Tag: cuckservative

I do not stand with Jack Burroughs, whose thinking demonstrates why conservatives reliably lose:

The Left’s assault on Free Speech in the US–outside of the Universities–has really only just begun. Most of the public recoils from these repressive excesses. At present, the Right has the considerable political virtue of being pro-free speech. That is a powerful moral and political weapon against the Left. It is an important reason why the ranks of the Right are growing.

But if you try to fight fire with fire by arguing that since the Left does censors speech, we should do it, too, then you have sacrificed the moral high ground in the eyes of the broad public. The Right will then be no better on this defining issue than the Left, and will have given up one of the main reasons why fast growing numbers of people prefer the Right to the Left.

If the Right becomes hostile to free speech, then it will drastically weaken its moral standing in the eyes of the broad public, thereby diminishing its political appeal.

Every bad argument has its roots in false foundations. Can you identify the false foundations here?

It’s amusing that he thinks “moral standing” is relevant in a political environment in which basic, fundamental concepts such as “male” and “illegal” are treated as variable, and traditional definitions are designated as outdated and immoral. It’s understandable, though just as incorrect, to claim that free speech is a moral issue. It is not. In fact, the pro-blasphemy position is actually the observably immoral position.

But his biggest mistake is to claim that “the moral high ground” is why one side wins. This is simply more conservative posturing that reliably leads them into disaster. The center is not abandoning the Left because the Left has abandoned a moral high ground that it never held, it is being abandoned by a Left that moves ever deeper into madness.

Those who believe in a path to victory through “the moral high ground” inevitably find themselves outflanked by those who are willing to surrender even more nobly. That is why no successful strategist in history has ever designed a strategy that relies upon moral posturing. And appealing to the moral sense of an immoral people whose morality is constantly in flux is neither a rational strategy nor a winning one.

Listening to a conservative talk about strategy is like listening to a blind man’s advice on how to drive a Formula One race car. They are reliable counter indicators.

“In terms of speech, the Left would reword it: “Say what thou wilt.” And to preserve their natural right to expression–whether it’s pornography, vulgarity, blatant or tongue-in-cheek anti-Christian propaganda–the Left has enacted the Strange Doctrine, happily bludgeoning their enemies on the Right, and this has been going on for quite some time.”

Hey, let’s just censor them, then. Why the hell not?

It’s only going to make the Right much less popular, because it will needlessly sacrifice one of the main positive values that increasingly differentiates the Right from the Left in the public mind.

But when you have people out there who are saying whatever they want–including many mean things about the Right, and even about Christians–it’s obviously far more important to shut them down than it is to prevail politically over the long term.

Let’s just do to them what they do to us, without any consideration of the strategic consequences at all.

We already know what the strategic consequences of relying on the moral high ground are, which is decades of consistent defeat. Not only have we considered the strategic consequences, we have done so and we have found the conservative strategy of “hold the moral high ground and win” to be entirely wanting.

A Hillary staffer attends CPAC:

‘Make sure to check in with us!” one friend told me. “Try not to get killed,” another warned. I wasn’t off to a war zone or a spy mission in Moscow. I was riding a bus from New York to Washington to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference.

To be sure, I’m a tiny, talkative South Asian woman who spent four months on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign staff. I wasn’t exactly in my element surrounded by people in “Make America Great Again” hats chanting “Lock her up! Lock her up!“ But there was more to CPAC than that….

I found myself … nodding my head in agreement with parts of Ben Shapiro’s speech.

Imagine that.

Kurt Schlichter appears to have correctly concluded that more dire warnings will not suffice to deter the Left:

They hate you. And we must act accordingly.

 The first step is the political battle. Wake up – the midterms are coming and we need to ensure that these people do not gain the power to undercut our rights. At CPAC, President Trump demonstrated that his competitive nature is in full effect – he intends on winning. We need to do the same. Volunteer. Donate. Activate. Yeah, it’s a hassle. We’d all like a pause to this constant cold warfare. That is not happening.

The second step is the cultural battle. The left is intent on mobilizing the corporations that form the infrastructure of society against us. We need to respond with our own political power, and that means casting off the tired shackles of an ideology that assumes we are in a pure free market scenario. “Free market solutions” don’t apply where companies instead act based on political ideology when choosing to exercise political power; how, exactly, do we respond to a company that acts against us but decides it doesn’t care about the market consequences? Well, we can’t – unless we use our own political power. Georgia refusing to give Delta a tax break – which it should not have gotten in the first place – is the template. If they want to declare a cultural war on us, let’s give them one. It’s not how you or I want it to be, but it is how it is. Maybe pain will motivate them to re-adopt the old rules. Surrender sure won’t.

The third step is to create deterrent facts on the ground. Demonstrate your commitment to your rights by joining the NRA and, further, by buying guns and ammunition. Tyranny is not out of the question – hey, aren’t they always calling Trump Hitler? Tens, even hundreds of millions of armed American Normals provide a deterrent to the kind of insanity we’ve seen the left hinting at. Be prepared to protect the Constitution, and the chances of them getting violent will diminish exponentially. Remember, they don’t want to fight; they prefer we give up under a barrage of hectoring from CNN and vicious tweets about how we hate children.

Yes, it’s ugly. Yes, perhaps it’s even frightening. But it is how it is, with leftists who makes no bones about what they think of you. They hate you. And you need to act accordingly.

It’s something. It’s a start. But it’s still very far from sufficient. If you’re still hoping that “pain will motivate them to re-adopt the old rules”, then you’re still failing to understand and accept the current situation. And sure, it could be somewhat demoralizing to see how many so-called conservatives, and how much of the so-called Right, simply refuses to support the only people willing to stand up and defend America, Christianity, and the West.

But so what? We don’t need those cowardly, lukewarm ninnies more concerned about appeasing the enemy than they are about defending their nation, their faith, and their families any more than Gideon needed the mouthdrinkers, George Washington needed the Tories, or Jesus Christ needed the masses he fed with the bread and fish. Alt★Hero has 2,160 backers. After only one video, Voxiversity already has 261. And all our Lord and Savior needed was 12.

We can win. And we will win. All we have to do is find the courage to show up and fight. Support those who openly stand up for the good, the right, and the true. Ignore those who won’t, and oppose those who attack them.

CPAC underlines my point about the total worthlessness of the so-called “conservative movement”:

The Stream has been warning Christians that our religious liberty is in danger. Both Maggie Gallagher and John Zmirak pointed to the crucial upcoming race in Pennsylvania. There the GOP establishment has endorsed a candidate who sponsored a pro-trans “bathroom bill” with no protections for dissenters.

Such disasters don’t come from nowhere. They emerge because the conservative movement itself is undergoing an LGBT-inspired purge.

Consider the phone call Dan Schneider made to Brian Camenker in early February 2018. Dan Schneider is the Executive Director of the Conservative Political Action Conference. (“CPAC” wields great influence in politics. Just how great? Donald J. Trump is speaking at their yearly convention!)

Brian Camenker is the president of Mass Resistance. That’s a decades-old network of grassroots organizers. His groups fight radical left-wing movements in schools, local communities, and state policies. You may not have heard of Mass Resistance because its chapters focus on local activism, not always elections. They tend not to congregate on Twitter but encompass many people. Mass Resistance works with the folks who got Donald J. Trump elected.

Mr. Camenker had applied to run a table at CPAC’s big conference. CPAC approved his application and took his payment. Then about ten days before CPAC, Mr. Schneider told Mr. Camenker that he had changed his mind. He unilaterally rescinded the contract between Mass Resistance and CPAC.

Why? Mr. Camenker opposed transgender and homosexual curriculum for children in 2015. He used language that is less than perfectly … winsome. How does Mr. Schneider know about these comments? Because he found a video clip online. That’s thanks to gay activists who have indexed Mass Resistance as a “hate group.” So gay activists are now vetting who can speak at “conservative” events. Isn’t that special?

Mr. Schneider has barred Camenker him from exhibiting at CPAC. It seems that CPAC wants more gay lobbyists with deep pockets. So CPAC is now stiff-arming religious folks who want the public library to stop pushing sodomy on four-year-olds.

CPAC has come a long way since it worried about including gay Republican groups like the Log Cabins. Now CPAC serves as their enforcement wing. It silences conservatives for stating that homosexuality or transgenderism might be objectionable.

Which, of course, is why they should have kept the Log Cabin Republicans out in the first place. Convergence always begins with foolish inclusivity. Sacrifice one principle, and it is only a matter of time before you sacrifice the rest of them.

Alt-Right or nothing, Christians. This proves, again, that there is absolutely no point in relying upon the conservatives to accomplish anything except your surrender. Conservatives have COMPLETELY failed in literally every possible way. It was a movement that was always destined to fail, since it was never anything more than a posture and a pose. About the only progressive objective that conservatives haven’t embraced is your disarmament.

And I wouldn’t count that out in the aftermath of the next school shooting, considering the way in which their donors are threatening to stop writing checks if they don’t cave on gun control too.

I am proud to have never described myself as a conservative. People used to wonder why I didn’t, but I trust that my reasoning is more readily apparent today.

Kurt Schlichter sternly warns liberals for the 37,479,842nd time that they are now treading DANGEROUSLY near to some very thin ice. Again.

Do you liberals really want new rules allowing violence and terrorism?

Do you liberals really want new rules allowing denormalizing your political opponents?

Do you liberals really want new rules allowing dehumanizing your political opponents?

You may think you do now, but trust me, you really don’t.

Take heed: You are going to hate the new rules.

There is a way out, a way that is obvious to anyone of good faith and common sense, and since it’s always a leftist attacking Republicans, the Democrat leadership needs to lead the way. The way out is to join together with the President and other conservatives and unequivocally reject violence and terror.

Not obliquely.

Not with clichés.

No with a smirk and a wink.

Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and all the other key Democrat leaders must stand on a stage beside Donald Trump and Don Jr. and say, without qualification that this is unacceptable and wrong.

The “dire warning” column is a longtime staple for conservative columnists. I’ve been hearing conservatives issuing dire warnings to liberals about the dreadful consequences of their actions for nearly 40 years now.  And do you know what I have concluded as a result? Conservatives are not going to do anything at all to resist liberal or government violence, ever. They never have.

They didn’t resist when their children were bused. They didn’t resist when their schools were secularized. They didn’t resist when their country was invaded by 130 million foreigners. They didn’t resist when their churches were converged. They didn’t resist when their right to carry cash was restricted. They didn’t resist when their rights to speech were removed. They didn’t resist when their wives left them and divorce-raped them. They didn’t resist when their children were kidnapped by judicial fiat.

I no longer believe they will resist even when their guns are confiscated or when their religion is outlawed. What evidence do we have that conservatives will do anything at all except complain about liberals, vote for do-nothing Republicans, and carefully distance themselves from anyone who looks even remotely possible of actually doing anything?

I’m not saying that no one will ever resist gun confiscations. But I am entirely confident that no one who calls himself a conservative will. Conservatives are tough-talking cowards who simply will not disobey whatever they are told by an authority figure is the law. And liberals figured this out a long time ago. That’s why they targeted all of the positions of perceived authority. That’s why they have to hide their smiles every time someone like Kurt Schlichter waxes dramatic and solemnly warns them… again. Why would anyone expect them to heed yet another dire warning, when every single previous warning has proved to be an empty one?

The last conservative will be still be shaking his finger and warning the cannibals that they had better watch out if they don’t change their ways or else while he is being thrown into the boiling cookpot.

The Washington Post makes the minimum possible move rightward:

The Washington Post today announced Megan McArdle will be a columnist for the Opinions section starting March 1. In this role, McArdle will write columns with a focus on the intersection of economics, business and public policy.

“Megan offers one of the liveliest, smartest, least predictable takes on policy, politics and everything else, from the history of washing machines to essential rules for living,” said Fred Hiatt, Editorial Page editor for The Post. “We’re excited to share her perspective and her distinctive voice with our readers and to deepen our coverage of economic and financial topics.”

The sad truth is that despite her long list of columns and articles proving otherwise, McCardle really does look pretty smart in comparison to everyone else at the Post. But it is amusing to see the Left try to claw back the audiences they have lost by doing the absolute least they can possibly rationalize.

It’s not going to work. Of course, they could put Cernovich in charge of the editorial page and Milo at the helm of the Lifestyle page and I’m not sure that would be enough.

This is the fourth and final 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. The second part covering Points 9-12 is here.

13. I have already talked about laissez faire economics. By rejecting free trade, they reject the one of the foundational economic principles of conservatism and political freedom. I reject their absolute ignorance and their ridiculous opinion.

International free trade is not, and has never been, one of the foundational economic principles of conservatism or political freedom. It was Karl Marx, not Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk, who actively supported free trade. When this guy talks about absolute ignorance and ridiculous opinions, he is projecting as badly as any SJW.

14. I completely disagree with this racist garbage. Nothing about being “white” matters in any conceivable way. This is pure racism. I fully reject the Alt Right’s racism.

He claims that nothing about being white matters and he completely disagrees that the survival of white people is a moral imperative. This guy is a racist, white-hating monster. He’s actually more akin to a Slav-hating Nazi than a well-meaning cuckservative.

15. Let me see if I can nail down what’s wrong here. “Human sub-species.” As I type I am aware of my righteous indignation. I am typing this paragraph rather slowly because the words “human sub-species” make me so furious that I am trying my best not assume God’s authority in who is and is not damned. Let me make this clear, any fool who believes there are “human sub-species” necessarily believes some people are better than others. The Alt Right just expressed something so detestable that opposition to it was the very reason I served in the military. It is absolutely contemptible. It stands against the very nature of God and His creation of mankind in His own image. I hate, no loathe, everything about that deceitful statement. I condemn it with every fiber of my being.

He doesn’t just hate white people, he also hates and fears science. Human sub-species absolutely exist. There is absolutely no question about this. In fact, depending upon how strictly one defines species, humanity today is not even all the same species, due to the fact that some people are pure Homo sapiens sapiens while others are not even full Homo sapiens. He can condemn reality all he likes, but genetic science is what it is.

16. There is a lovely Greek term the Apostle Paul uses, σκύβαλον (skubalon). It means a pile of feces and that is what this statement is. After fifteen increasingly vulgar hate-filled statements of sheer ignorance and pride, these creep slapped this disclaimer on their platform like a surgeon general’s warning on a pack of cigarettes. “We advocate a bunch of racists, misogynist, elitist, nationalist, fascist putrescence, and march around with literal torches and automatic weapon; but hey, if any violence irrupts from all our instigation, we’ve got a CYA (cover your @$$) policy in place. We’re all about peaceful social change, like Gandhi.” It is skubalon. You cannot preach “diversity + proximity = war” knowing you live in a diverse society and then say, “I value peace.” Jesus said, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:15-20) The fruit of the Alt Right is poison. They are hate filled liars seeking to destroy and steal. I reject every part of their message.

It’s remarkable how the point about diversity, war, and peace flies right over this guy’s head. The point of preaching diversity + proximity = war in a diverse society is to warn people and discourage them from making what is already a serious challenge even worse. Conflict is coming to every diverse society, but with a proper understanding of why that conflict is inevitable, we can hope to mitigate it somewhat, even if we can’t reasonably expect to entirely avoid violence and bloodshed.

As for Matthew 7:15-20, we already recognize the evil fruits of Churchianity, chief among which is the enthusiastic acceptance of the rule of Antichrist. They are the deceived of whom the Apostle John warned in his Book of Revelation. They call good evil and evil good.

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.