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

Thursday, February 08, 2018

A Churchian response, part I

Well, this Churchian response to the 16 Points of the Alt-Right beautifully sums up Churchianity in one fell swoop. It is incoherent, incompetent, globalist, anti-Western, anti-nationalist, and anti-American. It takes Christian theology and transforms it into something evil and Babylonian. I archived the response  because I suspect that it is going to be taken down once the author realizes how completely he has damned his own position with his ignorance, ineptitude, and philosophical incoherence. He claims to be a "deontologist", but as you will see, he is little more than a liar and an intellectual fraud.
1. I had a professor who once gave me some good advice, “do not be know for what you stand against; tell us what you stand for.” Despite ending clauses in prepositions, the advice is good. The Alt Right begins their treatise by claiming not to be a list of fear monger buzzwords; however, later in their own lists of rejections, they disavow free trade and advocate for nationalist controls. Milton Friedman famously said, “Economic freedom is necessary, but not sufficient, for political freedom.” Economics only offers a few alternatives to laissez-faire economics, none of which are sustainable. Those alternatives are socialism (whether Communist, Marxists, Leninist, Nationalists, or Stalinist) or feudalism. Since, I have never seen anyone from the Alt Right advocating for lords, vassals, and serfs, I will assume they must substitute some form of the socialist economics they just disavowed as an alternative to the free trade capitalism they disavow later. I could be wrong. They may be attempting to rebuild Camelot; however, they reject the concept of nobility, which precludes the institution of feudalism. The more likely conclusion is they do not really know much about economics but like to make noise. In total, I am in opposition to this statement on this principle; I never side with a self-refuting statement.
The Churchian clearly doesn't know that socialism is not incompatible with free trade or that Marx openly advocated for it due to the way in which he correctly saw that free trade destroys nations. And his appeal to his professor's authority is a literal logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam. The fact that he assumes the Alt-Right must support "some form of socialist economics" despite specifically rejecting socialism, Marxism, and Marxianism tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the quality of his subsquent arguments.
2. I do not fully embrace all of what Russell Kirk had to say because, though Kirk made an appeal to a belief in deontological morality, he later employed a utilitarian ethic in favor of custom. One may ask, “how, then, can a person reject Kirk’s views on custom and still claim to conserve anything?” The answer is simple. Kirk is not the arbiter of what it means to be conservative. I have conserved on the theological and philosophical principles found in the Bible, Aristotelian logic, deontological ethics, and laissez-faire economics. I am positive, Kirk would reject none of these; however, if one were to apply his principles in their absence, one could easily arrive at the notion one should preserve great injustices in the name of custom. Thomas Paine said, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises, at first, a formidable outcry in defense of custom.” The American conservatism has always been classical liberalism, which values all people without regard to race, ethnicity, political, or socio-economic clout. To conflate classical liberalism with leftist progressivism is disingenuous or ignorant. Libertarianism is a form of classical liberalism, which has denied the deontological ethics which sustain society and instead substituted an appeal to populism allowing it to comfortably nestle itself on no moral absolutes. In later points, the Alt Right claims to have done the same. Once again, they have refuted their own positions.
Russell Kirk literally defined American conservatism. This Churchian is claiming to be a conservative while simultaneously attempting to redefine conservatism as egalitarianism and throwing around some terms that he clearly doesn't understand. In this he demonstrates that being "a conservative" is nothing more than a posture and a temporally relative label. Which, of course, is one reason that the Alt-Right rejects the intrinsically defeatist attitude that is conservatism.
3. This is the first explicitly anti-Christian, Machiavellian concept. Here they deny the principle role to which Christ has called us. The Apostle Peter says: “Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.” (1 Peter 2:18-23)

Beyond this, the statement is inherently un-American. Consider Patrick Henry’s pyrrhic statement, “I regret that I have but one life to give for my country;” or John F. Kennedy’s declaration to the nations, “”Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” I want to always stand for what is right, even if that means temporary loss. “And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul?” (Matthew 16:26) Further, the Alt Right claims a “forward thinking philosophy;” though they are playing sematic games, the Alt Right adopted its “forward thinking” tactic from the progressive movement they claim to despise. They have not championed any conservatism but adopted every tenant of leftist progressivism and substituted themselves as the beneficiaries. I reject the entirely of identity politics and therefore reject the Alt Right and their wicked tactics.
But he's not standing for what is right, he is actively endorsing surrender to evil. Notice that he's endorsing defeat and slavery, as well as lying about the Alt-Right's adoption of "every tenant of leftist progressivism". We see this incompetent dishonesty from conservatives on a regular basis. No wonder they are so given to being repeatedly trounced by the Left, as they literally cannot tell the difference between a) tactics, b) strategy, c) objectives, and d) identity. I shall dub this erroneous conflation "tactobrication" and define the fallacy more precisely in a future post. Furthermore, his attack on Point 3 being "inherently un-American" is particularly ironic given his later admission that his "objective is 100% globalist." You don't have to be incompetent, incoherent, and dishonest to be a Churchian, but it observably helps.
4. This is a crock. Western Civilization came closer to the total annihilation of all life in the universe than anything since the fall and the flood. Westernism did not author Christianity or even cohere to it; instead God blessed the west with an underserved gift of centuries of Christianity. The west did nothing to deserve the gifts God gave us. Nothing western is essential to Christianity. Christianity itself is a classical middle-Eastern religion. Their own statement is an expression of ignorance in theology and history. While I do enjoy the benefits of the Western Civilization, I would be a fool to think we are the elite on the Earth. We are no more elite than the kid whose dad is a multi-millionaire. We did nothing to be born into wealth and splendor. Greece and Rome were prosperous for the same reasons the Egypt was prosperous; they sat at a hub of trade. Westerns people are neither superior nor inferior to anyone. Any civilization in the same position would prosper over three millennia. I reject the Alt Right on this.
Well, it's good to finally see the Churchians come out and openly admit that they are hostile to Western civilization. I've been pointing this out for some time now, but perhaps those of you who doubted me will accept the statement from the jackass's own mouth. And while Christendom isn't essential to Christianity, which exists in its own right, Christianity is an essential part of Christendom. And to say that the West did nothing to "deserve the gifts God gave us" is simply a flat-out lie. Again, we see the incoherence of the Churchian, insisting that there is no reason beyond the gifts of God and sitting on a trade hub that Western civilization is superior to other human societies, which it isn't.

Part II of IV tomorrow.

Labels: , ,

170 Comments:

Blogger dvdivx February 08, 2018 7:44 AM  

He just sounds like a gamma with verbal diarrhea. Its not like there is a shortage of people like that on the internet.

Blogger Teleros February 08, 2018 7:52 AM  

@1 Yes, logorrhea sounds about right, but you get that a lot the more incoherent and disingenuous these types are. Short, punchy and to the point sentences are easier to parse and spot errors in.

Anyway, looks like the author has a Twatter account, though he hasn't used it in a while. I leave eviscerating the photo used to others here: https://twitter.com/comichound

Blogger Limited Blogger Profile #1985 February 08, 2018 7:53 AM  

I was done when he mixed up Patrick Henry for Nathan Hale.

Blogger allyn71 February 08, 2018 7:54 AM  

I could only read Vox's summaries, the Churchian's was a bunch of drivel. Hopefully his bow-tie didn't slip out of alignment.

Blogger mushroom February 08, 2018 8:04 AM  

Unbelievable. I have sat in churches and been warned against one-world, antichrist government all my life, but suddenly, if you call it globalism, it's ok. This guy was educated way beyond his intelligence.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer February 08, 2018 8:05 AM  

Western Civilization didn't just prosper through trade. Or perhaps I am unaware of the copious amounts of scientific discoveries made by the Egyptians and Chinese leading to antibiotics and airplanes and semiconductors. Also, while Christianity is indeed a blessing, perhaps he is unaware of the Battle of Tours, the conquest of Byzantium, and two attempts to take Vienna? Wow, its almost like Christendom doesn't have to lay down and die when challenged, that fighting to preserve it is an option.

Blogger Fifty Seven February 08, 2018 8:08 AM  

There are a few places where it looks like he's either completely missed the point or he's intentionally twisting the most effed-up interpretation out of it that he can.

I also like his rejection of diversity + proximity = war: Those wars were started by racists and racism is bad so Shut Up You Hater (I'm oversimplifying, but not by much).

Blogger Lazarus February 08, 2018 8:12 AM  

When the AltRight is in control it will be interesting to see if he will be subject to his new masters with all respect, or not.

Blogger Chris Lutz February 08, 2018 8:15 AM  

Consider Patrick Henry’s pyrrhic statement

What?!?!? He obviously doesn't understand what pyrrhic means.

Greece and Rome were prosperous for the same reasons the Egypt was prosperous; they sat at a hub of trade.

Greece and Rome never sat on trade hubs. He has no idea of what he is saying.

Blogger Number 15 February 08, 2018 8:16 AM  

What a fag

Blogger Dane February 08, 2018 8:17 AM  

Emasculated Soyboys showing the barbaric invaders that they aren't part of the evil Connedservitude masses that the media are shrieking about,

With a Bible in hand and the offensive parts redacted he will invite the World.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 08, 2018 8:20 AM  

Vox, you are far more patient than I. I stopped reading less than half way through when I bogged down in the bogosity. I considered leaving a comment correcting some random error, then decided I wouldn't waste time on someone so dim.

You are the SDL of the ELoE, and yet you kindly, patiently school this midwit fool, free of charge.

Blogger Amy February 08, 2018 8:27 AM  

You ever get the feeling they just learned a buncha big words and just throw them around to sound smart?

Yeah. #metoo

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) February 08, 2018 8:30 AM  

Part II of IV tomorrow.

Anyone know what the labor market is for prostitutes in Vegas?

Blogger Desdichado February 08, 2018 8:32 AM  

Teleros wrote:Anyway, looks like the author has a Twatter account, though he hasn't used it in a while. I leave eviscerating the photo used to others here: https://twitter.com/comichound
Truly, physiognomy is real.
Amy wrote:You ever get the feeling they just learned a buncha big words and just throw them around to sound smart?

Yeah. #metoo

Mostly just one word that he's really proud of. Which I'll give him credit for; without looking it up, I would have figured it was some kind of tooth researcher of some sort or another.

Blogger rekrapt February 08, 2018 8:34 AM  

Wow. He really needs to stop drinking soy milk. How can anyone claiming to be Christian not see the dangers of globalism? Sadly, I have way to many friends that would agree with this limp-wristed fellow.

Blogger Dirtnapninja February 08, 2018 8:37 AM  

I wonder if this churchian understands that laissez faire idolatry on the right is actually quite recent. The catholic church itself rejects laissez faire liberalism and has its own economic ideals known as distributism.

Blogger Dirtnapninja February 08, 2018 8:39 AM  

Chris Lutz wrote:Consider Patrick Henry’s pyrrhic statement

What?!?!? He obviously doesn't understand what pyrrhic means.

Greece and Rome were prosperous for the same reasons the Egypt was prosperous; they sat at a hub of trade.

Greece and Rome never sat on trade hubs. He has no idea of what he is saying.


Yeah, that was funny. Egypt was rich because of its agriculture. Rome grew rich through imperial plunder. Pre-Roman Greece was never all that rich.

Blogger Johnny February 08, 2018 8:40 AM  

My experience with these things is that when there is a moral positioning, then the real purpose of the thing will be a justification of that moral positioning. The rest is unimportant.

1. I had a professor who once gave me some good advice, “do not be know for what you stand against; tell us what you stand for.” Despite ending clauses in prepositions, the advice is good. The Alt Right begins their treatise by claiming not to be a list of fear monger buzzwords...

Thus the moral premise is laid out. The important part of what follows will be him demonstrating his moral superiority by being against Alt Right. Eventually this expands to his moral superiority to Americans generally. That is where the anti American stuff comes from. Hey, social positioning. In the end it is really only about him. The rest doesn't matter.

It is not a proof, not proving but demonstrating an assumed conclusion. That is why the logic is fluff. Virtue signaling really. In both in the picture in the link and in the writing, the personality characteristic that comes through is smug.

@2 https://twitter.com/comichound


Blogger VD February 08, 2018 8:44 AM  

In the end it is really only about him.

Of course. That one single post is sufficient to let you know that he's a gamma. The power of the socio-sexual perspective can be a bit alarming at times. It often tells you more about an individual than you actually want to know.

Blogger tz February 08, 2018 8:46 AM  

Amazing he manages to find a way to disagree with every point. That is perhaps the most obvious tell.
He abandons the biblical approach to endorse free market economics and free trade, even though they are exploitative when not outright robbery and theft - the free market only works in the context of Western culture. The other thing is he doesn't even try to understand what words mean, like globalism (Soros is NOT trying to help take the Gospel to the ends of the earth).

The Alt-Right has truth on its side. The Churchians can't recognize truth so they don't have Jesus, truth incarnate.

Blogger allyn71 February 08, 2018 8:46 AM  

Go to his instagram account, it is...enlightening.

Soy, lots of Soy.

Explains it all

Blogger Amy February 08, 2018 8:47 AM  

Desdichado, deontological is EXACTLY what caught me. The single crouton on his word salad.

More words seldom strengthen an argument.

Blogger Koanic February 08, 2018 8:47 AM  

He regrets he has but one wife to give to his (African American, which is like American except better) homeys.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 08, 2018 8:50 AM  

Dirtnapninja wrote:The catholic church itself rejects laissez faire liberalism and has its own economic ideals known as distributism.

Has that ever been put into practice, since the Middle Ages?

Johnny wrote:My experience with these things is that when there is a moral positioning, then the real purpose of the thing will be a justification of that moral positioning. The rest is unimportant.

I was going to cut him some slack on that appeal to authority, because he never really based an argument on it. Then I realized he had no arguments, just virtue signaling. No slack.

Blogger dienw February 08, 2018 8:53 AM  

deontological morality

Deontology is the study of that which is an "obligation or duty", and consequent moral judgment on the actor on whether he or she has complied.[2] In philosophy and religion, states Bocheński, there is an important distinction between deontic and epistemic authority.[7] A typical example of epistemic authority, explains Anna Brożek, is "the relation of a teacher to his students; a typical example of deontic authority is the relation between an employer and his employee". A teacher has epistemic authority when making declarative sentences that the student presumes is reliable knowledge and appropriate but feels no obligation to accept or obey; in contrast, an employer has deontic authority in the act of issuing an order that the employee is obliged to accept and obey regardless of its reliability or appropriateness.

Not even a Christian. This fellow is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Hell, the philosophy even attempts to bring God's commandments under its name.

When we say we are Christians and that we have a moral issue with alt-Right as Christians; then, we are obligated to use biblically based arguments.

As for this "an employer has deontic authority in the act of issuing an order that the employee is obliged to accept and obey regardless of its reliability or appropriateness;" the last set of people to try to get away with crimes against humanity by "just obeying orders" wore German uniforms. Uh Oh! Our little deontologicist is a Nazi. Really.

Blogger Ingot9455 February 08, 2018 8:54 AM  

Amongst the things he's never heard of is the difference between free trade within a country and free trade between countries. Also, no fine distinctions - either it's one hundred percent freeforall free trade or, once you apply some kind of tax for some possibly valid reason it's OMG socialist all the way!

Blogger Dexter February 08, 2018 8:59 AM  

"Beyond this, the statement is inherently un-American. Consider Patrick Henry’s pyrrhic statement, “I regret that I have but one life to give for my country;” or John F. Kennedy’s declaration to the nations, “”Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” I want to always stand for what is right, even if that means temporary loss."

It is especially stupid to use this JFK quote to rebut the alt right rejection of "noble and principled defeat". JFK was not calling for us to pay any price, bear any burden in order to LOSE. He wanted us to WIN, even if the cost was heavy. We will achieve the SUCCESS of liberty not the noble defeat of liberty.

Blogger dienw February 08, 2018 9:00 AM  

Lazarus wrote:When the AltRight is in control it will be interesting to see if he will be subject to his new masters with all respect, or not.

According to deontological morals he must;but, how much do you want to wager that he will quickly discover a new morality that demands he disobey?

Blogger Nate February 08, 2018 9:01 AM  

Well... this is perhaps the best example of the IQ-communication gap I've seen.

Blogger ThoughtCriminal February 08, 2018 9:02 AM  

The guy should probably spend some time looking into Hellenism and how it facilitated the rapid spread of Christianity.

Blogger Robert Divinity February 08, 2018 9:04 AM  

We are fortunate Charles Martel didn't embrace the diversity of another essentially Middle Eastern religion. If this guy could have time-traveled he would have thrown open the gates of Vienna or assured those bound for the gulags they were martyrs. He would have felt superior as he immediately converted or provided a list of those who owned more than three cows.

This man doesn't deserve Western Civilization and will express delight if he loses it. Anything that makes him feel better about himself will be embraced no matter how many are hurt or die. In this way there is no ascertainable difference between Churchianity and Marxism as they seek to perfect to perfect a world they float above. The faux Christian may in fact be more dangerous than the communist in that he thinks he will be rewarded after death for the sorrow he sows and his secret greatness.

I hope this is the most nauseating thing I read or hear today but it's early.

Blogger Uncle John's Band February 08, 2018 9:06 AM  

Tossing around poorly understood technical terms is tragically common with faux-intellectual poseurs like this fool.

As nice as it would be for that habit to disappear, I'd settle for moratorium on idiots trying to claim that some abstract notion of "laissez-faire economics" bears any resemblance to the globalist nightmare that we are currently trying to escape.

What is "the Alt-Right's" absolute position on an arbitrarily-defined and poorly reasoned set of historical economic precepts? Who cares! Want to know where to stand? Look out the window at the world around you. The alternatives are shockingly clear; no word salad required.

Blogger haus frau February 08, 2018 9:09 AM  

You're not being fair Vox. The man's bow tie is obviously on far too tight.

Blogger Koanic February 08, 2018 9:11 AM  

It's like 4 rounds of heavyweight kickboxing between the champion and an enthusiastic fat Russian kid with Down's Syndrome, in slow motion with analysis by Lawrence Kenshin.

Blogger RC February 08, 2018 9:17 AM  

I wonder which "Christian" college he graduated from. And I hope soy boy doesn't mind that I ended the previous sentence with a preposition.

Blogger NO GOOGLES February 08, 2018 9:19 AM  

It never ceases to amaze how historically ignorant even the supposedly "educated" class is. He honestly thinks Western Civilization is so success because... luck or something? Rome and Greece were successful because muh trade hubs? People traded with Rome and Greece because of their success and wealth (less so in Greece's case) not because some kind of magical trade hub they sat on.

It blows my mind that people can look at the last 500 years of Western Civ where literally a minimum of 80% of humanity's progress throughout history has been made and think that it was just random luck and that there isn't anything worth emulating or preserving about it. Such a stance is pure evil.

Blogger Crush Limbraw February 08, 2018 9:20 AM  

This is exactly what happens when Christians send their kids to public or Christian humanist schools - they become disciples for Old Scratch.
That is Churchianity!

Blogger TheMaleRei February 08, 2018 9:21 AM  

@22
Yes.
@24.
Thank you, that made my day.

. . .

Vox, thank you for putting into words that which I cannot. Even as I read the word salad smorgasbord of comic hound, I knew something was out of sorts, especially the numerous quotations of the bible, and thought - "Okay, yes, feed and clothe them, sure - but I don't think any of those quotations include giving them your home, your land, your gold, your labor, your wife..."

This fool advocates for surrender, and genuinely hopes that America stops being America and becomes something utterly alien and unrecognizable to anyone with any love of Western Civilization.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer February 08, 2018 9:23 AM  

It blows my mind that people can look at the last 500 years of Western Civ where literally a minimum of 80% of humanity's progress throughout history has been made and think that it was just random luck

My guess is that he is a big Jared Diamond fan.

https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393354326/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518099664&sr=1-1&keywords=guns+germs+and+steel

Blogger VD February 08, 2018 9:26 AM  

If europeans converted to Islam it would make their shriveled balls would grow back, and they would make their women submit and they would become nationalists.

Don't be ridiculous. There is no such thing as an Islamic nationalist. Islam is just another form of globalism. Even pan-Arabism wasn't enough for the Muslim clerics.

Your anti-Christian ignorance is showing.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 08, 2018 9:34 AM  

This guy has such a bizarre conjunction of abilities (I.E. faux-intellectualism) and inabilities (I.E. basic reading comprehension) that it cannot help but have been inflicted via some sort of Satanic covenant.

IQ estimate IMO is around 95 at best.

"I was done when he mixed up Patrick Henry for Nathan Hale."

I don't know how you even made it that far. I was only reading to compare with Vox's responses once I'd gotten about halfway through his first "rebuttal". Free trade can only have one end result, and that result is consolidation to the most ruthless and abusive power structure imaginable over the entire trade zone.

3/4 of everything he tries to build as an argument is flat out wrong (to be generous), and that's even before he does mental/logical gymnocontortions that would make an ambulatory and sinisterous serpent proud.

"it will be interesting to see if he will be subject to his new masters"

He'll be automatically subjected no matter who the masters are. He has such low intellectual ability, integrity, and fortitude that it can be no other way for him.

"Mostly just one word that he's really proud of. Which I'll give him credit for"

You give him too much credit. He either doesn't understand the word or he's so freakishly internally contorted that you can't tell otherwise. Kant would rip this guy into a broken sieve.\

This is exactly why I tell what I'd call "legal-ethical atheists" that they will be subjected to Christianity when it's in power. They don't even have mental coherence for it to occur to them to think other than as they're told.

"The power of the socio-sexual perspective can be a bit alarming at times."

Any novel and effective heuristic.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 08, 2018 9:37 AM  

Now you know this sackless wonder is not against identity politics as he says.

He has never opposed identity politics from a non-white or a jewish person ever, these clowns never do.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 08, 2018 9:41 AM  

"My view is that christianity is also globalist. Christians actively try to spread their religion worldwide. In so doing their goal cannot help but be globalist in some degree."

You need to think your view through in much finer detail.

Blogger Cary February 08, 2018 9:43 AM  

Wow! I actually gasped a couple of times at some of his later responses in how his butthurt gamma nature had him espousing pure leftism. As noted above, he had to disagree with every point, even if it meant a denial of reality. I look forward to our SDL’s continued dismantling.

Blogger NO GOOGLES February 08, 2018 9:45 AM  

@43
That's a really dimwitted view. It's Islam that wants to unify and control the world. Christianity wants to convert people, but Christianity also believes that nations were created by God when he divided humanity after the Tower of Babel.

Maybe try actually reading the Bible sometime.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 08, 2018 9:45 AM  

He actually uses the words graeco-roman and equalitarian as signals of his own intellectual superiority, on the mistaken belief they are misspelled.

Even worse, he provides not a single argument. Every point is "rebutted" with the assertion that comicshound doesn't believe it.
I was going to say "simple assertion", but he loves him some self-praise and name dropping, so the words are big and the sentence structures twisted, but they all boil down to "I believe this other thing, therefore the alt-Right is wrong."

Anonymous Anonymous February 08, 2018 9:47 AM  

"Russell Kirk literally defined American conservatism. This Churchian is claiming to be a conservative while simultaneously attempting to redefine conservatism as egalitarianism and throwing around some terms that he clearly doesn't understand."

Bingo!

"But he's not standing for what is right, he is actively endorsing surrender to evil."

Not protecting your own countries interests, be they demographic or trade wise, is surrendering to evil. He strikes me as someone who, in other circumstances, wouldn't believe that Islam wants him dead as his head's being sawed off.

"While I do enjoy the benefits of the Western Civilization, I would be a fool to think we are the elite on the Earth. "

In that case move to the 3rd world and live in a tin hut. Crap in an outhouse. To be ashamed that we are the elite of the world (which is temporal and passing) is absurd.

"Any civilization in the same position would prosper over three millennia."

Really? How's that working out for Spain's former colonies? How's that working out for the former colonies of Belgium, the UK, and Germany?

I got some news for ya, it isn't the place, it's the people.

Teleros wrote:@1 Yes, logorrhea sounds about right, but you get that a lot the more incoherent and disingenuous these types are. Short, punchy and to the point sentences are easier to parse and spot errors in.

Anyway, looks like the author has a Twatter account, though he hasn't used it in a while. I leave eviscerating the photo used to others here: https://twitter.com/comichound


@2 Strikes me as a gamma soy boy. There's something about those glasses regardless of whether they're on him, Steve Jobs, or John Lennon.

Lazarus wrote:When the AltRight is in control it will be interesting to see if he will be subject to his new masters with all respect, or not.

@8 We all know how that'll go!

Number 15 wrote:What a fag

@10 LOL!

allyn71 wrote:Go to his instagram account, it is...enlightening.

Soy, lots of Soy.

Explains it all


@22 The 5th photo down...what do I see? Friggin' John Lennon and those glasses!

VD wrote:If europeans converted to Islam it would make their shriveled balls would grow back, and they would make their women submit and they would become nationalists.

Don't be ridiculous. There is no such thing as an Islamic nationalist. Islam is just another form of globalism. Even pan-Arabism wasn't enough for the Muslim clerics.

Your anti-Christian ignorance is showing.


@42 But but but muh Baath party! HAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Mr.MantraMan wrote:Now you know this sackless wonder is not against identity politics as he says.

He has never opposed identity politics from a non-white or a jewish person ever, these clowns never do.


@45 With glasses like that...

Blogger SmockMan February 08, 2018 9:49 AM  

Western Civilization came closer to the total annihilation of all life in the universe than anything since the fall and the flood.

This was NOT developed through intelligence or scientific inquiry. The west just happened to sit on a hub for nuclear bombs.

Anonymous Anonymous February 08, 2018 9:55 AM  

I just scrolled down to see his "rebuttal" of Point 14, curious about how a self-identified Christian would disagree with it without being an obvious monster.

It was just muh racism, nothing interesting.

Blogger Geoarrge February 08, 2018 9:55 AM  

Christ's instructions for submission and non-violence often get taken out of context.

The two most important points to keep in mind are:

1) The disciples believed, right up until the crucifixion, that Jesus was going to lead a messianic revolution overthrowing Roman rule and reestablishing the Davidic kingdom. When Jesus advised His disciples to arm themselves while traveling (Luke 22.36) they immediately misinterpreted that to refer to getting ready for the revolution, and the Lord did facepalm.

2) There are no explicit instructions for what Christians should do if we ever get our own countries. "Roll over as soon as the heathens get cranky" does not seem like a sound inference from Biblical principles.

Blogger Desdichado February 08, 2018 9:57 AM  

Zerk J wrote:My view is that christianity is also globalist. Christians actively try to spread their religion worldwide. In so doing their goal cannot help but be globalist in some degree. Islam is also globalist, but in practice you see muslims fighting for their nations everywhere. Islam still has balls.
Your view is absurd and has to ignore almost all of Christian history and doctrine in favor of what a few loudmouths are doing in the supposed name of Christianty.

Blogger VD February 08, 2018 10:00 AM  

My view is that christianity is also globalist.

Your view is wrong, stupid, and totally ahistorical. Your recommendation of Islam is as retarded as the fifth-generation offspring of Pakistani cousin-marriage.

You might as well go away. You are far too short for this ride. Even the idiot Churchian isn't as clueless as you are.

Is it just me or does anyone else smell the familiar stench of Alt-Retard?

Blogger Johnny February 08, 2018 10:02 AM  

Islam is globalist in what it encourages but tribalist in what it produces. The sex rules strongly favor a women marrying within the clan. Also it is anti democratic. The ideal society is one ruled over by a priest who enforces Islamic law whether the public likes it or not. Thus it encourages tyranny at the top in a society dominated by tribal loyalties.

Going by what this has produced in Arabia so far, the result is strong clans and tribes, ruled over by a despotic leader because with loyalties close to home, strong nation states are not really achievable. Thus rule becomes either tribal or by decree from the top.

Blogger VD February 08, 2018 10:03 AM  

You're banned and spammed for lying, Zerk J. Alt-Retards are not permitted to comment here.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 08, 2018 10:04 AM  

"Is it just me or does anyone else smell the familiar stench of Alt-Retard?"

I'd think they'd be doing "I for one welcome our new Christian global overlords" instead if they held that view.

Blogger Akulkis February 08, 2018 10:06 AM  

Turd worlders have outhouses?

Blogger VD February 08, 2018 10:06 AM  

The Alt-Retards are seriously retarded. The moron makes an argument. It is promptly rebutted. So he responds by... repeating what he said before.

Even the SJWs are smarter than those morons. No wonder they've been infiltrated up the wazoo.

Blogger FSL February 08, 2018 10:07 AM  

VD: "And to say that the West did nothing to "deserve the gifts God gave us" is simply a flat-out lie."

Vox, how does this square with your (I assume) Protestant theology? --that we can do nothing to deserve any of the grace that God gives us. Suggesting that we actively cooperate with God's grace and can merit more graces by that cooperation sounds Catholic to me.

Blogger Matthew February 08, 2018 10:08 AM  

Josh (the sexiest thing here) wrote:Part II of IV tomorrow.

Anyone know what the labor market is for prostitutes in Vegas?


Churchians have a plan for disrupting it.

Blogger VD February 08, 2018 10:09 AM  

Islam is globalist in what it encourages but tribalist in what it produces.

That's absolutely false. Do you really know nothing about Islamic history and its various empires?The only reason that the Muslim nations even exist today is because the Christian West imposed nation-states on them and helps maintain them.

Blogger VD February 08, 2018 10:12 AM  

Vox, how does this square with your (I assume) Protestant theology? --that we can do nothing to deserve any of the grace that God gives us.

Are you kidding me? Do you seriously not understand the difference between a) indoor plumbing and b) God's grace?

Think better. There is no excuse for taking a concept far out of context.

Blogger Andrew February 08, 2018 10:14 AM  

It's amazing so many people confuse the nation for the nation-state; and read Christ's words about making disciples of the nations and have no idea what He's saying.

Or don't realize that the USA is no longer a nation, but a multi-ethnic empire.

How can Jesus redeem people from every tribe, tongue, and nation if we're to embrace globalism that destroys the distinction of nations?

Blogger Koanic February 08, 2018 10:20 AM  

> There are no explicit instructions for what Christians should do if we ever get our own countries.

True. Also, this is true:

"There are no explicit instructions for what Christians should do."

Because the word "Christian" only appears 3 times in the Bible.

However, if you are an adopted son of Israel, then there are PLENTY of instructions on what your country should and should not do.

Blogger Glaivester February 08, 2018 10:20 AM  

Westernism did not author Christianity or even cohere to it; instead God blessed the west with an underserved gift of centuries of Christianity.

No one is saying that the West invented Christianity, the point is that Christianity is one of the elements that created and defined the modern west. This is roughly equivalent to saying "It is wrong to say that Germanic grammar and Latin roots for words are hallmarks of English. Neither of these things started with the English language."

VD: And to say that the West did nothing to "deserve the gifts God gave us" is simply a flat-out lie.

I might quibble with that in the sense that no one deserves the gifts or grace of God, that's why they are gifts and why it is grace.

But in any case, the argument is moot, because Comichound is essentially arguing against an idea - that Christianity is in debt to the west - that no one has posited. The point being argued is that you cannot defend the west without defending Christianity.

While I do enjoy the benefits of the Western Civilization, I would be a fool to think we are the elite on the Earth. We are no more elite than the kid whose dad is a multi-millionaire.

Nonetheless, the kid whose dad is a multimillionaire and who inherits his dad's wealth is presumably expected to preserve it and steward it responsibly, not to squander it.

We did nothing to be born into wealth and splendor.

If we did nothing for it, then we are all the more in debt to our ancestors who produced it, and ought to have all the more desire to preserve their legacy carefully, as it ultimately does not belong to our generation.

Greece and Rome were prosperous for the same reasons the Egypt was prosperous; they sat at a hub of trade. Westerns people are neither superior nor inferior to anyone. Any civilization in the same position would prosper over three millennia. I reject the Alt Right on this.

Now we are quibbling not over whether Western Civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement, but over why.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 08, 2018 10:26 AM  

Alt-retard names himself grease fitting, then keeps on squeaking until he's greased.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 08, 2018 10:28 AM  

Koanic wrote:However, if you are an adopted son of Israel, then there are PLENTY of instructions on what your country should and should not do.

Yes, but: not everything in the Old Testament is there because it's God's preferred option. Remember what Jesus said about divorce: ``Because of the hardness of your hearts ...''

Blogger Glaivester February 08, 2018 10:30 AM  

Are you kidding me? Do you seriously not understand the difference between a) indoor plumbing and b) God's grace?

I think the assumption was that "The west did nothing to deserve the gifts God gave us." was specifically in reference to the previous statement that "God blessed the west with an underserved gift of centuries of Christianity," rather than in reference to our material and technological superiority.

But yes, the idea that our wealth and technology simply came to us by divine revelation and that we did nothing to develop them is ridiculous, and while I am not certain that this is what he was saying in that sentence, it certainly seems to be an accurate reflection of what he says elsewhere.

Blogger Akulkis February 08, 2018 10:31 AM  

Strange -- Russia has been the crossroads of trade routes since prehistory... Yet not very high standard of living.

Meanwhile, this Comic Hound's " trade routes not intelligent behavior" theory completely ignores the fact that the U.S landmass wasn't on ANY trade routes after 1607, when Jamestown was founded.

Blogger Koanic February 08, 2018 10:41 AM  

> Remember what Jesus said about divorce: ``Because of the hardness of your hearts ...''

Correct and irrelevant, unless you can name a Western country with hearts less hard than Israel's.

Blogger CM February 08, 2018 10:46 AM  

I stopped reading when he got to Western Civilization.

He would sacrifice his own children on the altar of globalism.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 08, 2018 10:48 AM  

That word he keeps usin, deontological, is a label for a variety of Ethics. Deontological Ethics is the mere opposite of "do what thou willt", and asserts that what is good is good only because God wills it. sA deontologist will say, alongside the 1970s Fundamentalist "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." As opposed to the traditional Christian understanding that the goodness of an action inheres to the action itself, but we can rely on God's instruction in the matter because He is perfectly just, all knowing, and loves His creation.

What's ludicrous is to call yourself a deontologist, and then assert the goodness of matters that are either never addressed in any way in Scripture, like trade policy, or even the evil of thing scripture tacitly endorses, like racism.

Blogger CM February 08, 2018 10:52 AM  

Nonetheless, the kid whose dad is a multimillionaire and who inherits his dad's wealth is presumably expected to preserve it and steward it responsibly, not to squander it.

This is a very Christian concept, if you see us as heirs of the gospel. Which I bet he does. It is important that we preserve our inheritance, use it wisely, and not destroy it.

How we treat lesser things demonstrates how we would treat more important things. Be faithful in the small things.

So preserving financial inheritance or civilizational inheritance, while lesser than the Gospel, demonstrates our responsibility for the Gospel.

No wonder those who squander both have squandered the Gospel, too.

Blogger Johnny February 08, 2018 10:54 AM  

Do you really know nothing about Islamic history and its various empires?

Actually I know quite a bit about Islam. I will cover this late stage development. Turkey had the bad luck to side with Germany in WWI, and the empire got broke up. Like Africa, the Europeans put together a set of nation states that were arbitrary, thus only sustainable by European power. Some of these states are natural and sustainable internally and many of them are not.

The consideration here is that prior to the brake up there was the Ottoman Empire. Not tribe but a kingdom that commonly acting as and treated as another nation in the European region. And most certainly not put together by Northern Europeans. It was assembled by conquest.

Was France when ruled by kings not a nation? It was won by conquest just like the Ottoman empire. If it was not a nation then we differ in what our definition of what a nation is, not in my presumed ignorance of Islam.

Another example. Pakistan. Is it not a nation? As I recall they put themselves together by rebelling against the arrangement left behind by England.

As a counterexample, Africa was tribal when the Europeans came along, and lacking outside support, I suspect it would go back to being tribal.

Blogger Cubby8126 February 08, 2018 10:55 AM  

I'm genuinely curious as to how he will try to secret king his way around taking his post down in defeat

Blogger CM February 08, 2018 10:56 AM  

Are you kidding me? Do you seriously not understand the difference between a) indoor plumbing and b) God's grace?

Think better. There is no excuse for taking a concept far out of context.


Cleanliness is next to godliness...

Blogger CM February 08, 2018 11:00 AM  

This fool advocates for surrender, and genuinely hopes that America stops being America and becomes something utterly alien and unrecognizable to anyone with any love of Western Civilization.

What he is doing is giving away something that was never his to give away. This isn't just his country (and he basically admits he doesn't view it as such), but those of us who do lay claim to it as our inheritance, he seeks to rip it from our possession and toss it to raiders who would lay waste to it in a heartbeat.

It isn't his to give away.

Blogger CM February 08, 2018 11:11 AM  

Was France when ruled by kings not a nation? It was won by conquest just like the Ottoman empire. If it was not a nation then we differ in what our definition of what a nation is, not in my presumed ignorance of Islam.

Another example. Pakistan. Is it not a nation? As I recall they put themselves together by rebelling against the arrangement left behind by England.

As a counterexample, Africa was tribal when the Europeans came along, and lacking outside support, I suspect it would go back to being tribal.


Who was it that showed that the Hajnal line divides Europe between the Western Civilization that became more altruistic through shared bloodlines vs Eastern Europe and the Middle East that was more tribal due to exclusive bloodlines?

I thought it was one of the more interesting links offered in the comments section.

https://geroldblog.com/2017/08/30/pathological-altruism-and-white-guilt/

Blogger Desdichado February 08, 2018 11:13 AM  

Who was it that showed that the Hajnal line divides Europe between the Western Civilization that became more altruistic through shared bloodlines vs Eastern Europe and the Middle East that was more tribal due to exclusive bloodlines?

I thought it was one of the more interesting links offered in the comments section.


hbd chick is what you want to read. Here's a selection:

https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/viscous-populations-and-the-selection-for-altruistic-behaviors/

https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 08, 2018 11:15 AM  

France, Pakistan and the Ottoman Empire are not nations. They are all empires. England is a nation, the UK is an empire. Poland is a nation, Russia is an empire. Belgium is a chimera, Wallonia and Flanders are nations.

It's not hard.

Blogger Chris Jackson February 08, 2018 11:35 AM  

He did a nice job attributing Nathan Hale's words to Patrick Henry.

Blogger Matthew February 08, 2018 11:35 AM  

"Despite ending clauses in prepositions, the advice is good."

Wow. It didn't take long for the dude to reveal himself as an ignoramus.

Blogger Chris Jackson February 08, 2018 11:36 AM  

And you know, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt on that. I thought "Maybe Henry quoted Hale at some point."

Blogger Johnny February 08, 2018 11:40 AM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:France, Pakistan and the Ottoman Empire are not nations. They are all empires. England is a nation, the UK is an empire. Poland is a nation, Russia is an empire. Belgium is a chimera, Wallonia and Flanders are nations.

It's not hard.

If England is now a nation, when did that happen? 1066? Do they flip from one to the other suddenly or slowly. Or the French revolution. Currently is France an empire or a nation? And if it is now a nation, when did flip from empire to nation? Of the 160 plus nations in the UN, how many are miss labeled as nations and actually empires? Time for the UN to get its act together and have two categories of members, empires and nations?

Well no, it is not hard to define things as you do, it is silly because it draws a non useful distinction.

Blogger Lance E February 08, 2018 11:43 AM  

Good lord, does he have any arguments that aren't based on quotations from someone he deems an authority? Arguments based on, you know, facts or evidence?

Anonymous Anonymous February 08, 2018 11:44 AM  

"You ever get the feeling they just learned a buncha big words and just throw them around to sound smart?"

"educated beyond his intellect"

I think those two statements sum up the situation quite well.

Blogger The Lab Manager February 08, 2018 11:46 AM  

The churchian quoted above would fit right in with the libertardians who believe in egalitarian BS but can't understand that other cultures have had anything resembling a Western outcome. Even the Asians have had to bum off the white man but have improved their lot immensely. I'm still waiting to find that African or Middle Eastern Muslim industrial revolution on par with the West.

Blogger Phelps February 08, 2018 11:47 AM  

Since I strongly suspect my comment will never get past moderation at his site, I'll duplicate it here:

Now I know what it felt like to hear papists argue against Martin Luther.

Blogger CM February 08, 2018 11:55 AM  

Desdichado wrote:Who was it that showed that the Hajnal line divides Europe between the Western Civilization that became more altruistic through shared bloodlines vs Eastern Europe and the Middle East that was more tribal due to exclusive bloodlines?

I thought it was one of the more interesting links offered in the comments section.


hbd chick is what you want to read. Here's a selection:

https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/viscous-populations-and-the-selection-for-altruistic-behaviors/

https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/


YES! The second one was the one I was thinking about. Gerold's is interesting in his focus on destructive altruism. I think it was both taken in tandem that was so fascinating.

Blogger Were-Puppy February 08, 2018 11:59 AM  

@47 Snidely Whiplash

they all boil down to "I believe this other thing, therefore the alt-Right is wrong."
---

That's the same impression I got from wading into his word salad. I don't mind him disagreeing with everything. But for all of his word salad, it really boils down to "hurts muh feelz".

He's a virtue signalling churchian. This is a wonderful topic to have one of them exposing themselves like this.

I'm eagerly awaiting the Churchian to invoke muh Judeo Christ.

Blogger Were-Puppy February 08, 2018 12:03 PM  

@53 VD

Is it just me or does anyone else smell the familiar stench of Alt-Retard?
---

Yep. The last week or so there has been a push against Christians by them and pagans. Kind of fizzling out from what little of it I have seen. They are trying to portray Jesus as a dirty jew hippy or something.

Blogger VD February 08, 2018 12:10 PM  

The last week or so there has been a push against Christians by them and pagans. Kind of fizzling out from what little of it I have seen.

Brilliant strategery. About what I would expect from that lot.

Anonymous Anonymous February 08, 2018 12:11 PM  

With respect, the 'English' are a nation. England is their national homeland. National Identity is not monolithic and does frequently change over time.

The Italians were once several nations. Then, in the 19th century, they got really exited about the 'Italian National Identity' and Italy was born. Now the Northern Italians, are rapidly losing their enthusiasm and are less inclined to view Southern Italians as their countrymen.

Blogger Desdichado February 08, 2018 12:11 PM  

He's a virtue signalling churchian. This is a wonderful topic to have one of them exposing themselves like this.

I nearly ended up in a fistfight a few months ago by asking a Churchian by describing the difference between the public appearance of virtue and actual virtue and asking him if he was a Christian or a Pharisee.

Like all womanish personality types, these guys will never be convinced by facts, by logic, by reason. However, they are highly susceptible to shaming.

Blogger CM February 08, 2018 12:12 PM  

Geoarrge wrote:Christ's instructions for submission and non-violence often get taken out of context.

The two most important points to keep in mind are:

1) The disciples believed, right up until the crucifixion, that Jesus was going to lead a messianic revolution overthrowing Roman rule and reestablishing the Davidic kingdom. When Jesus advised His disciples to arm themselves while traveling (Luke 22.36) they immediately misinterpreted that to refer to getting ready for the revolution, and the Lord did facepalm.

2) There are no explicit instructions for what Christians should do if we ever get our own countries. "Roll over as soon as the heathens get cranky" does not seem like a sound inference from Biblical principles.


Specfically to #2 - Its all about who you are in authority over. Jesus was sent as an authority figure of the Jews - their promised messiah - so Jesus's ministry was for the Jews.

A single man is in authority over no one and is more free to pursue the works of Christ at his own loss of life and limb.

A husband and father is in authority over his wife and children and must make decisions concerning their safety (so that they might choose their own way) before sacrificing himself for some greater good.

A leader of a country is in authority over many people and must make decisions that benefit for the same reasons a father would before sacrificing himself for some greater good.

This satisfies Peter's admonition that a man who doesn't care for his family is worse than an unbeliever while also satisfying Paul's observation that not marrying is better.

Blogger daddynichol February 08, 2018 12:15 PM  

No doubt he sends out his virtue signalling message from the safe confines of his predominately white, Christian, neighborhood. There is no way this limp wristed cretin lives in a depressed neighborhood.

Blogger CM February 08, 2018 12:17 PM  

As to my previous comment, this is what makes the churchian thing so abhorrent - they are taking away the choices of those around them (whom they have absolutely no authority over) to satisfy their own sense of right and wrong, allowing those others to make their own choices.

He forces his will on those around him. If he is so concerned about the plight of foreigners, let him sacrifice his own worldly wealth, his own wife and children, and his own life in pursuit of it. Not someone else's.

Blogger jimmy_the_freak February 08, 2018 12:20 PM  

@42 Azure Amaranthine "... gymnocontortions ..."

At first I read that as gynocontortions. Oddly enough, it still worked.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 08, 2018 12:21 PM  

Johnny wrote:If England is now a nation, when did that happen? 1066? Do they flip from one to the other suddenly or slowly. Or the French revolution. Currently is France an empire or a nation?

An empire is a group of nations held together by force under one government. A nation is a group of people connected by blood. Nation and empire are not synonyms.

England is a nation because the English people are related by blood. The UK is an empire formed when the English people assembled an empire by conquering other nations, like the Welsh, Scots and Irish.

France is a nation to the extent that the French people have common blood. The French nation has had an empire in the past, when it governed other nations. I don't know that they currently have an empire.

Blogger William Meisheid February 08, 2018 12:23 PM  

CM wrote:...So preserving financial inheritance or civilizational inheritance, while lesser than the Gospel, demonstrates our responsibility for the Gospel.

No wonder those who squander both have squandered the Gospel, too.


____
Interesting insight. Thank you for that.

As to distributism, maybe more properly called subsidiarity, it came to flower between the World Wars (not medieval times) by the agency of G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc following the writings of various popes on the subject beginning with Pope Leo XIII in Rerum novarum (1891). Here is an article detailing the concept. It is an interesting idea, one I would like to study further. http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/06/what-is-distributism.html

Blogger Jehu February 08, 2018 12:24 PM  

A lot of Christians, and pretty much all Churchians, make a fundamental error in reasoning about sin and humanity.
If we were to arrange humans and aggregate groups of humanity (e.g. demographic groups, nations, clans, and the like) in order of predilection to various sorts of sin, it is quite true that not even the 99th percentile of uprightness is sufficient to get a person or group into heaven absent Divine Grace, nor is the 10th percentile or even the 1st percentile a bar in the presence of said Grace.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't vast differences in the quality of life here on Earth between those two respective societies. Nor does it mean that a society does not 'deserve' in the sense that normal people talking about non-theological matters use the word deserve. The West is successful because of the historical high trust levels across the center of its societies that it has supported. Said trust levels and the order supporting them have altered the genetic makeup of Westerners (which is unfortunately presently a form of social capital that is being degraded) through direct action (e.g capital punishment, imprisonment etc) and indirect (imposing an order on the sexual marketplace favoring dads over cads).

Blogger Desdichado February 08, 2018 12:27 PM  

France is a nation to the extent that the French people have common blood. The French nation has had an empire in the past, when it governed other nations. I don't know that they currently have an empire.

If the English do, then the French do too. The Bretons, Occitans, Basques, etc. would all fill a very similar role to the Welsh, Scottish, etc.

Blogger William Meisheid February 08, 2018 12:29 PM  

Desdichado wrote:...Like all womanish personality types, these guys will never be convinced by facts, by logic, by reason. However, they are highly susceptible to shaming.

______
I may be wrong but I have long considered the ability to experience shame as necessary for conversion and repentance or to be secular, changing one's mind about a strongly held belief and admitting error. No shame, no real change.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora February 08, 2018 12:29 PM  

lol tenant

Blogger Ahärôwn February 08, 2018 12:40 PM  

His response to point three is where he really lost me, too. He quotes Paul's admonitions to be subject to various authorities, neglecting to note Paul's own appeal to the authorities for justice, as a Roman citizen. This included his appeal to Caesar, which even if it was unsuccessful, meant Paul was not above availing himself of all of the rights given to him.

This author would have us not bother to bring about any political change at all, or use any of the various legal and political options available to Westerners, unlike the often literal slaves that Paul wrote to. Would the author advocate us not voting too? I suspect not, but only as a symbolic gesture, one that would not ruffle any bowties.

Speaking of bowties, it really is true:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BUF8v2KA52w/?taken-by=comichound

Blogger DonReynolds February 08, 2018 12:41 PM  

"Economics only offers a few alternatives to laissez-faire economics, none of which are sustainable."

Clearly, he is a LIAR and not an economist, nor is he aware of the history of economic thought, nor can he claim to have read any economic history.

Laissez-faire has always been the strawman that Far Leftists beat up, even though it has never existed or been advocated in any nation, except by Anarchists and extreme Libertarians.

Being a good Leftist environmentalist (as if there is any other kind)
requires him to touch the Sustainability stone without having to discuss it, or explain it, or offer a system that would be sustainable. Pure nonsense.

Feudalism is not an economic system. It is a reactionary POLITICAL adaptation to rural life based on land ownership, the lack of (urban) markets and the difficulty of trade. No one needs to advocate for feudalism. It is what remains when urban society is destroyed, either by war, or disease, or drought, etc. Yes, we could very easily see a return of feudalism.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 08, 2018 12:42 PM  

Desdichado wrote:If the English do, then the French do too. The Bretons, Occitans, Basques, etc. would all fill a very similar role to the Welsh, Scottish, etc.

OK. UK versus England, Scotland and Wales is very explicitly empire versus nations, so an easy example.

Blogger Taignobias February 08, 2018 12:45 PM  

I am thoroughly amused that he cited the "white" nation of Greece, the "white" nation of Rome, and the apparently "white" (possibly Semitic or Asiatic) ancient Egypt to put forth his hypothesis that anyone could do what "white" America has done. Or, from another angle, he cited three mighty Western nations to posit that Western nations aren't special. Or, from still another angle, he posited that three powerful nations which contained the earliest Churches don't indicate anything about the success of Christian nations.

No matter how I look at it, his examples crush his point.

Furthermore, anyone who thinks Christianity is a basically Middle-Eastern religion has never read the work of the Apostle Paul. He tied the eternal truths of Scripture to Western philosophical tradition so thoroughly that one can hardly understand one without the other at this point.

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira February 08, 2018 12:53 PM  

These people are so easy to figure out.

Blogger DJ | AMDG February 08, 2018 1:00 PM  

10-1 he is a neo/bro-Calvinist.

Blogger J.F. Martin February 08, 2018 1:00 PM  

Churchianity - From Urban Dictionary...
A term coined by Bible teacher Richard Pope during a sermon characterizing the condition of the modern-day Christian Church and how different it's teachings are from the original ideas and message of the historical Jesus.

Comichound is just another example of Churchianity. Jesus never taught the things he wrote, even his quotes and bible verses are out of context. Your response just gave him 108 more views than he's ever had.

Anonymous Anonymous February 08, 2018 1:01 PM  

His #4 is typical cultural relativism that is taught at university today. Ricardo Duschene goes into great detail about how Marxist academics 'de-centered' Western Civilization, and instead now teach 'world history', wherein the accomplishments of the West are systematically minimized and equalized. He's simply parroting the university party line: there is nothing unique about Western Civilization, which is why Duschene wrote "The Uniqueness of Western Civilization", which I highly recommend.

Blogger DonReynolds February 08, 2018 1:06 PM  

"Phelps wrote:Since I strongly suspect my comment will never get past moderation at his site, I'll duplicate it here:

Now I know what it felt like to hear papists argue against Martin Luther.


One of the strongest critics of Martin Luther was King Henry VIII, for which the pope bestowed on him the title "Defender of the Faith", which every monarch of England has retained since. (Henry was not expected to be King and was trained for the priesthood.)

Blogger Patrick Kelly February 08, 2018 1:14 PM  

I slogged through this as best I could, but WTF is this conservative trying to conserve?

I know it's a cliche question, but really, my evens have run out of cants.

There is absolutely nothing conservative about this twit. Nothing.

Blogger Patrick Kelly February 08, 2018 1:18 PM  

I did learn that I am anti-deontological, or at least very skeptical of it as expressed by this guy.

Blogger Desdichado February 08, 2018 1:20 PM  

William Meisheid wrote:I may be wrong but I have long considered the ability to experience shame as necessary for conversion and repentance or to be secular, changing one's mind about a strongly held belief and admitting error. No shame, no real change.
I may be splitting semantic hairs, but mostly I associate the word guilt with what you are describing, not shame.

Shame is more about social consequences of your actions or position. It's external. Which explains exactly why people like this exist; the Left has been good at shaming the gullible and the easily led into accepting its frame.

Guilt, on the other hand, is necessarily for actual conversion and repentance, because it is INTERNAL and has little if anything to do with societal stimuli. It is the impetus for the whole notion of being born again as Jesus described it.

Blogger DonReynolds February 08, 2018 1:21 PM  

DJ | AMDG wrote:10-1 he is a neo/bro-Calvinist.

There are only two Calvinist churches in the USA...Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed.

No, the only fake Conservative church I am aware of would be the Mormons, as in Mitt Romney. This is the sort of establishment inc. conservative nonsense that would appeal to them.

Blogger Danby February 08, 2018 1:30 PM  

Johnny wrote:If England is now a nation, when did that happen? 1066? Do they flip from one to the other suddenly or slowly. Or the French revolution. Currently is France an empire or a nation? And if it is now a nation, when did flip from empire to nation? Of the 160 plus nations in the UN, how many are miss labeled as nations and actually empires? Time for the UN to get its act together and have two categories of members, empires and nations?

So, let's see your definition of "nation", and if you claim a nation state is a nation, then give us a word that means the entity we, and all English-speaking generations before WWI meant by the word nation.

Blogger Danby February 08, 2018 1:32 PM  

Neo-Calvinist, doesn't mean Calvinist. Calvinists may be wrong, but they are quite thorough about addressing theological questions. Neo-Calvinists just try to integrate certain Calvinist conclusions with their generally Churchian pre-existing beliefs.

Blogger Teleros February 08, 2018 1:39 PM  

Akulkis wrote:Strange -- Russia has been the crossroads of trade routes since prehistory... Yet not very high standard of living.

Meanwhile, this Comic Hound's " trade routes not intelligent behavior" theory completely ignores the fact that the U.S landmass wasn't on ANY trade routes after 1607, when Jamestown was founded.


Don't be silly, the English player saw the [Triangle Route] trade node and deliberately sent his colonists there because he was white and hated the Zulu player. I've played all the Civ games and studied English Lit at Oxford so I know what I'm talking about...

= = =

daddynichol wrote:No doubt he sends out his virtue signalling message from the safe confines of his predominately white, Christian, neighborhood. There is no way this limp wristed cretin lives in a depressed neighborhood.

He's from New Orleans, according to Twatter etc. I tend to think of that as a rather "diverse" place, but I'm imagine there are safe white parts of it. This fellow lives there after all...

Blogger Duke Norfolk February 08, 2018 2:02 PM  

In addition to all the other errors in this thing, the guy has no understanding of how to use commas!

Blogger William Meisheid February 08, 2018 2:20 PM  

Desdichado wrote:I may be splitting semantic hairs, but mostly I associate the word guilt with what you are describing, not shame.

Shame is more about social consequences of your actions or position. It's external. Which explains exactly why people like this exist; the Left has been good at shaming the gullible and the easily led into accepting its frame.

Guilt, on the other hand, is necessarily for actual conversion and repentance, because it is INTERNAL and has little if anything to do with societal stimuli. It is the impetus for the whole notion of being born again as Jesus described it.


______
I take as my source 2 Cor 7:9-10 "Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. 10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death."

I have thought about this a lot over the years and I have equated sorrow with guilt, arguing that it is the guilt that produces the sorrow. But then what produces Godly sorrow? For me that is shame. I have known people who feel guilt without shame and are "sorry" but it has no teeth.

When shame enters the picture, that guilt turns and the sorrow deepens into real repentance, into what I believe is the thing that Paul calls Godly sorrow.

When Jeremiah talks about the shame of the sin of his people and says (3:25), "We lie down in our shame, And our reproach covers us. For we have sinned against the Lord our God, We and our fathers, From our youth even to this day, And have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God.” It gives me the hope of repentance.

I may be wrong, but that has been my experience.

Blogger FSL February 08, 2018 2:38 PM  

VD: "Are you kidding me? Do you seriously not understand the difference between a) indoor plumbing and b) God's grace?"

I for one am very grateful to God for indoor plumbing.

Compartmentalist thinking can be useful, but it's not a coherent response. My point in writing is that while God's grace, from indoor plumbing, to eternal salvation, to apple pie, can never be deserved, it can be merited. By converting to Christianity and forming communities of celibates who formed scriptoriums and universities and a scientific community step-wise, Christian Europeans cooperated with God's grace and so merited more gifts and graces. It is fitting their children should see the benefits. This blogger doesn't seem to realize that, but saying we "deserve" anything but hellfire seems to be going too far in the other direction: You don't "deserve" a gift, but your Father can give you a gift in appreciation for your hard work.

Blogger tublecane February 08, 2018 2:40 PM  

"his appeal to his professor's authority is a literal logical fallacy"

Is there authority implied simply by the word "professor?" Because he doesn't specify that the professor is a great and learned man, just that he gave a certain piece of advice. When I hear the word "professor" I don't automatically think authority figure. I'm probably more apt to think guy who couldn't hack it in the real world.

I only bring this up because I've done the "a professor once told me" thing without intending to imply any kind of authority.

Blogger tublecane February 08, 2018 2:46 PM  

"Western civilization came closer to the total annihilation of all life in the universe than anything since the fall and the flood"

Considering it didn't come anywhere close to such a thing, I consider it a poor measure. It's like saying a guy who possesses a single dollar more in his savings account than you is closer to owning a the wealth ever produced by mankind. Huh?

It sounds like the reverse of a childish excuse. "Yeah, I ordered that village be wiped out, Mr. Congressman, but it's not as if I annihilated all life in the universe."

Blogger Quilp February 08, 2018 2:51 PM  

That was worth the read. Well done. In my own particular ideological history it was the glorification of Kirk by Conservatism inc on the one hand, while they argued against just about everything he wrote on the other, that forced me to look more closely at the consistency of Kirk himself. Sure, Grace, gifts from God etc played a part inWestern Civilization becoming the success it was/is, but to completely disregard merit, while also arguing some odd concept of historical civilizational egalitarianism, is strange indeed. Stop trying to surrender for me. Worse yet, Stop trying to surrender my civilization in the name of Christianity.

Blogger tublecane February 08, 2018 3:10 PM  

"Russell Kirk literally defined American conservatism"

He gave it a name, but I don't think he defined it. The movement predated his definition, and proceeded to ignore most of what he advocated.

You can find the loser-ness of the conservative movement in Kirk's definition, but firstly his writings were more than just that definition. More importantly, there's more than one way to lose, and I think conservatives and neocons lost more in non-Kirk or extra-Kirk than specifically Kirkian ways.

Not that I wish to excuse him in any way. His intellectual pedigree he cobbled together for the American right was ersatz, and damaging in the long-run, however embarrassing it was for rightist intellectuals to be constantly told they had no pedigree. (Deal with it.)

Also, it was a grave mistake to bend over backwards avoiding ideology. I can understand it, I suppose, as a way to position yourselves as a loosey-goosey alternative to the hidebound left, which acted as if their ideology was strict logic matched with scientific fact. But if your enemy is too doctrinaire, that doesn't mean you have to abandon ideology altogether.

Because what are you, if not an ideology? Nothing, really. Just a dumping ground for people who don't feel like being associated with the winners.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener February 08, 2018 3:10 PM  

Christianity is the basis of the moral code that is predominant in the West. Widespread adherence to that moral code allows even strangers to trust one another to a degree that is unequalled elsewhere in the world. This comparably high degree of trust Westerners place in one another enables complex social and economic processes to occur that would be unthinkable in a low trust society.

Complex social processes are the basis of wealth and civilizational success.

Blogger CM February 08, 2018 3:20 PM  

William Meisheid wrote:Desdichado wrote:I may be splitting semantic hairs, but mostly I associate the word guilt with what you are describing, not shame.

Shame is more about social consequences of your actions or position. It's external. Which explains exactly why people like this exist; the Left has been good at shaming the gullible and the easily led into accepting its frame.

Guilt, on the other hand, is necessarily for actual conversion and repentance, because it is INTERNAL and has little if anything to do with societal stimuli. It is the impetus for the whole notion of being born again as Jesus described it.


______

I take as my source 2 Cor 7:9-10 "Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. 10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death."

I have thought about this a lot over the years and I have equated sorrow with guilt, arguing that it is the guilt that produces the sorrow. But then what produces Godly sorrow? For me that is shame. I have known people who feel guilt without shame and are "sorry" but it has no teeth.

When shame enters the picture, that guilt turns and the sorrow deepens into real repentance, into what I believe is the thing that Paul calls Godly sorrow.

When Jeremiah talks about the shame of the sin of his people and says (3:25), "We lie down in our shame, And our reproach covers us. For we have sinned against the Lord our God, We and our fathers, From our youth even to this day, And have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God.” It gives me the hope of repentance.

I may be wrong, but that has been my experience.



I wonder if the Godly Sorrow is the shame one feels when coming face to face with God (in a spiritual sense).

Shame, from what I'm getting in today's readings around the interwebs, is about an external confrontation with wrong doing and guilt an internal one. So the external in Godly shame would be confrontation with God.

Blogger William Meisheid February 08, 2018 3:41 PM  

CM
I believe you are correct about shame. We talked about this at work recently and one of the engineers noted that the only way he could get his kids to really deal with things that needed correcting was to invoke shame in them. He started saying to them (not overdoing it) that he ashamed of them.

Blogger tublecane February 08, 2018 3:45 PM  

That was difficult to read. As with Scalzi, he fits faults Vox regularly pokes at almost too perfectly for rebuttal. What worse can one do to him than he does on his own? My instinct is to feel sorry for him.

But in addition to possibly being mentally disturbed and/or stupid--how else to explain the rambling incoherence and gross ignorance--he may just be a liar. And a lazy one, at that.

Consider his first point of attack: "a list of fear monger buzzwords." What are these "buzzwords?" Socialists, progressives, liberals, communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and National Socialists. I will grant people find communism, Marxism, and National Socialism scary. But is it fear-mongering to mention them?

Well, all but National Socialists are an accepted part of our culture, openly advocated, including by people in positions of trust and authority. Should we ignore them because, I don't know, their unpopularity makes them prejudicial to bring up? I don't think so, especially considering people comfortable identifying with the labels in public.

As for Nazis, they're not socially acceptable, but people self-identify that way, or with movements known to be inspired by them, nonetheless. But even if no one dared claim the title, invoking the name of National Socialism is perfectly appropriate.

Not only is it not fear-mongering, it's preemptive defense. Because Vox knows, as does everyone with a brain, that the immediate reaction to the 16 points by a good portion of its opponents will be to accuse its followers of Nazism. That follows like night follows day.

As for buzzphrases, all the terms are longstanding identifications, not passing fads. Though I will admit that "progressive" and "liberal" go in and out of favor, and are transferred to and from different parties. But we know to whom they refer here.

What's more, the labels are or have been self-identifications, assented to by their standard-bearers. Except perhaps Cultural Marxism, whose existence is repeatedly denied by Cultural Marxists themselves, as well as others. This has been controversial for no good reason, and the mystery solved long ago. Yes, finally and forever, CultMarx exists!

However, it is at least something of a fashionable phrase right now. Possibly it will be buried whenever enemies of Cultural Marxism let up. Just as possibly it will become a badge of honor to Marxists, and they'll proudly identify with the label. But for now I'll let it slide.

Fine, ONE buzzphrase. The rest are accepted terms, without which it would be impossible to carry on normal political discourse. Though that may be the point: some people benefit by denying the possibility of normal political discourse.

No wonder leftists play the name-change game, when boobs/liars like this write as they do.

Blogger tublecane February 08, 2018 3:51 PM  

I am experiencing a liar/ignoramus dilemma with this person. He says the only alternatives to laissez-faire economics are socialism or feudalism. Can he possibly be unfamiliar with the 230-year history of the United States, for instance? Or basically every other nom-socialist capitalist country?

I suppose he could be. Either that, or he's using a ridiculously expansive definition of "laissez-faire." Or he thinks the U.S. is socialistic or feudalistic. I have to consider all possibilities.

Blogger Desdichado February 08, 2018 3:52 PM  

Yeah, I don't disagree at all with either of you; just clarifying what I mean as the distinction between the two words guilt and shame. I agree 100% with your conclusions regardless of what labels you use, though: Godly sorrow is an internal—or if it's external, it's between you and God—stimulus and has very little to do with being shamed by society, or anyone else.

My point in all this, though, was that guys like the author linked to above tend to be highly susceptible to shaming techniques to get them to change their position, or at least to shut up and run away in retreat. This is because their beliefs are neither deep-rooted, nor built on a solid intellectual or spiritual foundation, but are rather just "what all right thinking people (that I associate with) believe, therefore they most be right."

When confronted with the notion that other people, maybe even the majority of other people, look at him and his statements with contempt, that's when he'll suddenly flip his allegiance and proclaim that no, guys, seriously, I always like you alt-right folks.

This is probably the greatest advantage the Trump presidency is giving us; as it shifts the Overton Window rapidly to the Right, people are starting to realize that what they thought "everyone" believed were just the people in their stupid little bubble.

There's still a lot of work to do to change the perception of people generally, but still, shaming works wonders in at least getting womanish people like this guy to shut up and go away and be very, very careful about smugly proclaiming things that he is shocked to discover that people don't necessarily agree with after all.

Blogger Johnny February 08, 2018 3:55 PM  

Danby wrote:So, let's see your definition of "nation", and if you claim a nation state is a nation, then give us a word that means the entity we, and all English-speaking generations before WWI meant by the word nation.

What I believe to be the best operative definition is that when you have a thing called a government that controls or at least attempts to control a population and a territory, it is most sensible and useful to call what they control a nation.

When we want to draw a distinction between nations we put them into categories. There is a desire here to degilitimize multi ethnic nations (perhaps called empires), thus the tendency to say that they are not a nation but an empire. Back when we were highly anti communist we divided nations into communist and non communist. And then there is first world, second world, and so on. Or free and not free. or whatever.

The problem is that when dealing with these social institutions called governments as outsiders, their power base is secondary. Thus best thought of as nations by outsiders, and using the finer distinctions as catogries of nations. Fine with me if one wishes to call a multi ethnic state an empire or potental despotic state, but my preference is to still regard it as a kind of nation. Just one that is apt to not be durable and break up; like the USSR, or the Ottoman Empire, or the British Empire and so on. I believe that is the most common word usage.

Supposing they are not nations deprives the language of a single word that describes the governments we and everybody else deals with. Chose some other unifing word if you like, but there should be one.

A colony if it is openly admitted to as a colony is best thought of as a extension of the mother country, thus a member of that nation state. A state that is controled by another but does not admit to it is a peseudo state, pretending to be a state but actually a colony. In tribalism everybody is related to everybody and the government represents the population, no territory needed.

Blogger Desdichado February 08, 2018 4:03 PM  

What I believe to be the best operative definition is that when you have a thing called a government that controls or at least attempts to control a population and a territory, it is most sensible and useful to call what they control a nation.

Are you kidding me? That is not the definition of a nation. That is the definition of a state. That's why the term nation-state exists to suggest that a nation and a state that are coterminous is a special kind of thing.

It absolutely is NOT to suggest that you can substitute or thoroughly confuse the two words, as you have done.

Blogger tublecane February 08, 2018 4:09 PM  

@132-I don't usually go in for mainstream social psychology, but it has a very useful concept known as "social proof." Basically, people copy those around them when they're unsure what behavior is appropriate.

When in doubt, our social instinct is to assume the crowd around us knows more or better than we do. Doesn't mean you always follow everyone who happens to be around you. But if you identify with them as your people, and you're on the fence in your decision, you tend look to them for the correct response.

Blogger tublecane February 08, 2018 4:17 PM  

@9-Is that supposed to be a magic dirt argument? "Well, Athens and Rome happened to be prime trading real estate, and those empires got lucky, is all."

Let's say for a moment it's true that those cities were ideally situated for trades, though obviously they're not. Would just anyone occupying them be able to build a Parthenon or conquer the Mediterranean after a set period of time? Does anyone on earth actually believe that?

I think there's a reason no one ever authored a book titled the Effect of Natural Trade-Hub Territory upon History.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 08, 2018 4:18 PM  

@Johnny,
Please go rearch what a nation us. It is not a state. That's why the word State exists, to describe something the word nation does not.
A nation is a people, who may or may not have a state.
The Kurds, the Iroquois, Gypsies and the Jews until quite recently, are all nations without states.

Blogger Johnny February 08, 2018 4:33 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:@Johnny,

Please go rearch what a nation us. It is not a state. That's why the word State exists, to describe something the word nation does not.

A nation is a people, who may or may not have a state.

The Kurds, the Iroquois, Gypsies and the Jews until quite recently, are all nations without states.



a : a politically organized nationality (3) : a non-Jewish nationality
why do the nations conspire—Psalms 2:1 (Revised Standard Version)
b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government
Canada is a nation with a written constitution —B. K. Sandwell
c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status

I see three meanings. One that agrees with you and two that agree with me.. But then I guess I made the mistake of challenging the established authority here. You, right? (Not that I want an answer or will respond.)

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 08, 2018 4:34 PM  

Johnny wrote:What I believe to be the best operative definition is that when you have a thing called a government that controls or at least attempts to control a population and a territory, it is most sensible and useful to call what they control a nation.

It is most sensible and useful to make up your own definitions, especially if you change them periodically. It's the ideal way to prevent communication.

Blogger CM February 08, 2018 4:37 PM  

Johnny wrote:Snidely Whiplash wrote:@Johnny,

Please go rearch what a nation us. It is not a state. That's why the word State exists, to describe something the word nation does not.

A nation is a people, who may or may not have a state.

The Kurds, the Iroquois, Gypsies and the Jews until quite recently, are all nations without states.


a : a politically organized nationality (3) : a non-Jewish nationality

why do the nations conspire—Psalms 2:1 (Revised Standard Version)

b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government

Canada is a nation with a written constitution —B. K. Sandwell

c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status

I see three meanings. One that agrees with you and two that agree with me.. But then I guess I made the mistake of challenging the established authority here. You, right? (Not that I want an answer or will respond.)


If the people in one nation have multiple nationalities, than what is a nationality?

Your definitions refer to a nation-state. Not a nation. How do I know that? Because they refer to the people in the "nation" has having multiple nationalities. I'm curious why a non-Jewish nationality is considered a nation? The Jews are a nation.

So what does nationality mean if not belonging to a nation?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 08, 2018 4:40 PM  

...community of people composed of one or more nationalities...
This is literally self-contradictory

Blogger tublecane February 08, 2018 4:42 PM  

@26-The most famous "deontologist" was Kant, of course. Though I don't want to be caught endorsing Objectivism, they were very insistent upon discovering Kant at the root of modern collectivisms, including of course Nazism. I think I may have the book Ominous Parallels stowed away somewhere, which spends a lot of space cementing that foundation.

I studied Kant, Bentham, and all that jazz back when, as I assume most people here have in some fashion. I remember arguments about duty and absolute truth being briefly compelling, then floating away from my mind as on a breeze. If the categorical imperative is so dang important, why do I keep forgetting why?

One thing I've always gotten from reading Catholic writers, who are obviously supposed to believe in Absolute Truth, is that morality is really hard. Like, really, *really* difficult to apply to everyday situations. (Oh noez, "situational ethics!") Facile absolutism bores me.

Duty-bound morality is one thing, but can we at least be careful about what we pick as duties?
For instance, I'd like to be free to fight back when people attack me because just because doing so could make me a meanie-head. Since when did we have a duty not to lie, cheat, and indeed kill to win over our enemies? I remember plenty of Christians doing that throughout history.

Notice Kant's categorical imperative wasn't: "Be nice to eachother, 'kay?" He at least tried to make up duties which apply in all situations. With what success you decide.

The world of political tactics is not one of such imperatives, usually. Unless we're talking in terms of allowing babies to be raped to maintain the status quo, or whatever. I cannot for the life of me understand the firm, principled stand of deontologists against trolling people on the internet, for instance.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 08, 2018 4:44 PM  

I guess I made the mistake of challenging the established authority here. You, right? (Not that I want an answer or will respond.)
You won't be able to help yourself. No, I'm not any established authority, but, like most regular commenters here, I'm considerably smarter and better informed than you.

Better looking and more successful too.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener February 08, 2018 4:44 PM  

Dictionary.com has better definitions:

1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own
2. the territory or country itself
3. a member tribe of an American Indian confederation.
4. an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.


The fourth definition is the most venerated; American Indian tribes could not be referred to as nations if fixed geographical boundaries were a prerequisite for nationhood. Note that a diverse and disunited collection of people ruled by force is not a nation.

Blogger Johnny February 08, 2018 4:55 PM  

Akulkis wrote:Strange -- Russia has been the crossroads of trade routes since prehistory... Yet not very high standard of living.

Meanwhile, this Comic Hound's " trade routes not intelligent behavior" theory completely ignores the fact that the U.S landmass wasn't on ANY trade routes after 1607, when Jamestown was founded.

New York became the biggest city in the United States because of the Hudson river and the Erie Canal. The canal made New York the trade route into the interior, mainly the Ohio River area. Chicago became the biggest midwest city because being at the end of the lake, it became the main shipping point for goods from deeper in the Midwest. The much fought over New Orleans was the trade route, choke point, for the Mississippi River. And of course San Francisco has its harbor, etc..

To benefit from a trade route you have to be able to control it. No numbers on it but I think the Mongols did well enough controlling the Russian Trade route. Well enough that they went to the effort to control it with with military power. If you didn't go along they would kill you. Once ships started going from Europe to Asia no doubt it became less important. And even less important when the Suez Canal was built.

Blogger tublecane February 08, 2018 4:56 PM  

@42-"the most ruthless and abusive power structure imaginable over the entire trade zone"

Which is why free trade libertarians like Murray Rothbard--a thinker I greatly admire, by the way--can in a book titled Conceived in Liberty praise the achievements of the bloody and destructive Genghis Khan. Because the Golden Horde's terror is just the sort of thing that levels the world and makes globalism possible.

Blogger tublecane February 08, 2018 5:03 PM  

@Johnny-Was the Erie Canal dug by God?

What geographic blessing allowed the Mogols to conquer the Russians' prime real estate, which unfortunately Russians weren't able to control, because reasons?

Blogger Danby February 08, 2018 5:11 PM  

tublecane wrote:What geographic blessing allowed the Mogols to conquer the Russians' prime real estate, which unfortunately Russians weren't able to control, because reasons?
Forget it Tuble, it's Midwit Gammatown.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener February 08, 2018 5:15 PM  

South Africa, Rhodesia, and Detroit all once sat at the hub of trade too, apparently, but now they don't.

I blame global warming.

Blogger Jack February 08, 2018 5:38 PM  

This is the second time I've seen "tenant" for tenet in recent months, and I'm pretty sure the last time was also someone trying to outsmart the alt right. But, irregardless, I'm sure they could care less.

Blogger Dexter February 08, 2018 5:48 PM  

" there's a reason no one ever authored a book titled the Effect of Natural Trade-Hub Territory upon History."

This book is a subset of Jared Diamonds Guns Germs and Steel, aka Magic Geography Explains All Because I Must Not Discuss Race.

Blogger Duke Norfolk February 08, 2018 6:09 PM  

Looking at his Instagram page, the guy is clearly a pretentious hipster fag. I mean really, he's putting that crap up there to signal (I know, that's what most everybody's doing there).

And he clearly thinks he's much smarter than he really is.

Blogger Damaris Tighe February 08, 2018 6:46 PM  

deontological morality eh, doesn't he just mean non-existent

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 08, 2018 6:48 PM  

"deontological morality eh, doesn't he just mean non-existent"

He means his rules as defined by him at present instant.

I have no problem with deontological morality. Some people might actually classify me in that camp. This guy doesn't even know what he's talking about with regard to that.

Blogger Lovekraft February 08, 2018 7:17 PM  

I just left this comment there:

"Why don't you tell us what you propose we do about:

the thousands of westerners who have seen their friends and family massacred by jihadis?
these millions of westerners seeing their heritage bulldozed by post-modernism?
these millions under constant psychological attack on their morals (i.e. left-wing media pushing degeneracy and worse)?
the displacement of westerners by importing millions from other cultures and races who will have no desire to adopt our values and traditions?
the blatant institutional left-wing ideological bias that has infected media, academia, courts etc?
the creeping censorship of free thought in social media (arguably a final refuge for free thinkers)?

Get around to answering these questions and we can start a real conversation, because the alt-right is not obligated to do this for you. Anyone who dismisses the above questions is in no position to point the finger."

Since there are no other comments there, I am skeptical.

Blogger Lovekraft February 08, 2018 7:22 PM  

Shouldn't the churchian's word in point #3 be 'tenet' rather than 'tenant'? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 08, 2018 7:48 PM  

Lovekraft wrote:Shouldn't the churchian's word in point #3 be 'tenet' rather than 'tenant'? Correct me if I'm wrong.

He said ``... adopted every tenant of leftist progressivism ...'' He's obviously talking about adopting rapefugees out of Section 8 Housing. Just another case of liberal projection.

Blogger Lovekraft February 08, 2018 8:04 PM  

I'm just going to throw a wrench into the works here. Don't expect replies because it's pretty 'out there.'

Man is still under the visual rule, meaning his eyes, or that which he sees, greatly influences his thinking. For example, seeing a member of one's own familiar group/race, wearing similar clothing etc, versus one of another race instills very different feelings and opinions.

We as a species are still under this biological bias. And until we are all forced to wear some "Scanner Darkly-type morphing body suits that counteract these differences, we will always have these inherent biases.

So where does that leave us? I believe that, until mankind is able to overcome this deep-rooted natural affiliation preference, conflict will occur. What, then, are possible solutions to temper this?

We have social conditioning, 24/7 media programming etc. But these are simplistic and only gloss over the reality.

Which is where religion enters the picture. And the mark of a truly world-altering religion is one that tries to get us to go beyond this limitation. There's the Abrahamaic-based religions that close ranks (circumcision, maddrassah preschools) knowing full well this truth. There's Buddhism that is IMO flaccid and capitulating. Hindu seems like something out of a Saturday morning cartoon lineup.

Which brings us to Christianity...

Blogger Danby February 08, 2018 8:26 PM  

Lovekraft wrote:I believe that, until mankind is able to overcome this deep-rooted natural affiliation preference, conflict will occur.
God created this, why would we wish to overcome it?
The affiliation preference, as you call it, is inherent in the very idea of differing races, differing cultures and differing customs, an astounding amount of which is rooted in genetic traits.
God created the differing races, and divided man into nations. You are espousing the Babel heresy, dressed up in pseudo-psychological jargon.

We are not meant to be the same, we are meant to be different.

Blogger Lovekraft February 08, 2018 9:59 PM  

What are you claiming I am espousing? I am positing that mankind has inherent biological biases that yearn for a message from a savoir. That savoir being Jesus Christ.

If I didn't make that clear in my intial post, I'm doing so now.

Blogger Michael Kingswood February 09, 2018 1:29 AM  

In fairness to the fellow in question, your inventing new terminology (scientody, etc) that no one who hasn't delved into your blog to learn what you mean by it understands doesn't help make your case.

Wouldn't it have been just as easy to say "the scientific method" or "the profession of being a scientist" instead of making up high-sounding words, when you were using them in the context of a set of principles that were meant to be disseminated to the masses?

Not saying this fellow's response to point 8 is necessarily sound per say, but you sure didn't make it easy for someone who doesn't read you to understand what the hell you mean with that one.

Blogger tublecane February 09, 2018 2:19 AM  

@160-"Not saying this fellow's response to point 8 is necessarily sound"

Good, because it isn't. The appropriate response to encountering new terminology isn't to assume the person saying them doesn't know what they're talking about. Especially if you're an idiot who doesn't know much. Though "in fairness to the fellow in question," he doesn't know enough to know he doesn't know much.

This is coming from someone who doesn't particularly like the point 8 terminology, either. Despite our culture's desperate need for more words than "science" to describe various science-related things.

In any case, that's only one of sixteen points, and at best the guy is like 93.75% unjustified.

Blogger VD February 09, 2018 4:48 AM  

Not saying this fellow's response to point 8 is necessarily sound per say, but you sure didn't make it easy for someone who doesn't read you to understand what the hell you mean with that one.

Why do you think I care? If you can't follow that, there is no point in my even trying to talk to you anyhow. And if you're the sort of gamma who is going to leap on it as a point to criticize unnecessarily, then we don't want you around causing unnecessary trouble anyhow.

From my perspective, it works very well indeed.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 09, 2018 9:51 AM  

When a smart person doesn't understand a word, he tries to find out what it means.

Blogger Daniel February 09, 2018 1:04 PM  

Virtue signaling off charts with this guy

Blogger Daniel February 09, 2018 1:17 PM  

Good stuff

Blogger Carl Philipp February 09, 2018 3:37 PM  

"In fairness to the fellow in question, your inventing new terminology (scientody, etc) that no one who hasn't delved into your blog to learn what you mean by it understands doesn't help make your case."

At the top left of the page is a search bar. I typed "scientody" into the search bar and the first result was this post which tells exactly what the word means.

Blogger Michael Kingswood February 09, 2018 5:07 PM  

"From my perspective, it works very well indeed."

Fair enough.

Blogger Michael Kingswood February 10, 2018 2:38 PM  

Hey you know what? Looking back at it my earlier comment did come off as rather holier-than-thou/douchey. Sorry about that. Wasn't what I going for there, but I sometimes post then think. Mea culpa.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts