Amen to the whole thing! I'd add that Hayward's a hypocrite about NETTR if he's criticizing you, as you're on the right. (Not in an absolutist way, but you certainly seem to be more on the right than on the left. [Apologies if I'm mischaracterizing you.])
That's how I think of you, but I wasn't sure if because of your "crunchy" and occasional populist leanings you'd put yourself somewhere in the middle or reject the left-right scale altogether.
Do bear in mind that most populism these days is on the Right. Yes, that gives the libertarian types heartburn, but I suspect it is the future of the GOP and eventually the Randites will seem as quaint as the Free Silver crusaders did by the 1920s.
Well, he's saying no enemies TO the right, meaning to the right of where one stands, and I'm sure he considers Rod to be to his left, even if still on the right... if you know what I mean! :) (Please note that I'm not defending shampoo guy; I'm with Rod on this completely.)
I thought of that, but that seems too permissive for his purposes. Does he really think it's okay for all the right-wing people to criticize those who are even just one inch to their left?
I agree, seems like he wants it to be an absolute statement - you're in or you're out. In practice, I expect it may mean whatever he wants it to mean based on his judgement in a given circumstance.
I think it's less "No enemies ON the right" than it is "No enemies TO the right," which is even worse. So basically, it means anyone less extreme than you is open to criticize, but anyone more extreme should have full freedom.
Bravo! Bravissimo! Thank you for reminding us that our souls are at stake--God sees; God knows--if we give into this sort of rationalization for the sake of some passing earthly influence.
I do not know if that is "punching right". Racism is not right/conservative. And it definitely is not remotely Christian. The Soviets were very racist. So were the Nazis, neither being ?right". And let us never forget, the Dems started the KKK. The modern Left loves to separate people into various grievance piles and tries to justify anti-white racism, as well as racism against non-whites who leave the Dem/Left reservation. And don't forget the undercurrent of antisemitism burbling in that quarter. All of which is going unchallenged by anyone there.
So, opposing the corruption of an institution, one cannot fault you, Rod.
You’re hitting on something that bugs me to no end, which is this arbitrary coding of people and ideas as “Rightwing” if they are momentarily out of favor with the Cultural Elites.
And the earliest and greatest of all these codings was that of Hitler and his Nazis as well as Mussolini and his Fascists as on the same side as U.S. Republicans and small town American conservatives and religious traditionalists. You do not see these groups described as fellow travelers with Fascism much at all in contemporary accounts before the Spanish Civil War. Sinclair Lewis, to my knowledge, was the only writer to equate a kind of Main Street boosterism with Fascism.
Certainly, Fascism was regarded at the time as a kind of progressive movement. After all, in 1930, who knew whether or not it was the wave of the future? Mussolini was known for making the trains run in time. Small town American conservatives and religious traditionalists were decidedly NOT progressives in terms of big industrial projects or technological innovations, WHICH INCLUDED EUGENICS.
As for the “back-to-nature” types and Orwell’s sandal-wearers, they were as much a feature of Nazi propaganda as anything else. It was Soviet Communist industrial brutalism that characterized much Leftist thinking at the time. And of course, there was the Hitler-Stalin Pact, of blessed memory.
In any case, the idea that civil liberties are now “Rightwing” code for racism, which is supposedly the id that every Republican would secretly like to let run free and wild, is idiotic and criminally slanderous, in my view. That GOP official outlets and figures are too inept to respond to such slanders is demoralizing.
As for the plain old GOP small-town, traditional conservative type and racism, I find from experience that most small town types tend to have a far more multiracial social experience in their daily lives than many urban professionals, at least in the South, where you do find black people also living in rural areas.
As for small towns in general, and here I’ll speak of such places that I know about in Pennsylvania or Maine, I find again that most people are very open to the idea of welcoming anyone who might wish to move in if they are employed and law-abiding. It is simply the relative lack of opportunity to enjoy a great variety of social experiences in a small town setting that many urbanites mistake for discomfort with the Other. In fact, I find most urbanites are only comfortable with their own stratum, and are far less comfortable crossing class and race lines than are small town denizens. The hypocrisies of the Metropolis know few bounds.
Finally, I find, too, that some of the more strident leftist folks I know are from and still live in small towns. They are especially at pains to demonstrate their progressive cred.
I've noticed that many of the more angry and strident leftists have come from abusive backgrounds. This is especially true of women. They've generalized their anger at bad families, boyfriends and the like into a generic hate for anyone that even slightly resembles those people.
There is nothing more insular and sheltered than the "elite". That's why the Hollywood types have been putting out garbage movie after garbage movie and TV show, they fail, and they act shocked. Because within their circle, this is supposed to be what everyone is about. And again, it is bewildering to them when they find out wokeism is not a hit "out there" in flyover country.
Trying to reduce all political ideology to a single one dimensional line is responsible for many of these contradictions and errors. There are multiple axes on which our politics play out; Individual vs. community, tradition vs innovation, local vs international, populism vs elitism, and more.
I have a lot of family in the south and I spend a ton of time down there, and one think I've noticed is the huge number of majority-white families that have black family members. My own immediate family, which includes some people who now live in the Deep South, is multi-racial. They don't fuss or fret or theorize about it or write op-eds about it. They just continue to be a family, love each other, and act (verboten word these days) colorblind in their dealings with each other.
By contrast, up here in the Mid-Atlantic they'll talk your ear off about differences in "culture" and they'll tiptoe around each other and treat black people like they're special, magical, fragile beings.
This isn't to say that there's no racism in the south or that everyone in the north is race-obsessed. I've met some stone-cold paleo-racists in the south, too. But when friends and families and communities integrate down there, my sense is that it happens with much less anxiety than up north.
My wife’s family is from the South and that is true of her family as well. It’s inconceivable among the people I knew growing up in the North, even the very liberal ones.
Not inept. Cowardly. And I also think that some of the "elite" among the GOP actually have sympathy with the "elite" of the Left, in that they really would like to curb the Constitution and civil liberties. For those give the general populace a means to resist the elites, to tell them "no", to push back. And like the powerful throughout history, they don't like that.
Which is why they have been pushing against, among other things, guns and and free speech.
True. But it is us who actually make this civilization run. We could do without them. Much to their eternal chagrin, they cannot do without us. And we need to once again remind them we are in charge, not them. Their values are not our values. Their beliefs are not our beliefs. We are not buying what they are selling, and we will not do what they say. For they are not the rulers.
Bravo. I wholeheartedly support Mr. Dreher and feel similarly. I will say that the double bind is quite a challenge:
1. The Left *already* wants to smear anyone to the right of Mitt Romney as a "racist" for saying factually true but un-PC things about immigration, crime, etc., or for thinking that white people, as a group, have any right to a collective identity not based in self-hatred. The temptation to say "screw it, I'm joining the racists," once one has *already* been demonized as a racist for simple intellectual honesty is strong and must be resisted.
2. The racist Right can be quite brilliant and even correct about certain things, despite their wickedness (just as the godless Left, e.g. Foucault and Marx, can be correct despite their wickedness). Charles Haywood is actually a brilliant writer -- see https://theworthyhouse.com/. Jean Raspail, Bronze Age Pervert, etc., all have smart things to say. One must not allow the brilliance to blind oneself to the moral challenges at hand.
3. The Left's hysterical, ridiculous response to anything that challenges its dogma ("Eek! Hitler!") tempts one to believe that since they cry wolf every day, there is never actually a wolf. But sometimes, indeed, there are wolves on the right. One must not allow the Left's embarrassing, pathetic, infantile responses to anything that challenges its hegemony, to lead to a complacency about genuinely un-Christian evils on the right. Of course, that means actually engaging with the wicked right, instead of simply shrieking at it and demonizing it, as the Left would prefer. In my opinion, Susannah Black Roberts and John Ehrett model very well a thoughtful, Christian critique of the New Right. It's a difficult needle to thread (but you know what Jesus said about those camels).
Agree. There are people with beliefs you do not want to share the tent with. If the beliefs are reprehensible, they should be called out and made known and your opposition also made known. On your tattoo model, you missed the black sun on his elbow. It shows up in some esoteric belief systems but is also often used in a neo-Nazi context. Coupled with the other tats on this guy, you could take the cluster as a display of far-right or neo-Nazi leanings.
There's a black sun floor tile in one of Himmler's spiritual lairs somewhere in Germany. The black sun tat is, of course, popular among some elements in Ukraine. Another place you see examples, the Canadian Parliament...
Hi Paul-It was in Wewelsburg Castle. This was intended to be Himmler's central hub for the SS cult. Let's just say the name of the elements in Ukraine and that is the Azov Brigade. I think they kept the Wolfsangel but may have gotten rid of the black sun.
There needs to be a point though where good people say no. There are beliefs that are not acceptable and should not be just glanced over because the holder of those beliefs is also on the right. "They believe nearly everything we do! Small government, fiscally conservative, God fearing, blahblahblah, oh yeah they may have some extreme beliefs around Jews and other races, but we're on the same team and can overlook those things." Absolutely not! The nose of that camel can't get under the tent.
As a conservative Asian American Christian, I am sad that white conservative Christians feel there is no recourse but to join hands for politically and culturally expedient for very short term solutions. Do I blame them for how they feel? Why would I? If all I heard was Asian bashing and being the source of pure evil in all forms, I can see the motive for self protection at the very least.
The harder road to take is the road to virtue. That will mean suffering and perhaps hard totalitarian suffering, and the tide may not turn for a few decades. But that may be the road ahead for us, so I’d prefer to prepare for the new world I know will eventually come.
The moral integrity of this piece is a thing of beauty.
I find my mind drifting to Boromir: if only *he's* the one who holds the Ring, the world will become a better place, right? I see no reason whatsoever for the slightest confidence that the world would be a better place with a right-wing amoral goon in charge rather than a left-wing amoral goon. After all, the Devil wins either way.
Is contemporary culture unbalanced? Maybe that's the cause of people falling into extremes. The classical road has always been the golden middle way, sticking to convictions but with charity to all. However, I know that in the Benedictine Abbeys, they always nominated the biggest and toughest monk as a bouncer with a cudgel. Sometimes you have to use that cudgel to preserve the peace of a community. To whack someone or throw them out.
"Is contemporary culture unbalanced? Maybe that's the cause of people falling into extremes."
The extreme right exists as a reaction to the extreme left. If we didn't have an extreme left - if ideologues weren't insisting that 8-year-old can choose their gender, that any limitations on immigrations are necessarily racist, that the George Floyds of the world excuse the flash mobs in Philly the past two nights - there would be no corresponding lunacy on the right, as there would be no "need" for it.
Action, reaction. Each extreme eggs the other on. And the danger, of course, is that the "other side" won't be so nuanced and. understanding as we try to be, and that the general public just doesn't care. I mean, we're not at this stage yet obviously, but when it's kill or be killed and you declare "I won't kill" - well, there's only one outcome then.
Too true. The danger is that you end up in an ideological struggle with no winners. The extreme case of this is the one between the Nazis and Soviets. The body count from that one was pretty high.
That and the clashes on German streets before the Nazis took power. There were running battles between the communists and Nazis and I sometimes think we're not too far from that.
I don't think that contemporary Christianity does a great job preparing believers to confront or face the reality of deep freely chosen evil. When we discover the enemy in ourselves or the hidden traitor we end up more easily crushed. The evil of another then infects us and pulls us down as well. Really a challenge to deal with.
I am always amazed at the sheer number of Christians who are surprised that temptation is actually... tempting. That evil doesn't come looking hideous and disgusting but... tempting. That they're actually going to have to fight moral battles within themselves... their whole lives. That being good and kind and patient, etc., is sometimes the last thing you want to be.
I blame it on the prosperity gospel, myself - the commonly preached heresy that Jesus is Santa Claus as a young man, and God is Santa Claus that just wants us all to be healthy, wealthy, and enjoying ourselves.
I think the biggest mistake here is thinking that right/left is the same as virtuous/sinful. Sure, if one's take on society's woes is a political take and one's only aim is the ascendancy of the "Right" as a political movement, sure, don't punch right, ever. However, if one is concerned in the underlying causes of the plague of leftism and are using traditional morality (or Christianity, or what have you) as the lens to identify and call out issues, it becomes imperative not to be silent just because someone is on the "correct" side. They are different planes of how people work, but most people don't understand that at all.
Personally, I'm a sort of Christian anarchist: "My Kingdom is not of this world," He said. I assume that politics as such is a result of the Fall, just a necessary annoyance for the time being—and certainly it is orders of magnitude less important than the salvation of souls. I'm of the opinion that if we purge the poison at the source, it will also vanish downstream.
Never in my life have I thought of myself as an "anarchist," but my aversion to politics and your description of "Christian anarchism" makes me think I like that label....
"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) — or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inaminate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good."
The Shire sounds pretty anarchist to me. And also, I think that Christian anarchist and Kingdom monarchist pretty much come out to the same thing—that's just a matter of emphasis.
And in his spirit of whimsy, I also have a pet proposal about how we should round up everyone who wants to run for president and send them to a prison camp in Alaska, so as to be rid of at least a handful of the most malignant sociopaths among us.
This strikes me as at least partially correct; that politics as we now experience it (the interplay of power games between competing groups) is a result of the Fall and will have no place in the true polis, the New Jerusalem. The interplay between Christianity and politics is a fascinating one, with various groups of Christians at various times taking very difference stances towards the question of political engagement: from absolute disengagement, pacifism, and quietism on the one hand to attempts at integrated Christian kingdoms and crusades on the other. While it is without a doubt true that the Church of the first few centuries encouraged pacifism, and that the Gospel imputation that "he who lives by the sword will die by it" seem to cut towards the former, with the rise of politically powerful Christian communities taking the mantle of Caesar's realm the necessity of some level of prudential contingency comes into play. There is also that strange passage in Luke 22 when Jesus imputes his disciples to buy swords prior to the Mount of Olives narrative (contingently as a prophetic device, but I sometimes wonder if there is more to it than that). Also, the people of God are clearly called upon on numerous occasions to slaughter the unrighteous (granted, Old Testament, but we need to take seriously the sense that Christ is a continuation of revelation of God to mankind begun there and not antithetical to it). As with most, if not all, complex moral problems it is difficult to know where the lines are to be drawn. To that end, I for myself would tend towards the middle road that eschews categorical answers and rather requires prudential determinations in specific situations, allowing that we will be held accountable for whatever evil we do when we inevitably get the calculus wrong. This situation is part and parcel with what it means to live in a Fallen world, we act and by necessity some of our actions, even those performed in accordance with prudential justice, will bear evil fruits. In acting, or refusing to act, we will likely compromise ourselves. Such is the tragedy of living in a Fallen world.
My general view is that things started going downhill since about the time of Constantine; that the union of Christ and Caesar is an abomination that should have never happened; and that this might have been the Church's "original sin", which in some respects has inevitably led to the cataclysm of the present. And I typically think that a lot of the Old Testament might reflect ancient Hebrew misunderstandings of God and His will, which I think is tenable given what they did when He actually showed up in the flesh, and also in light of John 8:42-44.
Perhaps, that was my view for some time as well. However, as a member of a church which venerates Constantine as a Saint, I’ve been forced to try to look deeper. By saying that politics is always tinged by human corruption (as are all our works) I do not mean to say it is totally depraved; there is a charism there that can also engender virtue and excellence. It is a necessary human endeavor, and as something needful, something which I don’t think it profits us to think of as beyond the sphere of grace. Furthermore the vision of such an endeavor gloriously baptized by the Church is a needful one; while very much a small r republican, I think there is something innate within us that yearns for the good king. Yes, such a longing will only find its fulfillment in God, but the absence of such a king deprives us of an icon which might better point us in His direction and elevate the symbols of our political life.
I see what you're saying, especially about the king as icon at the end. I get skittish, though, about the political saints, since it looks very much like the Church just rewarded its worldly benefactors by calling them saints, which I don't think is how theosis works. And some of the calls just seem egregiously wrong. For example, Aquinas put in print that the saints in Heaven derive pleasure from watching the torture of the wicked in Hell—which to me seems like a moral sentiment unworthy of any decent man, let alone a saint. (But I guess that this example wouldn't pertain to the Orthodox; I forget which one you are.) Of course, I don't really want to put myself in the place of just declaring "The Church was wrong", but basic honesty compels me to at least acknowledge, "Maybe there's something there I'm not seeing, but by every instinct and intuition, it sure doesn't seem right."
I've stopped voting because no one represents me. If there was a candidate that opposed all the horrible sexual revolution artifacts, especially abortion, supported families and family formation in a meaningful way, supported freedom of conscience, wanted peace, wanted actual justice and not so called social justice, etc., etc., I would vote for them but there isn't so I won't. I'm done supporting the lesser of two evils because they're still evil.
Yeah it's pretty good but I'm not sure about the whole social justice thing. However, the perfect is the enemy of the good. Also, do you know what the significance of the pelican is?
Well, I think their economic justice aspect is simply old-school Catholic social teaching, the admission that modern capitalism is a usurious and dehumanizing system that is displeasing to God. And yeah—wasn't it a legend about how a mother pelican feeds her chicks with her own blood if needed? Probably no need to spell that out for anyone here.
I was at a conference where someone did a presentation on the American Solidarity Party. He says that there are divisions in the party even on the issue of same-sex marriage and other culture war issues. The presenter said he plans to publish his paper so I won’t cite his name until he does.
I'm incredibly annoyed with all the calls and mailings I get from the Republican party. If anyone - of either party - does get me on the line, boy, do they get an earful, for all the good it does. At least when the Democrats call, if I can keep the person on the line for 10-15 minutes, I call it good because that person can't call anyone else in that time.
For those of us who do see these things as a spiritual battle, I think it's hard to imagine that for many, this is a political thing, and nothing more. For those people who do see this as a political thing, I think it's nearly impossible to imagine that others see this as a higher level struggle. In some sense, they need us more that we need them - we know that the solution isn't political - and I think this is part of the reason that many of them are angry that we won't just get on board with ignoring their misbehavior when it happens.
I once gave money to a candidate I thought was promising and now I get an absolute snow storm of crap which goes straight into the recycling bin. I honestly don't know if there are many people left who see it as just a political thing. People 'identify' as one thing or another now meaning their ideology has become their identity. This is why they can get so terrified and vicious when their ideology is questioned. There certainly aren't enough of us who 'identify' first and foremost as children of God. I talk to them too when they call hoping to in some small way represent my "constituency", such as it is.
The patriarch of my family used to be a mainstream Republican. They'd hit him up for money, but then he'd get hit up by the every Republican organization in the book. I would see his mail pile and I had no idea there were separate committees for the House, the Senate, state organizations, various PACs, etc. After he made a donation maybe 15 to 20 years ago, his phone rang off the hook with further requests for donations. His push toward being both annoyed with the GOP and toward being a Trump fan was directly rooted in his being treated like nothing more than a money spigot and getting nothing for it. (And while he is fairly comfortable, he's not at all wealthy.) I suspect there are many people like him who got turned off by mountains of junk mail.
(Now, because he puts that money toward all sorts of right-wing newsletters and media instead, he gets a different avalanche of fundraising mail. I'll be curious to see at what point he reacts adversely to that too.)
Email is even worse. Those email lists are like gold to the fundraising class, because it means nothing to send out millions of messages since the response rate can be well under 1% to be "successful".
Yup! The same happened to us. Which is why I will not donate or volunteer for any candidate or the Party. Never give out your phone number or email or address unless you want to be spammed by these groups all the time.
Years ago, I worked with a woman whose brother ran for the GOP nomination for governor of Illinois. (Yes, he must have been a little crazy!) This was back in 2007, I think, and at the time of his announcement, he had a tiny website and nothing on Facebook or anything else of that ilk. I sent him an email saying that he really needed to work on a Facebook page, at the very least. I never received a response, but I got signed up for his email list, which I didn't necessarily mind, even though I didn't ask to be. I think he's a generally good guy still (even though he's got his own PAC or something now, some people here might recognize the name from that). In any case, he came in 3rd or 4th in the primary election, which, all things considered, wasn't bad. However, he must have sold off his email list to every Republican cause in Illinois and every "good governance" and group, etc, because before long, my inbox was absolutely flooded with this junk, and *that's* the part that I'm most annoyed with. Those email lists are gold, as email costs them almost nothing to send, and while a 3% rate for mailing is good, less than 1% is great for email. It's absolutely perverse.
Every single choice that is on offer is the lesser of two evils. Refusing to choose is a third choice that in no way rises to the least of three evils. In conservatism, all movement towards ideals is incremental by definition.
I would prefer always to choose what is good. If nothing good is on offer then I don’t need to participate. It’s like saying if you’re thirsty you must choose between between bleach or gasoline. The point is not which would be least likely to kill me the point is that they’re both bad.
For the last 2 or 3 elections I thought like Corwin. That I was being irresponsible to choose to not vote - so - I held my nose and voted ‘lesser of two weasals’. I have come to the realizations lately that:
1. My individual vote makes zero difference (I live in NY state which will always be dominated by NYC and will always vote Prog Dem. So my Rep vote has zero impact.)
2. My vote is in essence saying - Yes - I WANT this person to represent me and I SUPPORT them. Which there is NO candidate (currently) I can actually say that about. (I am a ‘moderate’ right leaning Catholic. With either major party I get crap I don’t want or support.)
3. I no longer believe National level (likely State as well) ‘representatives’ actually represent - for the most part. They have their own agenda and are merely cobbling together votes to achieve power to pursue their own lusts for more power & for greed.
So frankly - why bother?
Perhaps too jaded & cynical - but that’s my honest feeling.
I live near Seattle and know exactly how you feel. There used to be red districts even here in the burbs but they gerrymandered them out of existence. Even the local elections are mostly a waste of time but I might vote in them this fall, we’ll see.
The Nazis had what are considered rightist tendencies, at least at the time of their rise to power. They were nationalistic, militaristic and racist. They were leftist in their love of big government and economic interventionism.
The Nazis themselves changed their name from the German Worker's Party (DAP) to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) in 1920, to draw upon both left-wing and right-wing ideals, with the words "Socialist" and "Workers'" appealing to the left, and "National" and "German" appealing to the right. It succeeded beautifully.
The Nazis appealed to the more independent members of the working class. Butchers, bakers, barbers, small shopkeepers and the like. Its founder, Anton Drexler, worked as a toolmaker at a railyard.
Between all of it, they managed to bring almost everyone in Germany under their regime. Left, right, workers, intellectuals, and, sadly, the traditional religious.
The problem is that too many accept Leftist framing of issues and meaning of words. Here is an example and the results:
Bloomberg recently reported that only 6% of new hires by businesses of over 100 employees in 2021 were white, based upon government data.
To even "notice" this might be considered to be white nationalist or such in today's world, even to many in the so-called "Right". Such is the twisting and framing of language in today's world.
Would you say that it is white nationalist to say it is bad that only 6% of all new hires for businesses over 100 employees were white in 2021? If so, you too might be a white nationalist. Is it white nationalist to call it anti-white?
To oppose open borders has been called white nationalist position. To support the Founding Fathers has been called a white nationalist position. To support colorblind hiring is called a white nationalist position. The Benedict Option has likely been called Christian nationalist more than a few times and maybe even white Christian nationalist. Etc.
The phrase prior to 2014 was "white supremacist". In a careful switch to demonize nationalism, "white supremacy" became "white nationalism". Of course, few call "Black nationalism" a sin.
Effectively, positions that were mainstream are now "sins" due to careful wordsmithing by ideological opponents. To David French, opposing DQSH is a sin.
We are commanded to love our neighbors. It is part of Christ's higher law. I find it difficult to love those who are actively working to destroy the country and stealing my children's future, but I try. We are not called to surrender to such.
I would add, "On average". I have met extremely bright blacks and not so bright Asians. As to the second statement, in-group preference is clearly indicated by the group most engaging to stopping Americans from having in-group preferences.
The denial of basic truths, AKA, lies, are the foundation of our society. To truly "Live Not By Lies" would require shouting this uncomfortable truths from the mountain tops (or on Twitter). Instead, Steve Sailer has largely been exiled from public life for the crime of "noticing". He and many others were purged from National Review long ago. Of course, that formerly powerful gatekeeping magazine purged others long before them.
And 99% of NFL cornerbacks are black. The Hollywood studios of the 30s were almost all Jewish run. I don't think that is a racist or anti-semitic statement.
I agree with you that these things are NOT "white nationalist" or racist. But there really are racists among them. Whenever I see someone described as a "black nationalist," I think, "Oh, that person hates white people." I suppose it technically might be true that one could be a race nationalist and not be a racist (e.g., Zionists), for all practical purposes it's a distinction without a difference, at least in US society.
They want to demonize all "nationalism" as part of their globalist dream. Most American nationalists just want to maintain their own country. However, by twisting and wordsmithing, it is now an evil and sin.
Why should we accept framing and definitions from those that want to destroy our lives?
Orban is not sinning in being a Hungarian nationalist and neither are those that "notice" and want to resist the changes in America.
It used to be a "racist" was one who engaged in overt acts against other races, the classic KKK person. Now it is anyone who doesn't worship St. George Floyd and the Holy Order of BLM. Unless someone is out burning crosses on the weekend, I don't think we need to accept that they are white nationalists or white racists.
I grew up in a melting pot. I had classes with no other student who was not an immigrant or a child of immigrants. They fully adopted American culture and values. But that was almost 40 years ago and now each group has its tribe and votes in their tribe, except one. And only for that one, to advocate for that group is a sin, by today's standards.
Again, 6% of new hires in corporate America were white in 2021. If whites are sinning if they try to oppose that, then we might as well sterilize all whites, in a country founded and built by our ancestors. They demonized the phrase "It is OK to be white". If it isn't OK to be white, let's round up all the whites and put them in work camps.
America isn't an idea. It is a country founded by very particular people with a very distinct heritage. It is a betrayal of our ancestors to thrown it away worshiping antiracism instead of Christ.
White supremacy is as evil as any other ideology that elevates one race or group over another, but in terms of gatekeeping conservation institutions what does that even mean? It's pretty hard to discern what most so-called conservatives are even trying to conserve anymore. Republicans certainly aren't conservative, at least as far as I can tell. Also, these guys that you were listening to, were they Christian or not? Certainly Christians ought to have nothing to do with white supremacy. I mean, no one should, but especially not Christians! But just to be on the so-called right, what does that even mean anymore?
That said, are you sure the guy with the tattoos was Hungarian? There are a lot of Ukrainians in Hungary (at least there were when I was there) and a ton of young Ukrainian men have tattoos like that, especially that black sun thingy on his elbow. Given what happened in the Canadian parliament the other day, I'm not altogether sure it's the 'right' that has the bigger problem with this kind of ideology.
"Also, these guys that you were listening to, were they Christian or not?"
They might be "Christians" of the sort who think it makes sense to go get vengeance in the name of Jesus. I try to refrain from implying that self-professed believers aren't really Christian (and ultimately, I do not know their hearts)—but well, as our Lord said: "By their fruits shall they be known."
I also try to generally avoid the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. It's such a bizarre time we live in. At least while Christendom endured there was the certainty of adherence to a set of ingrained values and a more or less coherent world view that allowed for broad agreement on the nature of reality. Now the vast majority have built their houses on sand and are floundering about clinging to one ideology or another.
Hm, I think that it could be productive, though. Kierkegaard wrote a lot about how being born into Christendom could delude people into thinking they were Christian—the idea being that "Christian" is a religious concept, having to do with an encounter with Jesus and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, not just a certificate filed away in some bureaucrat's office. So maybe now, with all the social supports falling off, the people left will be the ones who really do seek Him.
Those people in the talk, for example: their worldview has no real need for Jesus. Political victory at all costs is the absolute antithesis of seeking the Kingdom not of this world. One wonders why they bother with the Christian thing at all, seeing as it has no real interest for them. And I expect that one day soon, they will not bother, which may well improve the integrity of the Church.
Absolutely. It will, of course, ostensibly become more arduous to follow Christ as Christendom recedes further into the mists of time but as our Lord has said "narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!" I suppose that was true even when the vast majority of us westerners professed Christianity.
AMEN. Evil needs to be called out wherever it is. Thank you for this post.
Amen to the whole thing! I'd add that Hayward's a hypocrite about NETTR if he's criticizing you, as you're on the right. (Not in an absolutist way, but you certainly seem to be more on the right than on the left. [Apologies if I'm mischaracterizing you.])
Oh gosh, yes, I'm definitely on the Right!
That's how I think of you, but I wasn't sure if because of your "crunchy" and occasional populist leanings you'd put yourself somewhere in the middle or reject the left-right scale altogether.
Do bear in mind that most populism these days is on the Right. Yes, that gives the libertarian types heartburn, but I suspect it is the future of the GOP and eventually the Randites will seem as quaint as the Free Silver crusaders did by the 1920s.
Well, he's saying no enemies TO the right, meaning to the right of where one stands, and I'm sure he considers Rod to be to his left, even if still on the right... if you know what I mean! :) (Please note that I'm not defending shampoo guy; I'm with Rod on this completely.)
I thought of that, but that seems too permissive for his purposes. Does he really think it's okay for all the right-wing people to criticize those who are even just one inch to their left?
I agree, seems like he wants it to be an absolute statement - you're in or you're out. In practice, I expect it may mean whatever he wants it to mean based on his judgement in a given circumstance.
I think it's less "No enemies ON the right" than it is "No enemies TO the right," which is even worse. So basically, it means anyone less extreme than you is open to criticize, but anyone more extreme should have full freedom.
Bravo! Bravissimo! Thank you for reminding us that our souls are at stake--God sees; God knows--if we give into this sort of rationalization for the sake of some passing earthly influence.
I do not know if that is "punching right". Racism is not right/conservative. And it definitely is not remotely Christian. The Soviets were very racist. So were the Nazis, neither being ?right". And let us never forget, the Dems started the KKK. The modern Left loves to separate people into various grievance piles and tries to justify anti-white racism, as well as racism against non-whites who leave the Dem/Left reservation. And don't forget the undercurrent of antisemitism burbling in that quarter. All of which is going unchallenged by anyone there.
So, opposing the corruption of an institution, one cannot fault you, Rod.
You’re hitting on something that bugs me to no end, which is this arbitrary coding of people and ideas as “Rightwing” if they are momentarily out of favor with the Cultural Elites.
And the earliest and greatest of all these codings was that of Hitler and his Nazis as well as Mussolini and his Fascists as on the same side as U.S. Republicans and small town American conservatives and religious traditionalists. You do not see these groups described as fellow travelers with Fascism much at all in contemporary accounts before the Spanish Civil War. Sinclair Lewis, to my knowledge, was the only writer to equate a kind of Main Street boosterism with Fascism.
Certainly, Fascism was regarded at the time as a kind of progressive movement. After all, in 1930, who knew whether or not it was the wave of the future? Mussolini was known for making the trains run in time. Small town American conservatives and religious traditionalists were decidedly NOT progressives in terms of big industrial projects or technological innovations, WHICH INCLUDED EUGENICS.
As for the “back-to-nature” types and Orwell’s sandal-wearers, they were as much a feature of Nazi propaganda as anything else. It was Soviet Communist industrial brutalism that characterized much Leftist thinking at the time. And of course, there was the Hitler-Stalin Pact, of blessed memory.
In any case, the idea that civil liberties are now “Rightwing” code for racism, which is supposedly the id that every Republican would secretly like to let run free and wild, is idiotic and criminally slanderous, in my view. That GOP official outlets and figures are too inept to respond to such slanders is demoralizing.
As for the plain old GOP small-town, traditional conservative type and racism, I find from experience that most small town types tend to have a far more multiracial social experience in their daily lives than many urban professionals, at least in the South, where you do find black people also living in rural areas.
As for small towns in general, and here I’ll speak of such places that I know about in Pennsylvania or Maine, I find again that most people are very open to the idea of welcoming anyone who might wish to move in if they are employed and law-abiding. It is simply the relative lack of opportunity to enjoy a great variety of social experiences in a small town setting that many urbanites mistake for discomfort with the Other. In fact, I find most urbanites are only comfortable with their own stratum, and are far less comfortable crossing class and race lines than are small town denizens. The hypocrisies of the Metropolis know few bounds.
Finally, I find, too, that some of the more strident leftist folks I know are from and still live in small towns. They are especially at pains to demonstrate their progressive cred.
I've noticed that many of the more angry and strident leftists have come from abusive backgrounds. This is especially true of women. They've generalized their anger at bad families, boyfriends and the like into a generic hate for anyone that even slightly resembles those people.
There is nothing more insular and sheltered than the "elite". That's why the Hollywood types have been putting out garbage movie after garbage movie and TV show, they fail, and they act shocked. Because within their circle, this is supposed to be what everyone is about. And again, it is bewildering to them when they find out wokeism is not a hit "out there" in flyover country.
Trying to reduce all political ideology to a single one dimensional line is responsible for many of these contradictions and errors. There are multiple axes on which our politics play out; Individual vs. community, tradition vs innovation, local vs international, populism vs elitism, and more.
I have a lot of family in the south and I spend a ton of time down there, and one think I've noticed is the huge number of majority-white families that have black family members. My own immediate family, which includes some people who now live in the Deep South, is multi-racial. They don't fuss or fret or theorize about it or write op-eds about it. They just continue to be a family, love each other, and act (verboten word these days) colorblind in their dealings with each other.
By contrast, up here in the Mid-Atlantic they'll talk your ear off about differences in "culture" and they'll tiptoe around each other and treat black people like they're special, magical, fragile beings.
This isn't to say that there's no racism in the south or that everyone in the north is race-obsessed. I've met some stone-cold paleo-racists in the south, too. But when friends and families and communities integrate down there, my sense is that it happens with much less anxiety than up north.
My wife’s family is from the South and that is true of her family as well. It’s inconceivable among the people I knew growing up in the North, even the very liberal ones.
Not inept. Cowardly. And I also think that some of the "elite" among the GOP actually have sympathy with the "elite" of the Left, in that they really would like to curb the Constitution and civil liberties. For those give the general populace a means to resist the elites, to tell them "no", to push back. And like the powerful throughout history, they don't like that.
Which is why they have been pushing against, among other things, guns and and free speech.
True. But it is us who actually make this civilization run. We could do without them. Much to their eternal chagrin, they cannot do without us. And we need to once again remind them we are in charge, not them. Their values are not our values. Their beliefs are not our beliefs. We are not buying what they are selling, and we will not do what they say. For they are not the rulers.
Bravo. I wholeheartedly support Mr. Dreher and feel similarly. I will say that the double bind is quite a challenge:
1. The Left *already* wants to smear anyone to the right of Mitt Romney as a "racist" for saying factually true but un-PC things about immigration, crime, etc., or for thinking that white people, as a group, have any right to a collective identity not based in self-hatred. The temptation to say "screw it, I'm joining the racists," once one has *already* been demonized as a racist for simple intellectual honesty is strong and must be resisted.
2. The racist Right can be quite brilliant and even correct about certain things, despite their wickedness (just as the godless Left, e.g. Foucault and Marx, can be correct despite their wickedness). Charles Haywood is actually a brilliant writer -- see https://theworthyhouse.com/. Jean Raspail, Bronze Age Pervert, etc., all have smart things to say. One must not allow the brilliance to blind oneself to the moral challenges at hand.
3. The Left's hysterical, ridiculous response to anything that challenges its dogma ("Eek! Hitler!") tempts one to believe that since they cry wolf every day, there is never actually a wolf. But sometimes, indeed, there are wolves on the right. One must not allow the Left's embarrassing, pathetic, infantile responses to anything that challenges its hegemony, to lead to a complacency about genuinely un-Christian evils on the right. Of course, that means actually engaging with the wicked right, instead of simply shrieking at it and demonizing it, as the Left would prefer. In my opinion, Susannah Black Roberts and John Ehrett model very well a thoughtful, Christian critique of the New Right. It's a difficult needle to thread (but you know what Jesus said about those camels).
https://americanreformer.org/2023/04/the-impossible-bronze-age-mindset/
https://mereorthodoxy.com/the-birth-of-comedy
I would point out that American Reformer was co-founded by Nate Fischer. Not sure why he agrees with NETTR, given that his magazine criticized BAP.
Agree. There are people with beliefs you do not want to share the tent with. If the beliefs are reprehensible, they should be called out and made known and your opposition also made known. On your tattoo model, you missed the black sun on his elbow. It shows up in some esoteric belief systems but is also often used in a neo-Nazi context. Coupled with the other tats on this guy, you could take the cluster as a display of far-right or neo-Nazi leanings.
There's a black sun floor tile in one of Himmler's spiritual lairs somewhere in Germany. The black sun tat is, of course, popular among some elements in Ukraine. Another place you see examples, the Canadian Parliament...
Hi Paul-It was in Wewelsburg Castle. This was intended to be Himmler's central hub for the SS cult. Let's just say the name of the elements in Ukraine and that is the Azov Brigade. I think they kept the Wolfsangel but may have gotten rid of the black sun.
There needs to be a point though where good people say no. There are beliefs that are not acceptable and should not be just glanced over because the holder of those beliefs is also on the right. "They believe nearly everything we do! Small government, fiscally conservative, God fearing, blahblahblah, oh yeah they may have some extreme beliefs around Jews and other races, but we're on the same team and can overlook those things." Absolutely not! The nose of that camel can't get under the tent.
As a conservative Asian American Christian, I am sad that white conservative Christians feel there is no recourse but to join hands for politically and culturally expedient for very short term solutions. Do I blame them for how they feel? Why would I? If all I heard was Asian bashing and being the source of pure evil in all forms, I can see the motive for self protection at the very least.
The harder road to take is the road to virtue. That will mean suffering and perhaps hard totalitarian suffering, and the tide may not turn for a few decades. But that may be the road ahead for us, so I’d prefer to prepare for the new world I know will eventually come.
The moral integrity of this piece is a thing of beauty.
I find my mind drifting to Boromir: if only *he's* the one who holds the Ring, the world will become a better place, right? I see no reason whatsoever for the slightest confidence that the world would be a better place with a right-wing amoral goon in charge rather than a left-wing amoral goon. After all, the Devil wins either way.
You are right on the money. Christians should never do unbiblical things. Well said!
Rod, do you have access to your subscriber's names or other personal information?
I've wondered this as well. Could a Substack author dox a commenter?
I think that only e-mail addresses are visible.
I think the writer gets the list of emails and whether that person is a free, paid, or comp subscription, and "subscribed since" date.
Yes. Unless your email discloses your identity, I don't know who you are.
I do not. Don't want to, either.
Is contemporary culture unbalanced? Maybe that's the cause of people falling into extremes. The classical road has always been the golden middle way, sticking to convictions but with charity to all. However, I know that in the Benedictine Abbeys, they always nominated the biggest and toughest monk as a bouncer with a cudgel. Sometimes you have to use that cudgel to preserve the peace of a community. To whack someone or throw them out.
"Is contemporary culture unbalanced? Maybe that's the cause of people falling into extremes."
The extreme right exists as a reaction to the extreme left. If we didn't have an extreme left - if ideologues weren't insisting that 8-year-old can choose their gender, that any limitations on immigrations are necessarily racist, that the George Floyds of the world excuse the flash mobs in Philly the past two nights - there would be no corresponding lunacy on the right, as there would be no "need" for it.
Action, reaction. Each extreme eggs the other on. And the danger, of course, is that the "other side" won't be so nuanced and. understanding as we try to be, and that the general public just doesn't care. I mean, we're not at this stage yet obviously, but when it's kill or be killed and you declare "I won't kill" - well, there's only one outcome then.
Too true. The danger is that you end up in an ideological struggle with no winners. The extreme case of this is the one between the Nazis and Soviets. The body count from that one was pretty high.
That and the clashes on German streets before the Nazis took power. There were running battles between the communists and Nazis and I sometimes think we're not too far from that.
Back in the 2020 rioting it looked like the rightwing provocateurs and the leftwing provocateurs were cooperating to sow chaos.
I don't think that contemporary Christianity does a great job preparing believers to confront or face the reality of deep freely chosen evil. When we discover the enemy in ourselves or the hidden traitor we end up more easily crushed. The evil of another then infects us and pulls us down as well. Really a challenge to deal with.
Agreed.
I am always amazed at the sheer number of Christians who are surprised that temptation is actually... tempting. That evil doesn't come looking hideous and disgusting but... tempting. That they're actually going to have to fight moral battles within themselves... their whole lives. That being good and kind and patient, etc., is sometimes the last thing you want to be.
I blame it on the prosperity gospel, myself - the commonly preached heresy that Jesus is Santa Claus as a young man, and God is Santa Claus that just wants us all to be healthy, wealthy, and enjoying ourselves.
I think the biggest mistake here is thinking that right/left is the same as virtuous/sinful. Sure, if one's take on society's woes is a political take and one's only aim is the ascendancy of the "Right" as a political movement, sure, don't punch right, ever. However, if one is concerned in the underlying causes of the plague of leftism and are using traditional morality (or Christianity, or what have you) as the lens to identify and call out issues, it becomes imperative not to be silent just because someone is on the "correct" side. They are different planes of how people work, but most people don't understand that at all.
Personally, I'm a sort of Christian anarchist: "My Kingdom is not of this world," He said. I assume that politics as such is a result of the Fall, just a necessary annoyance for the time being—and certainly it is orders of magnitude less important than the salvation of souls. I'm of the opinion that if we purge the poison at the source, it will also vanish downstream.
Never in my life have I thought of myself as an "anarchist," but my aversion to politics and your description of "Christian anarchism" makes me think I like that label....
JRR Tolkien anarchist?
"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) — or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inaminate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good."
The Shire sounds pretty anarchist to me. And also, I think that Christian anarchist and Kingdom monarchist pretty much come out to the same thing—that's just a matter of emphasis.
And in his spirit of whimsy, I also have a pet proposal about how we should round up everyone who wants to run for president and send them to a prison camp in Alaska, so as to be rid of at least a handful of the most malignant sociopaths among us.
This strikes me as at least partially correct; that politics as we now experience it (the interplay of power games between competing groups) is a result of the Fall and will have no place in the true polis, the New Jerusalem. The interplay between Christianity and politics is a fascinating one, with various groups of Christians at various times taking very difference stances towards the question of political engagement: from absolute disengagement, pacifism, and quietism on the one hand to attempts at integrated Christian kingdoms and crusades on the other. While it is without a doubt true that the Church of the first few centuries encouraged pacifism, and that the Gospel imputation that "he who lives by the sword will die by it" seem to cut towards the former, with the rise of politically powerful Christian communities taking the mantle of Caesar's realm the necessity of some level of prudential contingency comes into play. There is also that strange passage in Luke 22 when Jesus imputes his disciples to buy swords prior to the Mount of Olives narrative (contingently as a prophetic device, but I sometimes wonder if there is more to it than that). Also, the people of God are clearly called upon on numerous occasions to slaughter the unrighteous (granted, Old Testament, but we need to take seriously the sense that Christ is a continuation of revelation of God to mankind begun there and not antithetical to it). As with most, if not all, complex moral problems it is difficult to know where the lines are to be drawn. To that end, I for myself would tend towards the middle road that eschews categorical answers and rather requires prudential determinations in specific situations, allowing that we will be held accountable for whatever evil we do when we inevitably get the calculus wrong. This situation is part and parcel with what it means to live in a Fallen world, we act and by necessity some of our actions, even those performed in accordance with prudential justice, will bear evil fruits. In acting, or refusing to act, we will likely compromise ourselves. Such is the tragedy of living in a Fallen world.
My general view is that things started going downhill since about the time of Constantine; that the union of Christ and Caesar is an abomination that should have never happened; and that this might have been the Church's "original sin", which in some respects has inevitably led to the cataclysm of the present. And I typically think that a lot of the Old Testament might reflect ancient Hebrew misunderstandings of God and His will, which I think is tenable given what they did when He actually showed up in the flesh, and also in light of John 8:42-44.
Perhaps, that was my view for some time as well. However, as a member of a church which venerates Constantine as a Saint, I’ve been forced to try to look deeper. By saying that politics is always tinged by human corruption (as are all our works) I do not mean to say it is totally depraved; there is a charism there that can also engender virtue and excellence. It is a necessary human endeavor, and as something needful, something which I don’t think it profits us to think of as beyond the sphere of grace. Furthermore the vision of such an endeavor gloriously baptized by the Church is a needful one; while very much a small r republican, I think there is something innate within us that yearns for the good king. Yes, such a longing will only find its fulfillment in God, but the absence of such a king deprives us of an icon which might better point us in His direction and elevate the symbols of our political life.
I see what you're saying, especially about the king as icon at the end. I get skittish, though, about the political saints, since it looks very much like the Church just rewarded its worldly benefactors by calling them saints, which I don't think is how theosis works. And some of the calls just seem egregiously wrong. For example, Aquinas put in print that the saints in Heaven derive pleasure from watching the torture of the wicked in Hell—which to me seems like a moral sentiment unworthy of any decent man, let alone a saint. (But I guess that this example wouldn't pertain to the Orthodox; I forget which one you are.) Of course, I don't really want to put myself in the place of just declaring "The Church was wrong", but basic honesty compels me to at least acknowledge, "Maybe there's something there I'm not seeing, but by every instinct and intuition, it sure doesn't seem right."
I've stopped voting because no one represents me. If there was a candidate that opposed all the horrible sexual revolution artifacts, especially abortion, supported families and family formation in a meaningful way, supported freedom of conscience, wanted peace, wanted actual justice and not so called social justice, etc., etc., I would vote for them but there isn't so I won't. I'm done supporting the lesser of two evils because they're still evil.
Check out the American Solidarity Party.
Aside from their platform, I also like their pelican.
Yeah it's pretty good but I'm not sure about the whole social justice thing. However, the perfect is the enemy of the good. Also, do you know what the significance of the pelican is?
Well, I think their economic justice aspect is simply old-school Catholic social teaching, the admission that modern capitalism is a usurious and dehumanizing system that is displeasing to God. And yeah—wasn't it a legend about how a mother pelican feeds her chicks with her own blood if needed? Probably no need to spell that out for anyone here.
I was at a conference where someone did a presentation on the American Solidarity Party. He says that there are divisions in the party even on the issue of same-sex marriage and other culture war issues. The presenter said he plans to publish his paper so I won’t cite his name until he does.
Perhaps American Solidarity is an oxymoron these days.
https://www.theschooloftheology.org/posts/essay/symbols-the-pelican-in-her-piety
I'm incredibly annoyed with all the calls and mailings I get from the Republican party. If anyone - of either party - does get me on the line, boy, do they get an earful, for all the good it does. At least when the Democrats call, if I can keep the person on the line for 10-15 minutes, I call it good because that person can't call anyone else in that time.
For those of us who do see these things as a spiritual battle, I think it's hard to imagine that for many, this is a political thing, and nothing more. For those people who do see this as a political thing, I think it's nearly impossible to imagine that others see this as a higher level struggle. In some sense, they need us more that we need them - we know that the solution isn't political - and I think this is part of the reason that many of them are angry that we won't just get on board with ignoring their misbehavior when it happens.
I once gave money to a candidate I thought was promising and now I get an absolute snow storm of crap which goes straight into the recycling bin. I honestly don't know if there are many people left who see it as just a political thing. People 'identify' as one thing or another now meaning their ideology has become their identity. This is why they can get so terrified and vicious when their ideology is questioned. There certainly aren't enough of us who 'identify' first and foremost as children of God. I talk to them too when they call hoping to in some small way represent my "constituency", such as it is.
Politics has become religion for far too many.
The patriarch of my family used to be a mainstream Republican. They'd hit him up for money, but then he'd get hit up by the every Republican organization in the book. I would see his mail pile and I had no idea there were separate committees for the House, the Senate, state organizations, various PACs, etc. After he made a donation maybe 15 to 20 years ago, his phone rang off the hook with further requests for donations. His push toward being both annoyed with the GOP and toward being a Trump fan was directly rooted in his being treated like nothing more than a money spigot and getting nothing for it. (And while he is fairly comfortable, he's not at all wealthy.) I suspect there are many people like him who got turned off by mountains of junk mail.
(Now, because he puts that money toward all sorts of right-wing newsletters and media instead, he gets a different avalanche of fundraising mail. I'll be curious to see at what point he reacts adversely to that too.)
Direct mail works. If the Republican Party gets a three percent response rate, the mailing is worth it.
Email is even worse. Those email lists are like gold to the fundraising class, because it means nothing to send out millions of messages since the response rate can be well under 1% to be "successful".
Yup! The same happened to us. Which is why I will not donate or volunteer for any candidate or the Party. Never give out your phone number or email or address unless you want to be spammed by these groups all the time.
Years ago, I worked with a woman whose brother ran for the GOP nomination for governor of Illinois. (Yes, he must have been a little crazy!) This was back in 2007, I think, and at the time of his announcement, he had a tiny website and nothing on Facebook or anything else of that ilk. I sent him an email saying that he really needed to work on a Facebook page, at the very least. I never received a response, but I got signed up for his email list, which I didn't necessarily mind, even though I didn't ask to be. I think he's a generally good guy still (even though he's got his own PAC or something now, some people here might recognize the name from that). In any case, he came in 3rd or 4th in the primary election, which, all things considered, wasn't bad. However, he must have sold off his email list to every Republican cause in Illinois and every "good governance" and group, etc, because before long, my inbox was absolutely flooded with this junk, and *that's* the part that I'm most annoyed with. Those email lists are gold, as email costs them almost nothing to send, and while a 3% rate for mailing is good, less than 1% is great for email. It's absolutely perverse.
Every single choice that is on offer is the lesser of two evils. Refusing to choose is a third choice that in no way rises to the least of three evils. In conservatism, all movement towards ideals is incremental by definition.
I would prefer always to choose what is good. If nothing good is on offer then I don’t need to participate. It’s like saying if you’re thirsty you must choose between between bleach or gasoline. The point is not which would be least likely to kill me the point is that they’re both bad.
For the last 2 or 3 elections I thought like Corwin. That I was being irresponsible to choose to not vote - so - I held my nose and voted ‘lesser of two weasals’. I have come to the realizations lately that:
1. My individual vote makes zero difference (I live in NY state which will always be dominated by NYC and will always vote Prog Dem. So my Rep vote has zero impact.)
2. My vote is in essence saying - Yes - I WANT this person to represent me and I SUPPORT them. Which there is NO candidate (currently) I can actually say that about. (I am a ‘moderate’ right leaning Catholic. With either major party I get crap I don’t want or support.)
3. I no longer believe National level (likely State as well) ‘representatives’ actually represent - for the most part. They have their own agenda and are merely cobbling together votes to achieve power to pursue their own lusts for more power & for greed.
So frankly - why bother?
Perhaps too jaded & cynical - but that’s my honest feeling.
I live near Seattle and know exactly how you feel. There used to be red districts even here in the burbs but they gerrymandered them out of existence. Even the local elections are mostly a waste of time but I might vote in them this fall, we’ll see.
NSDAP ... National Socialist German Workers Party. Why, oh why is everybody referring to it as the Right?
Because ultimately, it's a horseshoe.
The Nazis had what are considered rightist tendencies, at least at the time of their rise to power. They were nationalistic, militaristic and racist. They were leftist in their love of big government and economic interventionism.
The Nazis themselves changed their name from the German Worker's Party (DAP) to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) in 1920, to draw upon both left-wing and right-wing ideals, with the words "Socialist" and "Workers'" appealing to the left, and "National" and "German" appealing to the right. It succeeded beautifully.
The Nazis appealed to the more independent members of the working class. Butchers, bakers, barbers, small shopkeepers and the like. Its founder, Anton Drexler, worked as a toolmaker at a railyard.
Goebbels and the Strasser brothers began on the Left.
Between all of it, they managed to bring almost everyone in Germany under their regime. Left, right, workers, intellectuals, and, sadly, the traditional religious.
The problem is that too many accept Leftist framing of issues and meaning of words. Here is an example and the results:
Bloomberg recently reported that only 6% of new hires by businesses of over 100 employees in 2021 were white, based upon government data.
To even "notice" this might be considered to be white nationalist or such in today's world, even to many in the so-called "Right". Such is the twisting and framing of language in today's world.
Would you say that it is white nationalist to say it is bad that only 6% of all new hires for businesses over 100 employees were white in 2021? If so, you too might be a white nationalist. Is it white nationalist to call it anti-white?
To oppose open borders has been called white nationalist position. To support the Founding Fathers has been called a white nationalist position. To support colorblind hiring is called a white nationalist position. The Benedict Option has likely been called Christian nationalist more than a few times and maybe even white Christian nationalist. Etc.
The phrase prior to 2014 was "white supremacist". In a careful switch to demonize nationalism, "white supremacy" became "white nationalism". Of course, few call "Black nationalism" a sin.
Effectively, positions that were mainstream are now "sins" due to careful wordsmithing by ideological opponents. To David French, opposing DQSH is a sin.
We are commanded to love our neighbors. It is part of Christ's higher law. I find it difficult to love those who are actively working to destroy the country and stealing my children's future, but I try. We are not called to surrender to such.
It's a common theme among 21st century charges of "Racism" and "Anti-semitism".
Here are two statements:
1. White and Asian candidates score higher on IQ, SAT, and MCAT tests than blacks or hispanics
2. Jewish ceos are more common per capita than Scots-Irish ceos
Are both of these statements correct? Yes
Are both statements taboo and examples of modern "racism/anti-semitism"? Also yes
I would add, "On average". I have met extremely bright blacks and not so bright Asians. As to the second statement, in-group preference is clearly indicated by the group most engaging to stopping Americans from having in-group preferences.
The denial of basic truths, AKA, lies, are the foundation of our society. To truly "Live Not By Lies" would require shouting this uncomfortable truths from the mountain tops (or on Twitter). Instead, Steve Sailer has largely been exiled from public life for the crime of "noticing". He and many others were purged from National Review long ago. Of course, that formerly powerful gatekeeping magazine purged others long before them.
And 99% of NFL cornerbacks are black. The Hollywood studios of the 30s were almost all Jewish run. I don't think that is a racist or anti-semitic statement.
I agree with you that these things are NOT "white nationalist" or racist. But there really are racists among them. Whenever I see someone described as a "black nationalist," I think, "Oh, that person hates white people." I suppose it technically might be true that one could be a race nationalist and not be a racist (e.g., Zionists), for all practical purposes it's a distinction without a difference, at least in US society.
They want to demonize all "nationalism" as part of their globalist dream. Most American nationalists just want to maintain their own country. However, by twisting and wordsmithing, it is now an evil and sin.
Why should we accept framing and definitions from those that want to destroy our lives?
Orban is not sinning in being a Hungarian nationalist and neither are those that "notice" and want to resist the changes in America.
It used to be a "racist" was one who engaged in overt acts against other races, the classic KKK person. Now it is anyone who doesn't worship St. George Floyd and the Holy Order of BLM. Unless someone is out burning crosses on the weekend, I don't think we need to accept that they are white nationalists or white racists.
I grew up in a melting pot. I had classes with no other student who was not an immigrant or a child of immigrants. They fully adopted American culture and values. But that was almost 40 years ago and now each group has its tribe and votes in their tribe, except one. And only for that one, to advocate for that group is a sin, by today's standards.
Again, 6% of new hires in corporate America were white in 2021. If whites are sinning if they try to oppose that, then we might as well sterilize all whites, in a country founded and built by our ancestors. They demonized the phrase "It is OK to be white". If it isn't OK to be white, let's round up all the whites and put them in work camps.
America isn't an idea. It is a country founded by very particular people with a very distinct heritage. It is a betrayal of our ancestors to thrown it away worshiping antiracism instead of Christ.
I hope your insurance premiums are paid up.
White supremacy is as evil as any other ideology that elevates one race or group over another, but in terms of gatekeeping conservation institutions what does that even mean? It's pretty hard to discern what most so-called conservatives are even trying to conserve anymore. Republicans certainly aren't conservative, at least as far as I can tell. Also, these guys that you were listening to, were they Christian or not? Certainly Christians ought to have nothing to do with white supremacy. I mean, no one should, but especially not Christians! But just to be on the so-called right, what does that even mean anymore?
That said, are you sure the guy with the tattoos was Hungarian? There are a lot of Ukrainians in Hungary (at least there were when I was there) and a ton of young Ukrainian men have tattoos like that, especially that black sun thingy on his elbow. Given what happened in the Canadian parliament the other day, I'm not altogether sure it's the 'right' that has the bigger problem with this kind of ideology.
"Also, these guys that you were listening to, were they Christian or not?"
They might be "Christians" of the sort who think it makes sense to go get vengeance in the name of Jesus. I try to refrain from implying that self-professed believers aren't really Christian (and ultimately, I do not know their hearts)—but well, as our Lord said: "By their fruits shall they be known."
I also try to generally avoid the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. It's such a bizarre time we live in. At least while Christendom endured there was the certainty of adherence to a set of ingrained values and a more or less coherent world view that allowed for broad agreement on the nature of reality. Now the vast majority have built their houses on sand and are floundering about clinging to one ideology or another.
Hm, I think that it could be productive, though. Kierkegaard wrote a lot about how being born into Christendom could delude people into thinking they were Christian—the idea being that "Christian" is a religious concept, having to do with an encounter with Jesus and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, not just a certificate filed away in some bureaucrat's office. So maybe now, with all the social supports falling off, the people left will be the ones who really do seek Him.
Those people in the talk, for example: their worldview has no real need for Jesus. Political victory at all costs is the absolute antithesis of seeking the Kingdom not of this world. One wonders why they bother with the Christian thing at all, seeing as it has no real interest for them. And I expect that one day soon, they will not bother, which may well improve the integrity of the Church.
Absolutely. It will, of course, ostensibly become more arduous to follow Christ as Christendom recedes further into the mists of time but as our Lord has said "narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!" I suppose that was true even when the vast majority of us westerners professed Christianity.
No idea what his nationality was. He might well have been Ukrainian. Saw him on the street in Hungary.