understand how a Leftist reconciles his Christianity and his politics. To your face, they say they value the individual, and oppose abortion and so forth, yet always vote Left or enable Leftists. I recognize that Leftist Christians want to re-create the tower of Babel, but I'm curious as to their mindset. How can they do that?

Should I just consider them heretics and move on? Is it simply their political identity coming before their religious identity?

Blogger James February 10, 2018 8:54 PM  

"Should I just consider them heretics and move on? Is it simply their political identity coming before their religious identity?"
Not every heretic is a liberal, but, every liberal is an heretic.
It's the same as not every Democrat is a horse thief, but, every horse thief is a Democrat.

Blogger Carl Philipp February 10, 2018 8:55 PM  

"I have never been able to understand how a Leftist reconciles his Christianity and his politics."

In my experience, they claim that the New Testament places Love superseding all other values and rules, and then describe all of their politics in terms of "Love," and attack all opposition as unloving.

Blogger Dexter February 10, 2018 9:13 PM  

"Slavery always denies human worth."

This is why the Bible speaks constantly and relentlessly against it, and why the early Christians (many of whom were slaves) preached against it as denying their human worth.

Wait... that's not true?

Blogger Eric I. Gatera. February 11, 2018 7:11 AM  

Hmm .. strange rebuttal!

Blogger SciVo February 12, 2018 12:18 AM  

Zaklog the Great wrote:By the way, addressing accusations of racism, I'm starting to like the take put forward by the Alternative Hypothesis. Ask the accuser if they're a suppressive person, or a giaour, or one of those insidious wreckers who are obviously the only reason the Soviet paradise has not materialized.

That is really obscure and seems unlikely to be effective. It would be simpler to note that all manifestations of the SocJus epithet treadmill mean "heretic" from their thought-control cult.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts