Choose your friends wisely

January 20, 2014 § 18 Comments

What followed the Roman empire was the Catholic church. What a drag. I’d rather be a Viking. […] The manosphere hasn’t proposed clear solutions because we don’t want them. We don’t want to fix Rome, we want to loot it.

§ 18 Responses to Choose your friends wisely

  • Peter Blood says:

    This guy is directly embracing the nihilism of destruction, preferring Viking raiding over civilized life. I seriously doubt he would find that kind of life better.

  • herbie31 says:

    That quote is a good example of the selfish libertarianism among the young which was briefly discussed in First Things. There is a closer alignment with the left than they would care to admit.

  • Zippy says:

    Peter Blood:
    Aye, that’s one clue that while he may have replaced a prior delusion with something, that “something” is clearly just another delusion.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    herbie
    Libertarianism *is* Leftism.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Here is Lawrence Auster on nihilism, wherein he gives an short summary of Rose’s Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age, which is a good, short read.

    Dostoyevsky wrote a book about destruction nihilists, entitled Devils.

  • peppermint says:

    Rome is dead, and the state religion is anti-Christian. I understand that you still think the Catholic Church is a Schilling point for men of character to rally around. You will watch in horror as future Popes continue to apply the “hermenutic of disruption” and try to uphold the actual state religion.

    There is no Schilling point for men of character.

    All institutions are inevitably subverted by progressivism, and anything that can’t is right-wing extremist hatespeech.

    Men of character need to think about their family and their immediate community. They can’t support bigoted organizations or tell the truth.

    So young men get the truth from garbage collectors, and we can only hope that they act like White men are born to act.

  • Zippy says:

    peppermint:
    I understand that you still think the Catholic Church is a Schilling point for men of character to rally around.

    Not at all. You have mistaken me for Simon the Zealot. I am the Beloved Disciple, and I expect to die alone on Patmos.

    The Catholic Church is where the valid sacraments are, where apostolic succession is — where the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ Incarnate can be found in His fullness at every Mass. It isn’t like I could ask for more than that.

  • Loooud noises says:

    HEY, PEPE, WHAT A DRAG HE SAYS
    WHAT’S THAT FRANCIS I AM BUSY TOPPLING THIS AZTEC IDOL AND MY EAR IS STILL FULL OF WATER FROM CROSSING THE ATLANTIC

    HE SAYS WHAT A DRAG
    I AM SORRY FRANCIS I CAN’T HEAR YOU OVER MARCHING TO JERUSALEM AND I HAVE SAND IN MY EYES

    I AM SAYING THAT HE SAYS WHAT A DRAG
    FRANCIS YOU MUST SPEAK UP THESE CANNONS AT LEPANTO ARE JUST TOO LOUD ALSO I HAVE THREE ARROWS IN MY CHEST

    NEVERMIND, PEPE. DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THOSE VIKINGS?
    OH YEAH, THEY HAD A NICE TWO-HUNDRED RUN. WHAT ABOUT THEM?

    Nothing at all, Pepe. Nothing at all.

  • Mike T says:

    Vox Day went after Mark Shea over Shea’s ham-handed attack on the “Dark Enlightenment.” I suggest reading both blog posts (Shea’s and Vox Day’s).

  • CJ says:

    Mike T – I saw Mark’s post and wondered whether any DE proponents would respond. At Mark’s, I posted the quote from The Screwtape Letters (about how God will not be used as a means to some other end) in support of Mark’s point about some “red pill” guys jettisoning Christianity for ancestral religions like Asatru because Christian universalism is supposedly bad for the white race. Mark’s right to point out that danger as far as it goes. It’s certainly a “thing” although I don’t know how widespread it is.

    As for human biodiversity, I mean sure, I’ve noticed that there aren’t many white running backs or cornerbacks in the NFL and that African endurance athletes have won the last eleventy billion marathons. But the question is “what now?” Vox acknowledges that in Christ there is no Greek nor Jew (although he distinguishes between “in Christ” and “the state”), but then he opines that the church’s position on racism should be “nonexistent.” I don’t see how that’s possible, given his acknowledgement of Galatians 4. Even if the church didn’t take a position on, say, anti-miscegenation laws, it would have to address whether to solemnize mixed race marriages, for instance.

  • Mike T says:

    The point about anti-racism is that it is no more about simply being against racial hatred than feminism is really about “treating women like human beings.” For a church to embrace it is much like a church embracing feminism in the sense that their world view becomes distinctly liberal and distinctly less Christian. ” It puts the primacy on liberalism, not the Word of God.

    The fact is that egalitarianism is a lie and equality doesn’t exist in nature. People like Shea are scared to death to admit that a liberal society, that rejects God, and that sees the truth will further descend into madness. Like most “Defenders of Civilization” he is terrified of letting the masses absorb the truth because the masses are chaotic and unpredictable. But the truth will come out eventually. It always does. What people like Shea always miss is that if they aren’t the ones bringing the truth out, someone else will and it’s clear that it will be nihilists like Roissy who won’t hesitate to do it in their absence.

  • CJ says:

    “The point about anti-racism is that it is no more about simply being against racial hatred than feminism is really about “treating women like human beings.” For a church to embrace it is much like a church embracing feminism in the sense that their world view becomes distinctly liberal and distinctly less Christian. ” It puts the primacy on liberalism, not the Word of God.”

    Agreed. But some red-pill reactionaries make the opposite error: they place the primacy on ethnic nationalism instead of the Word of God. To paraphrase Lewis again, opposite evils tend to exacerbate, rather than balance one another.
    .

  • Mike T says:

    CJ, that is true but part of the blame for that falls on people like Shea in the first place. “Conservatives” like Shea have driven out of the “respectable right” any notion that ethnic nationalism is acceptable for white Americans. This is especially ironic in light of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is fundamentally a European institution despite its claim to being universal.

  • Zippy says:

    Racism is one of the driving forces of liberalism in part because it is historically real.

    It is manifestly true that different races generally exhibit particular characteristics, aptitudes, dysfunctions, etc (with appropriate caveats); and at the same time it is true that people of one race have in fact at times treated those of other races despicably and inexcusably precisely because of race. These days most out-in-the-open racism is racism against whites, but the balance of racism at any particular point in history doesn’t invalidate the concept.

    While it is true that liberalism is fueled by its incoherent conception of inequality-as-inherently-unjust, many of the coals thrown on the fires of liberalism’s engine have been real injustices. Naziism for example is treated as the ultimate transcendent evil by liberalism in part because it actually is effervescently evil, on the one hand, and (with intense irony from my POV) it fits liberalism’s internal narrative and conception of itself: naziism makes a nearly perfect oppressor-untermensch contrasted, in the dominant narrative, to liberalism’s freedom and equality. The reason this is so ironic is because the main difference between naziism and liberalism is just that naziism explicitly acknowledges that it hates and intends to destroy the oppressor-untermensch: it believes in freedom, equality, and the triumph of the will over nature every bit as much as liberalism, and is just slightly more honest with itself about where its enemies fit into the picture.

    I once described myself as “a race realist without all the materialist baggage”, and that description probably still fits. I don’t buy the protests of either race-deniers or racism-deniers.

  • Mike T says:

    What conservatives like Shea have in common with liberals here is fear that a materialist society only embraces the notion that non-whites are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because they are functionally interchangeable with whites. In their guts, they believe that if people notice that some races might be inferior at this while being superior at that then racism of the violent and oppressive kind will return in force. I think they are correct in one respect, and that is fearing that if and when white racism returns in force it will be entirely impossible to destroy without the Holy Spirit’s direct intervention into the hearts of men because it will return “triumphantly” in a “I told you so” kind of way. As one might expect, such a return will simultaneously discredit anything connected to the old order and have the superficial moral superiority of being a truth suppressed as heresy.

    Where conservatives like Shea go unforgiveably wrong (by that I mean they should be irreparably discredited as foolish, cowardly quislings) is in not embracing this as an opportunity to shatter the liberal worldview by preaching the Christian worldview. They are attaching Christianity to the anti-racist/liberal view of human nature and staking a good chunk of its fortunes on a false world view and narrative. As Vox Day pointed out, it’s “conservatives” like Shea that are helping to send young people to cults like Asatru by apologizing for the liberal status quo instead of manfully defending Christian traditions.

    By the way, one of the ironies in all of this is that it takes more balls to look someone in the eye and I say “I expect my future wife to submit to me because I will be the man of the house” than to be a cad. That is the true counter-cultural, rebel point of view in modern society. It’s why the more traditional denominations are thriving and the more compromised ones dying. Religious leaders who are not afraid to tell the world to go eff itself are almost always better equipped to attract and keep followers than ones that compromise (since compromising with the world is an unmanly, follower not leader behavior).

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    In their guts, they believe that if people notice that some races might be inferior at this while being superior at that then racism of the violent and oppressive kind will return in force. I think they are correct in one respect, and that is fearing that if and when white racism returns in force it will be entirely impossible to destroy without the Holy Spirit’s direct intervention into the hearts of men because it will return “triumphantly” in a “I told you so” kind of way.

    We discussed that at W4 in these old threads: that to most modern people the “noble lie” of zero group differences simply must be true, because the only conceivable alternative, to the modern mind, is Auschwitz.

    … one of the ironies in all of this is that it takes more [guts] to look someone in the eye and I say “I expect my future wife to submit to me because I will be the man of the house” than to be a cad. That is the true counter-cultural, rebel point of view in modern society. It’s why the more traditional denominations are thriving and the more compromised ones dying.

    This “rebellion is cool, and is the only allowed form of masculine expression” thing definitely has a shelf-life; but I wouldn’t begin to guess as to what that shelf life may be.

  • CJ says:

    Mike – I’d like to drill down into this part of your response, because I suspect it is where our disagreement lies:

    “They are attaching Christianity to the anti-racist/liberal view of human nature and staking a good chunk of its fortunes on a false world view and narrative. As Vox Day pointed out, it’s “conservatives” like Shea that are helping to send young people to cults like Asatru by apologizing for the liberal status quo instead of manfully defending Christian traditions”

    There are at least two controversial assumptions in this statement that need to be examined: 1) anti-racism is identical to false equalitarianism; and 2) ethnic separatism is part of the Christian tradition.

    With respect to (1), someone can recognize group differences while opposing (say) Jim Crow. The gap between the “is” of differences and the “ought” of separatism is larger than most race realists acknowledge. As for (2), Vox cites Christ’s encounter with the Canaanite woman and the command not to go to the Gentiles or Samaritans as proof of (2). However, balanced against this we have the fact that He Himself went to Samaria; that He actually DID heal the Canaanite daughter and the centurion’s servant; before the Ascension He DID send the apostles to Samaria and the Gentile lands; Peter’s vision in Acts 10; Paul’s reproof of Peter for apparently forgetting the lesson of that vision; Galatians 3, and Ephesians 2. Outside of two dubious examples, I don’t see anything in the NT that supports a Christian tradition of ethnic separatism and a whole lot that seems hostile to it.

    So, *if* (2) is false, then the fault lies not with people like Mark, but with those who use ethnic separatism as the plumbline for determining whether a religion is true. It’s no different than someone who leaves the church because of women pastors or gay marriage.

  • Mike T says:

    With respect to (1), someone can recognize group differences while opposing (say) Jim Crow.

    True, but that’s beside the point as I pointed out that an anti-racist is an ideologue who is more accurately described as a heretic hunting fanatic obsessed with rooting out any perceived racism than as someone who merely takes an opposition to racism. Shea, like most right-leaning anti-racists, in his own article effectively eliminated that possibility for the purposes of discourse with him by saying:

    Other times, it daubs on a layer of pseudo-science by tossing around the phrase “human biodiversity” (by which they mean “some races are inferior to others”).

    By saying that, he made it clear as most “anti-racists” are wont to do that they see no such possibility able to manifest in the real world. To say that some races might be less capable in some areas than others is tantamount to saying they’re inferior humans unworthy of the rights and duties that come with the Imago Dei.

    Outside of two dubious examples, I don’t see anything in the NT that supports a Christian tradition of ethnic separatism and a whole lot that seems hostile to it.

    That’s because ethnic separation transcends Christian tradition. It’s something that, according to the Bible, has been happening since the Tower of Babel and to which we are hard-wired. Even today, Americans functionally self-segregate as much as is legally possible. It’s not racism or any other ism, it just is what we are wired to do. Vox has been repeatedly stating something which flies over the head of people like Shea: either let it happen peacefully or it will happen violently at some point.

    Outside of the New Testament, the “Christian tradition” of ethnic incorporation is little more than various attempts to revive Roman imperialism. That may constitute a tradition, but it’s certainly not authoritative over any Christian.

    So, *if* (2) is false, then the fault lies not with people like Mark, but with those who use ethnic separatism as the plumbline for determining whether a religion is true.

    They are responsible for their choice, but conservatives who stridently hitch their movement’s fortunes to causes like anti-racism that are faltering in the wake of increasing racial violence (almost exclusively black-on-everyone-else) share a deep blame for not taking a nuanced and truthful approach to opposition to racism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Choose your friends wisely at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: