Tag: cuckservative

This is the third part of my critique of the Churchian response to the 16 Points of the Alt-Right. The first part, covering Points 1-4, is here. The second part covering Points 4-8 is here.

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

Politics do not supersede culture or identity. This is not only backwards, but utterly absurd and flies in the face of all political history as well as the politics of every political entity on the planet. The churchian also contradicts himself when he asserts that Christians – a religious identity – necessarily take up certain political ideas. That is simply another case of identity dictating politics.

As the extraordinarily successful politician Lee Kuan Yew wisely noted, “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

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

This concept is racist. It’s not racist in the idea that one race is superior to another; though it does indicate the Alt Right secretly believes that. Instead it is racist in the same way segregation is racist and about it I same the same thing as Chief Justice Earl Warren, “in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” As it is true in education, so it is true in life. I reject the Alt Right’s belief in blood and soil.

Why does he hate the Jews? This is a truly reprehensible, anti-semitic position. Since he rejects the belief in blood and soil, he clearly doesn’t believe that the Jewish people have any right to the land of Israel. Alert the SPLC! All churchians are clearly Nazis at heart and there is no place for them in any civilized society.

It’s fascinating to see that he rejects our opposition to “the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples.” One wonders which group he believes should rule over the native populations in the United States, in China, and in India.

11. This is utter nonsense. To which war do they refer? There are several where racial diversity was an issue. In every one of them, the aggressors were racists. Their only defense for holding such a belief is they will champion one of the most despicable forms of bigotry and hatred humans have ever demonstrated. America exists on the idea that diversity is your right. No one has the authority by right of conformity to tell another person he or she is wrong for being different. If we follow the Alt Right to its logical conclusion, the Jews were wrong for being in Germany. That is utterly detestable. I reject in the strongest terms possible the Alt Right belief that diversity and proximity causes war.

Between whom does this moron believe wars are fought? Why does he imagine they take place? And if it is right for the Jews to be in Israel, then clearly it was wrong for them to be in Germany. Israel cannot belong to the Jews if Germany does not belong to the Germans. Again, we see that he is denying the Jewish claim to the land of Israel. What a horrible anti-semite! Why, his attack on the Alt-Right is, ironically, another Holocaust. Which, of course, makes him Hitler.

Also, America does not exist “on the idea that diversity is your right”. One will search the Federalist Papers in vain for anything that even reasonably approximates this idea. It’s also a bit ironic that he asserts no one has the authority to tell another person he is wrong for being different, considering that his whole rabid screed is nothing more than telling many, many people that they are wrong for holding their different beliefs in nations, borders, races, and the right of the Jewish nation to the land of Israel.

12. This is an absolute lie. No one spends more time trying to convince others what to think about themselves than do the Alt Right. If they did not care, they would not make their presence known. I reject their lie.

Oh, we genuinely don’t care what people think about the Alt-Right, because the Alt-Right is inevitable. We don’t care what you think about gravity or oxygen either. Reality is going to win out over time. However, that doesn’t mean that we aren’t going to set the record straight when very stupid, very ignorant people tell blatant lies about us and misrepresent our beliefs.

Part IV of IV tomorrow.

This is the second part of my critique of the Churchian response to the 16 Points of the Alt-Right. The first part, covering Points 1-4, is here.

5. I reject nationalism on principle. The ontology of a thing is its necessary attribute. The unnecessary attributes are accidental. When I consider the ontology of a human being, his or her ethnicity, nationality, race, skin tone, language, age, and body shape are all accidental attributes. This means I am still the person who God created me to be whether or not I was born of any other racial background, in any other environment, at any other time in history. I will always be me. If “we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” has any meaning, then the ontology of human beings runs contrary to nationalism. This does not mean I do not love the United State of America. No. I believe in what the United States claimed itself to be at the moment it established itself. Being anti-nationalist does not mean I am unpatriotic. Again, I say, “no.” I volunteered to serve this nation and I gave a portion of my time for that purpose. I love the United States and believe this nation is a bastion of freedom. I do not believe we are superior by our existence.

As I pointed out, this gentleman is hopelessly incoherent. He professes to love the United States and believes it is “a bastion of freedom” but rejects nationalism on principle, does not believe it is superior, and believes its attributes are accidental. This is not possible. If you are anti-nationalist, then you are by definition anti-patriotic and anti-American. Worse than that, you are a globalist, a servant of Babel, and an enemy of the God who created the nations.

6. Well, I am dedicated to the proposition to carry the Gospel to all nations and people groups. My objective is 100{f34b2ed14022567e3962d98ceb517f14c2acb643b80147bdb11c1357fe49acc6} globalist. I want to spread Christianity to every nation on earth. As it if even matters after that; I also want to spread liberty to every nation and people group. I also want to help build sustainable economies, educational facilities, and hospitals in every nation with access to every people group. I want to universally outlaw elective abortion, elective euthanasia, slavery, human trafficking, prostitution, illicit drugs, rape, incest, genital mutilation, and caste systems. Knowing I will not succeed, I want to end starvation, disease epidemics, and poverty. On these issues, the Alt Right will call me a globalist. I will respond by saying they are acting like foolish isolationists who are out of sync with moral duty. “Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’” (Matthew 28:18-20)

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:31-46)

The Bible says to “go and make disciples of all nations.” It does not say to “eradicate all nations, eliminate all borders, and convert the world into a one-world government, so there will be no escape from the rule of the most ruthless and evil people in the world.” Since this guy likes quoting verses, I have three for him.

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
– 1 Timothy 5:8

But Jesus replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
– Mark 7:26-27

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.
– Acts 17:26

In any event, any Churchian who openly endorses globalism, free trade, and open immigration is clearly not in service to Jesus Christ, but rather, to the Prince of This World. This is hardly a secret; the globalist elite openly flaunts their true allegiances. Remember, by their fruits you will know them.

7. This is another example of the Alt Right expressing ignorance. “Anti-equalitarian” is not a word. Instead they mean anti-egalitarian. They are so woefully ignorant about the concepts they do not even know the nomenclature of the discussion. For the record, I am a complementarian with regard to the roles of men and women in relationship and limited some career roles. I believe women should never witness combat because God did not design the female body for such rigor. I believe a woman should not be the pastor of a church. I believe men cannot be mothers and women cannot be fathers. Beyond those limitations, and in spite of the innate differences in how men and women think, we are and should be equals in all socio-economic political roles. I am very much an egalitarian in those realms. All human beings are equal in terms of worth. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27) If God created us all in His image, we all share the same worth and rights of human beings. I absolutely reject the Alt Right’s statement.

Yeah, so about that “expressing ignorance”. This moron is more than 200 years behind the language. Anti-equalitarian is most certainly a word. From THE AMERICAN HERITAGE® DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, FIFTH EDITION by the Editors of the American Heritage Dictionaries.

EQUALITARIAN
Adjective
Characterized by social equality and equal rights for all people.

Noun
A person who accepts or promotes the view of equalitarianism.

Origin
Coined around 1800 from equality +‎ -arian.

All human beings are not equal in terms of worth, not even by his own cited Bible verses. If there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ Jesus, then are those human beings equal to those who are not in Christ Jesus? If this cretin was capable of following his own logic, he would soon reach the conclusion that no one is damned, God loves everyone, and there was no need for Jesus Christ to die on the cross.

8. The Alt Right is so scientifically illiterate they have to make up words to attempt to sound like they know what they are saying. The least scientific stance one can have is to “presumptively accept” something. Science is not a practice of democracy but of evidence. If all the scientists agreed that water boils at 75º Celsius, it would not change the boiling temperature form 100º Celsius. 90{f34b2ed14022567e3962d98ceb517f14c2acb643b80147bdb11c1357fe49acc6} of scientist believing in anthropocentric climate change does not make it so. Science is a process of observation, making hypotheses, testing, observing, and drawing conclusions. Nothing in the scientific process is based on democracy. The Alt Right is baselessly accusing scientists of corruption. I may not agree with the conclusion of every scientist; however, I am not accusing them of corruption when they interpret data differently than I assume I would. I reject the Alt Right’s fabricated language and blanket accusation.

Baselessly accusing scientists of corruption? “More than 70{f34b2ed14022567e3962d98ceb517f14c2acb643b80147bdb11c1357fe49acc6} of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments” according to a survey of 1,500 scientists by Nature. There is nothing baseless about what 90 percent of scientists themselves consider to be a “reproducibility crisis” nor are concerns about the corruption of scientistry limited to the Alt-Right.

And science is considerably more than just “a process of observation, making hypotheses, testing, observing, and drawing conclusions.” That is precisely why neologisms such as scientody: the method of science, scientistry: the profession of science, and scientage: the knowledge base of science are required. The clarity of thought and communication that such neologisms require tend to enhance one’s understanding of science, it is the precise opposite of scientific illiteracy.

Part III of IV will be posted tomorrow.

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{f34b2ed14022567e3962d98ceb517f14c2acb643b80147bdb11c1357fe49acc6} 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.

The increasing irrelevance of the conservative is exemplified beautifully by this list of “The 40 Best Conservative Columnists of 2017″ by Right Wing News, particularly the top ten.

1. Ben Shapiro
2. Jonah Goldberg
3. Matt Walsh
4. Kurt Schlichter
5. David French
6. Matt Lewis
7. Kevin Williamson
8. David Limbaugh
9. Ashe Schow
10. Victor Davis Hanson

Cucks, cowards, and clowns, for the most part. That’s what the political posers who call themselves conservatives are. They conserve nothing. They accomplish nothing. They literally stand for nothing.

Imagine a debate between the five best minds of the Alt-West and the top five conservatives listed there. Is there any doubt as to which side would come out easily on top? Is there any serious question as to why these top conservatives run like frightened little bitches from debate with anyone to the right of them?

They know they have no substantive case that will hold up to scrutiny. That’s why they only dare to snipe from safety.

Rod Dreher advises Christians to stop fighting the culture war, surrender, and hope that Democrats will be nice:

If we don’t stop it now, the Trumpist politics of “let’s tick off the liberals” is going to be devastating to religious liberty. The country as a whole is narrowly divided. As we saw last night in Alabama, it is possible to lose even safe Republican seats if what the party offers to voters is an embarrassing, bomb-throwing clown who only depresses Republican turnout and juices Democratic turnout. You simply cannot rely on the instincts of Republican voters to pull the lever for any yellow dog the party puts up. (And note well that it wasn’t the DC party that ran Roy Moore, but a plurality of Alabama Republican voters that put him in the race.) And you can’t live in such a bubble that you don’t pay attention to the effect your candidates have on incentivizing Democrats and Independents to vote against the GOP.

To repeat Lance Kinzer’s advice: Religious conservatives must be realistic about the fact that we are a minority in this country now, and that we face a very difficult political environment.

Almost makes you want to cheer for the lions, doesn’t it. No wonder young men want nothing to do with Churchianity and the Gospel of Judeo-Christ. I certainly don’t either.

Americans are a minority in the USA now too. But that doesn’t mean they are going to stay that way.