(Is the Alt-Right anti-Christian? Furthermore, is Churchianity Christian? –
CL)
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.
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.
Part II of IV tomorrow.
