The False Narrative of Churchianity

The Zman rightly excoriates Churchianity and how its false narrative tends to cause people to erroneously reject genuine Christianity:

The alt-right, like the larger dissident right, is a cultural phenomenon, not a political movement. Smart young males, mostly out of necessity, are picking up paleo-conservative ideas and questioning the prevailing orthodoxy. These ideas are being extended to question the core assumptions of modern American political order. It’s more akin to the Scientific Revolution than a political movement. The former was about rethinking our place in nature. The latter is about rethinking who gets to be in charge.

It’s why it feels like the alt-right is hostile to Christianity. It has to be. What is generally understood to be mainstream Christianity in America, has been hollowed out by Progressivism, and is now worn like an animal skin by crackpots and degenerates from the fringes of the Left. Even the more culturally conservative parts of the country practice a form of Private Protestantism than embraces extreme egalitarianism, anti-racism and universalism. It’s not an accident that these churches are deep into the refugee rackets.

I think most big names in the alt-right avoid the subject, mostly because it results in howls about how this is not real Episcopalianism or this is not real Christianity. It’s reminiscent of the days when academic Marxists would say the Soviet Union was not real Marxism. It may be theologically true that the current iterations of Christianity are outside the traditions and teachings of the faith, the fact remains that the people running mainstream Christianity these days look a lot like the faculty of your local gender studies department.

That’s not a small thing. The reason the New Left was able to sweep the field in the culture war, that included deposing the Old Left, is that their thing took on a quasi-religious tone. Humans are built to be believing machines. That’s a part of biological reality our side has yet to face, but it must be faced eventually. Something is going to have to fill the spiritual vacuum if this cultural phenomenon is going to be a cultural and then political movement. An Alt-Right form of Christianity would be a welcome development.

The important thing is to remember that the -ist is not the -ism. If the core tenets of Christianity as encapsulated in the Nicene Creed are true, then it is relevant to the Alt-Right no matter what corrupt Churchians may do in the name of the Lord.

The Alt-Right form of Christianity is no different than the Alt-Right form of science and the Alt-right form of history. It is the true and uncorrupted form that is not being worn by its enemies as a skin suit.

It is inevitable

Faith Goldy makes the move to the Alt-Right:

My heart is with civic nationalists, I want to believe. However, a deliberate evisceration of national identities coupled w mass migration has made my head at odds with my heart. Right wing civic nationalists are no better than Leftist do-gooder multicultis — result is ethnocide.

I completely understand those whose emotions trouble them on this subject and desperately want civic nationalism to be true. I once felt much the same way about it and other concepts I ultimately had to reject. But in the end, the head must always rule the heart, and the lessons of both history and current events are absolutely clear. Civic nationalism is nothing more than globalism lite.

A continent, not a government

Rather a lot of this “conservative manifesto for Europe” not only sounds encouraging and inspirational, it sounds familiar:

1. Europe is our home.
Europe belongs to us, and we belong to Europe. These lands are our home; we have no other. The reasons we hold Europe dear exceed our ability to explain or justify our loyalty. It is a matter of shared histories, hopes and loves. It is a matter of accustomed ways, of moments of pathos and pain. It is a matter of inspiring experiences of reconciliation and the promise of a shared future. Ordinary landscapes and events are charged with special meaning—for us, but not for others. Home is a place where things are familiar, and where we are recognized, however far we have wandered. This is the real Europe, our precious and irreplaceable civilization.

2. A false Europe threatens us.
Europe, in all its richness and greatness, is threatened by a false understanding of itself. This false Europe imagines itself as a fulfilment of our civilization, but in truth it will confiscate our home. It appeals to exaggerations and distortions of Europe’s authentic virtues while remaining blind to its own vices. Complacently trading in one-sided caricatures of our history, this false Europe is invincibly prejudiced against the past. Its proponents are orphans by choice, and they presume that to be an orphan—to be homeless—is a noble achievement. In this way, the false Europe praises itself as the forerunner of a universal community that is neither universal nor a community.

3. The false Europe is utopian and tyrannical.
The patrons of the false Europe are bewitched by superstitions of inevitable progress. They believe that History is on their side, and this faith makes them haughty and disdainful, unable to acknowledge the defects in the post-national, post-cultural world they are constructing. Moreover, they are ignorant of the true sources of the humane decencies they themselves hold dear—as do we. They ignore, even repudiate the Christian roots of Europe. At the same time they take great care not to offend Muslims, who they imagine will cheerfully adopt their secular, multicultural outlook. Sunk in prejudice, superstition and ignorance, and blinded by vain, self-congratulating visions of a utopian future, the false Europe reflexively stifles dissent. This is done, of course, in the name of freedom and tolerance.

4. We must defend the real Europe.
We are reaching a dead-end. The greatest threat to the future of Europe is neither Russian adventurism nor Muslim immigration. The true Europe is at risk because of the suffocating grip that the false Europe has over our imaginations. Our nations and shared culture are being hollowed out by illusions and self-deceptions about what Europe is and should be. We pledge to resist this threat to our future. We will defend, sustain and champion the real Europe, the Europe to which we all in truth belong.

5. Solidarity and civic loyalty encourage active participation.
The true Europe expects and encourages active participation in the common project of political and cultural life. The European ideal is one of solidarity based on assent to a body of law that applies to all, but is limited in its demands. This assent has not always taken the form of representative democracy. But our traditions of civic loyalty reflect a fundamental assent to our political and cultural traditions, whatever their forms. In the past, Europeans fought to make our political systems more open to popular participation, and we are justly proud of this history. Even as they did so, sometimes in open rebellion, they warmly affirmed that, despite their injustices and failures, the traditions of the peoples of this continent are ours. Such dedication to reform makes Europe a place that seeks ever-greater justice. This spirit of progress is born out of our love for and loyalty to our homelands.

6. We are not passive subjects.
A European spirit of unity allows us to trust others in the public square, even when we are strangers. The public parks, central squares and broad boulevards of European towns and cities express the European political spirit: We share our common life and the res publica. We assume that it is our duty to take responsibility for the futures of our societies. We are not passive subjects under the domination of despotic powers, whether sacred or secular. And we are not prostrate before implacable historical forces. To be European is to possess political and historical agency. We are the authors of our shared destiny.

7. The nation-state is a hallmark of Europe.
The true Europe is a community of nations. We have our own languages, traditions and borders. Yet we have always recognized a kinship with one another, even when we have been at odds—or at war. This unity-in-diversity seems natural to us. Yet this is remarkable and precious, for it is neither natural nor inevitable. The most common political form of unity-in-diversity is empire, which European warrior kings tried to recreate in the centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire. The allure of the imperial form endured, but the nation-state prevailed, the political form that joins peoplehood with sovereignty. The nation-state thereby became the hallmark of European civilization.

8. We do not back an imposed, enforced unity.
A national community takes pride in governing itself in its own way, often boasts of its great national achievements in the arts and sciences, and competes with other nations, sometimes on the battlefield. This has wounded Europe, sometimes gravely, but it has never compromised our cultural unity. In fact, the contrary has been the case. As the nation states of Europe became more established and distinct, a shared European identity became stronger. In the aftermath of the terrible bloodshed of the world wars in the first half of the twentieth century, we emerged with an even greater resolve to honor our shared heritage. This testifies to the depth and power of Europe as a civilization that is cosmopolitan in a proper sense. We do not seek the imposed, enforced unity of empire. Instead, European cosmopolitanism recognizes that patriotic love and civic loyalty open out to a wider world.

9. Christianity encouraged cultural unity.
The true Europe has been marked by Christianity. The universal spiritual empire of the Church brought cultural unity to Europe, but did so without political empire. This has allowed for particular civic loyalties to flourish within a shared European culture. The autonomy of what we call civil society became a characteristic feature of European life. Moreover, the Christian Gospel does not deliver a comprehensive divine law, and thus the diversity of the secular laws of the nations may be affirmed and honoured without threat to our European unity. It is no accident that the decline of Christian faith in Europe has been accompanied by renewed efforts to establish political unity—an empire of money and regulations, covered with sentiments of pseudo-religious universalism, that is being constructed by the European Union.

10. Christian roots nourish Europe.
The true Europe affirms the equal dignity of every individual, regardless of sex, rank or race. This also arises from our Christian roots. Our gentle virtues are of an unmistakably Christian heritage: fairness, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, peace-making, charity. Christianity revolutionized the relationship between men and women, valuing love and mutual fidelity in an unprecedented way. The bond of marriage allows both men and women to flourish in communion. Most of the sacrifices we make are for the sake of our spouses and children. This spirit of self-giving is yet another Christian contribution to the Europe we love.

The Alt-Right is inevitable. It doesn’t need leaders, dramas, or monkey-dancing for the media. It simply needs to stay focused relentlessly, and fearlessly, on expressing the truth. Globalism, multiculutralism, civic nationalism, and progressivism are rely upon the enforcement of lies. The truth will set us free.

A reader sends a not-unrelated quote from Toynbee:

“The moth’s self-inflicted doom is an apt simile for the nemesis that overtakes the barbarian invaders of more prosperous societies that lack the military strength to hold their aggressive barbarian neighbors at bay. The barbarian invaders’ greed is self-defeating. If the the intruders are not eventually exterminated by a counter-stroke, as the Gutaean conquerors of Sumer and Akkad were, they survive only to share in the impoverishment that they have inflicted on their victims.”

The problem, of course, is that even impoverishment by European standards is still better than living in non-European filth. And the European women are considerably more accessible, both with and without consent.

Good luck with that

Ben Garrison’s cartoon attempting to make the case for civic nationalism instead tends to demonstrate its utter hopelessness, and rather effectively makes the case against it.

The Alt-Right is correct and the Alt-Right is inevitable. You can no more instill an instinctive respect for the U.S. Constitution, the Common Law, and Anglo-American culture into immigrants, no matter how long they are resident in the USA, than you can instill Rohinga values into Americans during a visit to a refugee camp in Bangladesh.

Think about it. Do the Jews, the Italians, the Irish, or the Scandinavians value small government today, even after more than 100 years of residence in the USA? No. Not even a little bit. They have learned to speak English, but they have never learned to value limited government. They are not, they have not been, and they will never be Americans in the original sense of the term, which is simply another way of saying “British colonist”.

Hence the references in the Declaration of Independence to “ties of consaguinity” and “British brethren” and “King George”. The American revolutionaries were not declaring independence from Gustav II of Sweden, Emperor Joseph II of the Hapsburg Empire, or  Alvise Giovanni Mocenigo, the Doge of Venice.

The Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, and various and sundry other post-1965 immigrant groups aren’t going to become Americans either. Not now, and not in 10 generations. They will NEVER accept or respect the historical Anglo-American values upon which the country was founded.

The point is that there is no “fractured America”. It is the USA that is fractured into America and various flavors of Not-America dating back to the mid-1800s. It worked, for a while, because the American residents sufficiently outnumbered the Not-American residents while immigration was almost entirely shut down between 1920 and 1965. They don’t outnumber them anymore, which is why the USA will never be synonymous with America again.

Derb on the 16 Points

While I like and respect John Derbyshire, and bow to his demonstrated expertise in mathematics, he should probably resist the temptation to express any strong opinions on economics and political economy, as evidenced by his recent speech on the Alt-Right. In any event, here is my response to it.

Point 1: I don’t know what a Marxian is. Typo for “Martian”?

Ha very ha. Anyhow, “Marxian” distinguishes those who accept elements of, and are heavily influenced by, various aspects of Karl Marx’s theories of history and political economy from those who accept and advocate Karl Marx’s political ideologies and policies. The former is a Marxian, the latter is a Marxist. I studied under a reasonably well-known Marxian, Robert Chernomas, which is why I am very well schooled in the substantive material differences between the two.

But you need not take my word for it.

Marxian economics refers to several different theories and includes multiple schools of thought which are sometimes opposed to each other, and in many cases Marxian analysis is used to complement or supplement other economic approaches. Because one does not necessarily have to be politically Marxist to be economically Marxian, the two adjectives coexist in usage rather than being synonymous. They share a semantic field while also allowing connotative and denotative differences.
Marxian Economics, Infogalactic

Sadly, Prof. Chernomas did not make Wikipedia’s list of Marxian Economists. The point is, this is not one of my neologisms nor is it an even remotely esoteric concept.

Point 3: Let’s not get ideas above our station here. Aristotle had a philosophy. Descartes had a philosophy. Kant had a philosophy. What the Alt Right has is an attitude.

Fair enough, although it is rather more than that. At least in the form described by the 16 points, the Alt-Right has a political philosophy that is more specific and coherent than anything currently on offer from conservatives, liberals, progressives, globalists, or the Fake Right. If we are merely an “attitude”, then how does one describe those things to which we are an alternative?

Point 4: I think the Jews should have gotten a mention there, since half of the Christian Bible is about them.

Absolutely not. The Jews are not part of Western civilization. They pre-date it, they are of the East, and a significant portion of their cultural tradition is pre-civilized. The fact that the primary architects of the present effort to destroy Western civilization, particularly its pillars of Christianity and the European nations, are Jewish suffice to make it very clear that, while some Jews may be in the West, they are not of the West. Judaism is a conscious rejection of Christianity, and therefore, of the West.

Point 6: When the slave traders arrive from Alpha Centauri, or an asteroid hits, or a supervolcano pops, we shall all become globalists overnight.

No, we won’t. Reality is not Star Trek. The entire written history of Man indicates that should slave traders arrive from Alpha Centauri, the various human elites will hasten to make deals with them to set up satrapies over which they will rule to provide them with the slaves they seek. See: the history of the slave trade in Africa.

Point 8: It’s what? The word “scientody” is not known to; nor is it in my 1971 OED with supplement; nor in my 1993 Webster’s.

I tried digging for etymologies, but got lost in a thicket of possibilities. Greek hodos, a path or way; so “the way of science”? Or perhaps eidos, a shape or form, giving us the “-oid” suffix (spheroid, rheumatoid); so “science-like”? Then there’s aoide, a song, giving … what? “Harmonizes like science”? Or maybe it’s the Latin root odor, a smell; “smells like science.”

In any case, all three of the “understandings” here are gibberish.

a) There is a large body of solidly-established scientific results that are not liable to future revision.

Saturn is further from the Sun at any point of its orbit than Jupiter is at any point of its. A water molecule has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Natural selection plays an important role in the evolution of life.

I promise Vox Day there will be no future revisions of these facts, at any rate not on any time span he or I need worry about. (I add that qualification because there are conceivable astronomical events that could alter the sequence of planetary orbits—a very close encounter with a rogue star, for example. Those are once-in-a-billion-year occurrences, though.)

b) “Scientistry”? Wha?

c) The scientific consensus is unscientific? Huh? And why is the consensus “so-called”? There usually—not always, but usually—is a scientific consensus. It occasionally turns out to have been wrong, but it’s a consensus none the less, not a “so-called” consensus.

To simply call everything “science” is to be misleading, often intentionally. Science has no intrinsic authority, it is less reliable than engineering, and increasingly, references to it are a deceitful bait-and-switch, in which the overly credulous are led to believe that because an individual with certain credentials is asserting something, that statement is supported by documentary evidence gathered through the scientific method of hypothesis, experiment, and successful replication.

In most – not many, but most – cases, that is simply not true. Even if you don’t use these three neologisms to describe the three aspects of science, you must learn to distinguish between them or you will repeatedly fall for this intentional bait-and-switch. In order of reliability, the three aspects of science are:

Scientody: the process
Scientage: the knowledge base
Scientistry: the profession

The scientific consensus is is “so-called” because while it may be a consensus, it is intrinsically unscientific. This is obvious, observable, and undeniable. Taking a vote of the current opinions of scientists is no more scientody than is collecting their cumulative bodily evacuations for hygienic disposal. The expressed opinions that make up the consensus may be based on anything from a personal use of the scientific process to a) desire to obtain grant money, b) political ideology, c) identity, d) mental illness, e) sexual desire, f) personal ambition, or g) anything else capable of influencing one’s opinion.

Point 13: I’m an economic ignoramus, but I’d like to see a good logical proof of the proposition that free trade requires free movement of peoples. I am sincerely open to being enlightened on this point.

Free trade, by definition, concerns unrestricted exchanges between two private parties. These exchanges may involve goods, capital, services, and labor. In order to freely provide services or labor, the providing party must be able to travel to the location of the receiving party in order to fulfill his end of the exchange. Therefore, free trade requires the free movement of peoples.

As a bonus proof, I will point out that in order to achieve the maximum efficiencies theoretically provided by the free market, both labor and capital must be able to travel to the most efficient production sites. Any failure to restrict this travel will necessarily create inefficiencies and therefore prevent the economy from reaching its maximum growth potential.

Point 14. I doubt there is an existential threat to white people. 

Derb has more than enough math to work out the amount of cross-breeding required to render the entire population of the Earth insufficiently white to reproduce itself. The threat is not yet dire, but if the present trends proceed in a linear fashion, they will become dire within our children’s lifetimes.

Point 15: That’s a bit kumbaya-ish (or “-oid”). No doubt the Bushmen of the Kalahari are much better at hunting with spears than are Norwegians or Japanese. As Greg Cochran points out, though: “innate superiority at obsolete tasks (a born buggy-whip maker?) doesn’t necessarily translate to modern superiority, or even adequacy.”

Superiority at an obsolete task, or at a task presently disvalued by modern liberal society, does not mean that it does not exist. Given the rate at which the Western world is descending into plumbing-free barbarism, hunting with spears may well prove to be a more important skill in the near future than the ability to solve advanced mathematical problems.

As for the other points, I do not object to the various nits being picked, as in most cases I tend to agree with them. I do not claim to have always planted my flag in the optimal place in the gradient between precision and brevity. As to the original question being posed, I consider Derb to be an honored elder who well merits a place of respect in the Alternative Right on the basis of his fearless iconoclasm and the personal sacrifices he has made in the interest of telling the truth.

In over his head

Now, I generally enjoy reading both John Derbyshire and Zman, and I think they’re both intelligent iconoclasts, but every now and then I am surprised to discover how conceptually limited various would-be critics can be when they attempt to criticize me. They preen, they posture, and they pontificate even as they demonstrate that they neither understand me nor know whereof they speak. That may sound a little arrogant, but bear with me a moment and you’ll see what I mean.

The Zman mentioned this in his interesting summary of attending the Mencken Club:

John was first up and he used Vox Day’s 16-points blog post as the framework for his talk. He made the point that Vox is by no means the leader of the alt-right or the voice of it, but a representative sample that is useful for analyzing the movement. His comments about item number eight were laugh out loud funny, to the empirically minded. What John was doing was introducing the general ideas of the alt-right to a crowd that is not spending their evenings in the meme war. He did a good job presenting the broad strokes.

This is all very well, but it led to the following string of comments which revealed some unexpected conceptual limitations on the part of the Zman. His failure to grasp either the obvious linguistics involved or to understand the basic nature of science is, to put it mildly, surprising. I find myself wondering if these failures are a logical consequence of his atheistic philosophical incoherence running headlong into its own conclusions, a kneejerk reaction to displeasure with something I have said, or simply an indication of his cognitive limitations.

Personally, I’d be very interested to hear what John Derbyshire had to say about Vox’s point number eight. Derbyshire is great intellect, a fantastic writer, and has enough moral courage for several men, but he (like all of us) is a product of his Time, and sometimes has way too much respect for “science” and the “scientific community”. He sometimes does not seem to realize just how politicized “science” has become in our day. As much as both he and I might regret it, this ain’t 1955.

He comically analyzed the possible entomology of the words, “scientodific” and “scientody”. He also pointed out the absurdity of the claim that scientific conclusions are liable to future revision. For instance, Mars is closer to the sun than Jupiter, a conclusion of science that will never be liable to revision. John correctly pointed out that number eight is gibberish.

I’ve written a little about this topic. I’ll be revisiting it frequently. I think there may even be a book in it, if I can manage to squeeze more than 24 hours from each day. Suffice it to say that I don’t think science and technology can be jammed into the moral philosophy of the 17th and 18th century. Therefore, we wither kill all the scientists or create a new moral philosophy.

Mars is closer to the sun than Jupiter… Anyway, that’s a stupid argument. While facts may be immutable – for a time, which may be long, like in the case above – our interpretations in the form of theories are always placeholders. Good till something better comes along, which, btw, must have the same predicative power as the old theory had where it was applicable, while extending the range of predictability. See classic Newtonian mechanics vs. theory of relativity. And as it happens, neither addresses Vox’s point of all so many modern “scientists” who employ the trappings and outer forms of science while gleefully ignoring everything that makes it actually useful. Nothing of this strikes me as overly difficult to either comprehend or establish, given the state of sciences today.

I’ve heard every iteration of factual nihilism and I have no interest in taking it seriously. It’s just another way of putting the goal posts on roller skates.

Man of the West
Zman said: “He also pointed out the absurdity of the claim that scientific conclusions are liable to future revision” I am assuming and hoping that what John meant is that SOME scientific conclusions are not open to revision, as his example — though questionable as science — shows. Because if not, and if the above statement is what he actually meant, then it is foolishness of a high order given the provisional nature of science and the fact that we know that there are unknown errors in scientific conclusions (as the replication crisis is presently showing us) that may be discovered at a later time.

Of course, John may have a unique definition of ‘science’ or of the word ‘conclusions’ which gives him some wiggle room, but then he is just playing semantic games.

Think of it this way. There is a set of things that have to be true or nothing is true. There is a set of things that are most likely true, but have yet to be conclusively proven. There are a set of things that may be true, but there’s either no way to test them or the efforts to prove them have fallen short. Finally, there is the set of things that are unknown.

Scientific conclusions are the first set. The second and third sets are open to revision and challenge. It’s not a matter of semantics. It is about definitions. People tend not to grasp the definitions of science, because the have had little exposure to math or science.

Your first category encompasses logic and mathematics. Your second includes theories of gravitation, where Einstein’s superceded Newton’s. But your words seem to place today’s scientific “conclusions” in the first category, rather than the second. Can you explain without casting nasturtiums?

“Factual nihilism”. Hmph.

I wrote, “Scientific conclusions are the first set.” That seems to cover it. Science, like mathematics, is about the accumulation of axioms, things that are assumed to be true by their nature. Put another way, if everything is open to revision, there is no truth.

I am gobsmacked, and I say this lovingly, by your wrong-headedness.

Science deals in theories, not conclusions. Theories are always contingent; we strenuously fail to falsify them, accumulate partial belief in them, build on and with them, but can never reach axiomatic mathematical certainty.

Not long ago, the best available theory was that neutrinos had zero mass. It could have been loosely said that science had concluded that this was the case. But the progress of science demands that it does not make conclusions.

A pesky observation (that the wrong kind of neutrinos were arriving on Earth from the Sun) forced that theory to be abandoned. A better theory accounted for the observation (and all previous observations), and entailed a non-zero mass. This is a perfect example of scientific progress.

Axioms are not subject to abandonment. Had the zero mass of the neutrino been treated as an axiom, we would have been forced to reject the observation and the better theory, because the contradiction of an axiom is automatically false.

Karl Popper’s criterion for deciding whether a theory is scientific is whether it could by some conceivable observation be falsified. Theories that can withstand any contrary evidence are called “religions”.

Karl Popper was wrong. If everything can be falsified, then there is no truth. That’s nihilism.

This is one of those moments when you suddenly realize that someone simply isn’t as intelligent as you had previously thought they were. One does not need to be a Popperian to recognize the obvious fact that many, if not most, scientific conclusions are intrinsically provisional, if not based entirely on false foundations. The Zman is making a common error in confusing the scientific method with a means of determining absolute truth; scientody is actually nothing more than a tool for determining what is not true from a material perspective and therefore can only ever be a means of narrowing the possible scope of the truth of things that remain firmly within the temporally accessible aspects of the material realm.

History, for example, is a matter of firmly established fact, and yet remains largely outside the realm of science and its conclusions.

In claiming that a correct understanding of science is nihilism, he confuses the subset of observable facts with the much larger set of scientific conclusions. And in asserting that science is about the accumulation of axioms with the alternative being nihilism. he demonstrates that he understands neither science nor mathematics nor the philosophy of science. Or, for that matter, nihilism.

Speaking of etymology, it seems we’re going to need to coin a new term for this sort of high midwittery.

UPDATE: I don’t think the Zman properly grasped what John Derbyshire was saying at all. But I will post my response to Derb’s comments in a separate post.

UPDATE: Yeah, he’s just not very bright. He didn’t even hesitate to double down in response to this post.

Much more is known now about the natural world, than was known fifty years ago, and much more was known then than in 1580. So there has been a great accumulation or growth of knowledge in the last four hundred years.

This is an extremely well-known fact. Let’s call this (A). A person, who did not know (A), would be uncommonly ignorant. To assert that all scientific conclusions are open to revision, as Vox Day has done, is to deny the existence of (A). I see he is now pushing around the goal post on wheels to try and obscure the fact he made a ridiculous statement, but that changes nothing.

Abortion and the Alt-Right

Ed Driscoll lies about the Alt-Right on Instapundit:

If this sounds like something the alt-right might tweet, as Elliot Kaufman wrote at NRO in August, “contrary to NARAL’s protestations, the leaders of the alt-right are actually pro-choice. They don’t oppose abortion because it’s good for racial minorities; they support abortion because it kills them. They hate black people and think America would be better if fewer of them were born. Though this is terrifying to contemplate, it should not be unfamiliar. In fact, the alt-right tends to praise abortion for the same reasons that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, praised birth control: They help to rid the country of ‘undesirables.’”

As one Instapundit commenter asked Driscoll, which “leaders of the alt-right”. I don’t believe there are “leaders” in the first place, because a political philosophy is not a political party – who is the leader of liberalism or conservatism or progressivism? – but abortion is absolutely not something that the Alt-Right broadly supports.

It is absolutely true that Americans would be better off if fewer blacks were born, just as it would be better if blacks had never been enslaved or forcibly brought to the USA. But that doesn’t mean that everyone who recognizes historical wrongs or unfortunate consequences hates black people. The fact that Tibet would be better off without the Chinese, Minneapolis would be better off without Somalis, Germany would be better off without Syrians does not require hatred of the Chinese, Somalis, and Syrians to recognize it.

This really isn’t that hard. ALL political entities eventually fail. All multi-ethnic states eventually become ethnically homogeneous states, even if that ethnicity is a new one created by the genetic amalgation of the old ones. That is going to happen in the United States, and there are no shortage of signs that peaceful amalgamation through mass cross-breeding is not going to be the method utilized.

Read the link. The commenters there did an ace job of calling out Driscoll for his dishonesty and blowing out his argument. It’s just another example of how the media finds the Fake Right to be useful in attempting to discredit the genuine Alternative Right.

Mailvox: why start now?

RD wonders if I’ve seen the Dennis Prager video on the Alt-Right:

Prager University mentions you in a video about the Alt-right, basically labeling you in a very negative way. Have you seen it?

I would have been shocked if Dennis Prager had anything positive to say about me. He’s a mediocre thinker and a mediocre writer whose columns on WND were lightweight, little trafficked, and almost entirely forgettable. Despite my own columns appearing on the same opinion page, I seldom bothered reading his, and a perusal of this blog will demonstrate that I’ve never considered him to be any sort of peer. I’ve barely spared even a single thought for him in 10 years.

I think Prager is wildly and utterly wrong in every way…Prager’s opinion may lie in the fact that he’s fundamentally a radio performer, not a writer. I suspect that he likes to talk at people somewhat more than he likes to engage with them.
– 2007

This is as deeply and profoundly silly as anything that the rape fetishists on the feminist Left have invented. It confuses metaphor with reality.
– 2007

I have no doubt that you’ll all run right back into the warm embrace of Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager and Jonah Goldberg and Sean Hannity and Bill Bennett and all the other Radio Republicans… I mean, you’ve got to know their opinions, they’ve collectively got such a smashingly excellent record over these past few years.
– 2007

“I believe that this man [George Delano Bush] is changing history for the better, that he is the dam holding back the waters of chaos, that he saved this country at a time when Democrats would have failed it, and that he is both kind and strong, real and decent, powerful and humble…. Unless he is a faker — and I believe that I can sense a faker a mile away — it was clear that the president was moved…. I realize that I open myself to ridicule by saying that everything I had suspected about the man was reinforced in a little over a minute….”
– quoting Dennis Prager in “Republican Whore Doggies” in 2004

The most straightforward way to refute anything said by Dennis Prager is to point out that Dennis Prager said it. Therefore, it is almost certainly wrong. So, I have no idea what he said and I could not care less about whatever it was.

Ruffled bowties

This exchange at Instapundit in response to the recent PJ Media article about the blackballing of conservatives by the comics industry nicely summarizes the core problem with conservatism and serves as a microcosm for the explanation for why the Alt-Right is inevitable.

I hate seeing Chuck Dixon involved in this crap. Make your own conservative comics! Please you’re one of the all time greats. Nothing good comes from associating with Vox Day, just because he is right about Social Justice doesn’t make him less of a horrible person. One of the things I tended to like about the right was the expelling of the worst parts of us from the mainstream. Not as much anymore. I think part of the buildup of the alt-right has been to make them seem more palatable to regular conservatives by showing just how much they piss off the left. And hey, I get that pissing off the left is great, but if you don’t watch who you’re associating with when you do so, you’re going to be standing next to someone like Vox Day or Jared Taylor.

Eric Ashley
If Conservative Inc wants to stop Vox, the best way to do that is for them to actually do their jobs. Tell the Koch Bros to support a line of socially conservative novels and comics, and make Kurt Schlicter the editor.

It’s not a bad idea, except time has already run out on conservatives. They had 37 years, the Presidency, the House, the Senate, nine Supreme Court nominations, and two economic booms with which to fight the cultural war. And they did absolutely nothing.

Nor will they do anything. Have you seen a single mention of Alt★Hero anywhere throughout the conservative media except PJ Media and Instapundit? Do you think that despite the hundreds of millions that conservatives will spend on the 2018 and 2020 elections, any of that will go toward fighting the culture war they are losing so badly?

The Alt-Right acts. The Alt-Right fights. The Alt-Right does not surrender. Because of that, the Alt-Right will be the only Right that survives to defeat the Left.

Dicky Spencer’s Dance Party

The Fake Right are complete phonies and they always have been:

After a lifetime of involvement with the far-right Kevin Wilshaw announces on Channel 4 News that he is leaving the movement – at the same time publicly coming out as gay. The well known National Front organiser in the 1980s was still active in white supremacist groups earlier this year – including speaking at events. But tonight on Channel 4 News he explains for the very first time why he is publicly disavowing the movement – sharing his secrets, explaining how he was both a Neo-Nazi and of Jewish heritage.

“You have other members leading National Front who are overtly gay…. “I want to do some damage as well, not to ordinary people but the people who are propagating this kind of rubbish – want to hurt them, show what it’s like for those who are living a lie and be on the receiving end of this type of propaganda, I want to hurt them.”

We should have known this, on the principle that a) SJWs always project and b) SJWs always seek to infiltrate.

I remember being surprised when I interviewed Richard Spencer and discovered him to be to the Left of the entire Brainstorm community and surprisingly vague about anything that was policy related. This was the great extremist, the outlaw intellectual? My initial assumption was that he simply had poor judgment and hadn’t really formulated his political philosophy, especially when he went from one public relations debacle to the next without ever managing to accomplish anything substantial or do anything useful.

But it wasn’t until I discovered that Spencer had opposed Brexit and supported the European Union that I began to conclude that he, and at least a portion of what I called the Alt White, were not even of the ideological Right at all. I soon got confirmation from Greg Johnson, Andrew Anglin, and their fellow travellers, as they tried to simultaneously – and dishonestly – argue that a) they were the most extreme right of the right-wing, b) any criticism of them was “punching right”, and c) the terms of left and right were outdated and meaningless.

I don’t know about you, but anyone who has read SJWADD will recognize that form of rhetorical sophistry. It is ambiguity.

Arguments such as the following depend upon ambiguity. ‘Those learn who know: for it is those who know their letters who learn the letters dictated to them’. For to ‘learn’ is ambiguous; it signifies both ‘to understand’ by the use of knowledge, and also ‘to acquire knowledge’. 

And when I had the opportunity to see how Spencer had treated his authors, how he had not paid them or even reported book sales to them for literal years, how he had gone dark rather than respond to repeated telephone calls and emails, I understood that his character was very, very different than he sought to portray it to be.

Once I saw that the Fake Right was not only sophistical and dishonest, but was using its rhetoric in the interest of  pushing its knowing and intentional falsehoods, it became obvious why they were constantly accusing me and other married men of various non-Jewish backgrounds, of being gay and being Jewish. It was, of course, because they were projecting.

There is nothing right about the Fake Right in any sense of the term. They are not of the ideological Right. They are not straight; notice how few of them have wives, girlfriends, or children. And it is increasingly questionable how many of them are even white despite their clownish proclamations about white supremacy. They are no more genuine than the swastikas that so often appear on synagogue walls, the nooses that regularly appear on college campuses, and the date rapes that so often occur to outspoken feminists.

Don’t be fooled. There is no truth in them. The Fake Right is The Pink Swastika 2: Iron Menorah.