David Green’s Christian Legacy

hobbylobbystowohio

David Green is the Forbes 400 billionaire whose family owns Hobby Lobby.  Along with the Cathy family of Chick-Fil-A fame, Green is one of the few prominent evangelical Christian billionaires.  The Green family recently deposited their entire business inside a trust where it will be used exclusively to fund Christian ministries.

As I think about my own family’s significant wealth and succession planning, I think there are some lessons, positive and negative, to glean from the Green family’s decision.  I recently read his latest book about the experience, called Giving It All Away.  Green thinks seriously about his wealth and about the Kingdom, but unfortunately his theology leaves him ill-prepared for the burden of wealth.

In the book, we see a glimpse into Green’s psychology, as his parents were dirt poor Pentecostals, his father a preacher and his mother a preacher’s wife.  Pentecostalism is perhaps the purest expression of the low church Protestant impulse towards evangelism at all costs.  Green’s mother in particular drove this into him and his siblings, such that David was the “black sheep” of the family while all of his brothers became ministers.  As Hobby Lobby expanded and Green’s success developed, his mother withheld approval of her son, constantly asking, “Yes, but what have you done for the Lord lately?”  His mother believed that all unnecessary activities outside of evangelism were wasteful.

This pietist impulse is in my view one of the most insidious forms of legalism in the church, and as a Christian with a legacy to give to my children, it is so dangerous that I have been working for several years on a book to counter the propaganda.  For there is an entire Christian and non-Christian philanthropy industrial complex that seeks to separate the wealthy from their money.  It says something about our age that even the secular wealthy cannot handle the burden, with prominent billionaires pledging to give it all away.

While Green calls himself a steward, in essence the plot of the book is his wanting to move away from the shoulder of responsibility and pass that on to a self-perpetuating board, initially consisting of his family members, that will give away the profits of Hobby Lobby in perpetuity to Christian ministries.  I see several problems with this approach:

First, children have a right to an inheritance, a legal claim on the family fortune if they remain loyal and faithful to the family and faith.  This is a Biblical concept.  In my view, no family steward has the right to squander the family fortune, whether through profligate spending or profligate charity.  One redeeming facet of Green’s action is that he got the permission of all his children and grandchildren to place their inheritance in the trust.

Second, there is no escaping the need for leadership and possession.  We cannot “give” anything to God, for God has appointed us as His agents.  Thus, the eventual result of Green’s actions will be the capture of his fortune by political players on his trust board, who have no skin in the game.  There is a whole industry of Christian deceivers out there, like Randy Alcorn, who convince wealthy Christians to part with their fortunes “for the Kingdom.”  If you read Alcorn’s books about the necessity of living like a pauper to maximize evangelism, and become convinced of his case, he conveniently already has a 501(c)(3) setup in which you can deposit your guilt-inducing cash.  Of course, if it were theoretically possible to give one’s fortune to Christ directly, we would.  But God delegates this task to us, the control and use of wealth.  Green’s actions are simply him passing stewardship from one fallible human (himself), who at least has business sense and skin in the game, to other fallible humans purporting to represent Christ more directly due to their involvement in massive Christian charity bureaucracies.  The Green family trust can do nothing with its money other than donate to these bureaucracies, and eventually these bureaucrats will control the trust as well.

Third, I believe Green’s plan will fail.  Eventually, someone outside of the Green family will come onto the board of the trust, and through political influence will dilute the mission of the organization.  This has happened numerous times – see the Ford Foundation, etc.  Whenever there is a huge pile of money controlled by a board of people with no skin in the game, political players emerge to seek control for other ends. Liberals in particular are very skilled in using deception to worm their way into positions of influence.  Green’s trust, by being explicitly Christian, is particularly vulnerable to judicial interference.  If and when, for example, opposition to the homosexual agenda becomes “against public policy,” federal judges can and will dissolve the Green family trust or appoint alternative trustees to subvert the mission of the organization.  Green’s trust documents are arguably already in violation of official public policy since he requires all trustees to have a “credible written testimony” of faith in Christ.  By giving up possession of the Hobby Lobby fortune to an entity that is not the Green family, eventually it will be captured by the political process.

Wealthy people around the world cannot handle their wealth, and the desire to escape it, to annihilate it with philanthropy, is part, in my view, of the general death wish of modern civilization.  No one has any true hope or vision for the future, whether the secular pessimism of a materialist like Bill Gates, or the premillenial, “waiting for the Rapture” variety held by many evangelicals like the Greens.  The Gates Foundation is founded on the premise of humanism, that the highest use of a great fortune is to relieve human suffering before we all die a meaningless death.  The Green family’s premise seems to be that of the fireman, who sees a building burning down and his sole mission is to rescue those inside. Neither can conceive of an optimistic future, of the necessity of building capital for the long haul for a glorious future in partnership with God.

My prescription for wealthy Christians?  Grow your fortune as large as you lawfully can, retain control of it, discipline your children in its proper use.  Give away 15% or so of the income as a long-term average, but never let a John Piper, Randy Alcorn or any other pietist who never created a job in his life anywhere near the principal.  Don’t feel guilty for living well, for the tithe and a bit more is all God requires of you.  The management of wealth is a multi-generational skill and God requires specialists – stewardship means bearing the burden required, not shrugging it off to be squandered by ministers, missionaries, “fundraising professionals” and other bureaucrats ill-equipped in its growth and management.

 

The Trump / Alt Right Agenda

The Trump / Alt Right Agenda

First, there is nothing like winning – victory is sweet indeed.  Part of the problem of cucked Christianity is it deprives men of their natural drive to fight, and of the indescribable thrill of “battle joy” when we win over our enemies.  It almost brings me to tears of joy to think of the great men who have kept the “pilot light” of nationalism alive in the last two decades – Sam Francis, Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, Richard Spencer, Louis Andrews, and many others.  They held the line when it was not popular to do so, and they are now vindicated.

Below I propose four major policy actions that should be taken immediately by a Trump administration.

Use the Printing Press & the Imperial Presidency to Consolidate Gains – This is no time to cuck out and go back to being the Washington Generals.  There is no next time for a Republican administration, and it is time to clean house, using the full power of the Presidency to crush our enemies and reward our friends.  If people associated with the SPLC and Clinton Foundation are not in prison within 18 months, we’ve blown the opportunity.  We know the crimes are there.  It’s time to find them.  Alt Right / Trump-Friendly businesses ought to be first in line for federal contracts.  Make the revolution permanent.  If we decimate the Establishment power structure, fully exposing the extent of their crimes to the American people, and we provide a funding and institutional base for our own replacement for the Establishment, we can probably buy 2-3% of the vote, postponing the demographic rot another cycle.

National Voter Security – The Trump coalition is very fragile.  Despite what the Electoral College shows, we won this thing by the skin of our teeth.  It appears Hillary will win the popular vote.  We can thank the Founding Fathers for the Electoral College, an anti-democratic system that gives disproportionate influence to rural whites in less populous states, and firewalls the rot in places like California.  Nevertheless, we will lose if current demographic trends continue, and so our first action must be to take 3-4% of the vote off the table for the Democrats by implementing robust voter security procedures.  In short, President Trump must appoint a commission to study vote security, with an outcome of recommendations for national standards for secure, verified voting.  These standards should be passed by Congress and tied to federal funds and other sticks and carrots (maybe states that elect to not adopt the standards should lose sovereign immunity).  States either adopt or go bankrupt, no choice.  Trump might consider nationalizing the administration of elections as well (perhaps with an “E-Verify” type system), if he has the political capital – this is riskier if a Democratic administration gets power, but it’s already obvious that if another Democrat gets elected, Republicans are completely screwed anyway.  They will simply amnesty enough people by fiat to make sure Republicans never win again.

Immigration Reform – Beyond the obvious step of implementing the Trump agenda as stated in the campaign, Trump must also work to increase immigration from Republican friendly groups.  While the Overton window is not quite ready for a race-based immigration policy, I believe Trump’s idea of an ideological-driven immigration test may be more powerful.  Because honestly, if we import a bunch of liberals who vote Democratic, even if they’re white they’ll do more long-term damage.  The Trump administration can use the “vetting” process to select for and prefer white immigrants likely to support the Republican coalition.  Afrikaners, for example, should immediately be given refugee status and settled in rural areas, where they will assimilate to local values.  Eastern Europeans should be given priority as well – they are conservative and we know Donald likes them already.  Crazy fantasy idea: Long-term, Russia and the US merge into a superstate, “one country, two systems” like China and Hong Kong, with Russians given electoral votes.

National Immigration Commission – As good as victory feels, the Alt Right knows that we can’t win permanently by simply running out the clock.  It will be necessary to strip some people of citizenship, or else severely restrict voting, to save the country.  To broaden the Overton window, a national commission, staffed appropriately, must study and document the massive fraud undertaken by Democrats over the last 40 years to illegally qualify people for citizenship.  Then we must reverse the fraud, in some way we can sell to the public.  It’s hard to know what our coalition will allow, how social mood will continue to develop.  My best idea here would be to form some sort of modified quasi-citizenship for these people, and restrict their votes to certain semi-independent city states.  Perhaps Miami and Los Angeles become semi-sovereign commonwealths like Puerto Rico.  This is the hard part, and the Alt Right ought to be thinking hard about this.

This is the big question: how do we undo the mess?  What specific policy proposals can we sell to the public to actually reverse our demographic decline?

Trump buys us time, but the situation remains dire under what appear to be the current constraints of policy.  We must not rest, but diligently continue to push the Overton window to the right, and not let Trump get distracted from delivering what he promised and a whole lot more.

Abortion & The Alt Right

Christians believe that man is made in the image of God, which is to say that man is more valuable than animals.  The vast differences between the lowest men and highest animals – our brains are three times the size of the great apes – is biological fact.  Because man can plan for the future, communicate in abstractions via language, and has a sense of the infinite, the utilitarian ethics of dealing with animals, in the Christian view, are not appropriate for man.  A cattle rancher is perfectly within his rights and decency to raise cattle for slaughter and cull the defective from the herd.  Our understanding of genetics comes in no small part due to our experience with animal husbandry, and our responsibility towards animals, at least the higher ones, is to not cause undue suffering in their deaths, for they can apprehend immediate danger and terror.

Some in the Alt Right seek to apply the ethics of animal breeding to humans.  They like abortion because it reduces the population numbers of non-whites.  They support selective abortion of special needs children with genetic defects.  They in some cases support euthanasia for the weak and sick.  Even by the Alt Right’s own standards, these ethics will not accomplish the goals they seek.  A corollary of Christian morality is that God never requires us to act against our true, long-term self-interest.  Support of abortion and other utilitarian approaches to human life are morally wrong, and also against our self-interest as a people.

First, to the numbers argument.  If race is but an extended family, then this argument is akin to saying, “I love my children more than the children of my neighbor.  Therefore, if I can kill four of my neighbor’s children and one of mine, I’ve increased the love I have for my remaining children, and my position relative to my neighbor’s.”  This is ludicrous reasoning, because good is not maximized on a relative basis, but an absolute basis.  We are not responsible for governing the behavior of other peoples – if African countries have abortion, for example, we would not be justified to fight a war to make them end it.  We are only responsible for our own government and behavior, and our own societies.  Killing even one of our own makes us morally responsible for that death, regardless of what other groups choose in relation to their own children.  The numbers argument doesn’t even make political sense, as the demographic “fix” for America is in.  The problem is not with the pro-life position, but with our immigration, welfare and democratic policies of our polyglot empire.  Regardless of how abortion affects relative numbers of blacks and whites, ultimately we can only restore white hegemony through non-democratic means, if democratic means one human one vote.  Our problem is not a numbers game, but rather an act of will that must take place among our people such that we are determined to survive.  Once that act of will takes place, that change of heart, the non-democratic means will be available to us.

The question then is what sort of position on abortion engenders a survival mentality among our people.  At minimum, this requires a pro-child, pro-natal change of values.  As I’ve mentioned before, having children, particularly white children that require high investment, is an act of putting oneself in voluntary slavery for two decades in the prime of one’s life.  Thanks to easy contraception, childbearing in an intact nuclear family now requires an almost irrational, dare I say pre-rational, preference.  In the wild, we only observe it in whites at above replacement levels among the deeply religious.  And contra to some of the Alt Right, who believe that a declining population is manageable, even if we achieve our pan-European dream, we still must defend it against other civilizations, most notably the Chinese and insurgent Islam.  This requires children, and a birthrate that cannot replace itself places our people in long-term danger.

Parents, then, are pre-rationally caring towards their children.  No psychologically healthy parent can look at a child with genetic defects, or special needs caused by circumstances – such as the family I know whose perfectly healthy child is now paralyzed due to a freak infection that inflamed the spinal cord – and see that child as a cost center to be eliminated.  Those in the Alt Right who push this, whether through autistic tendencies or misguided reaction to liberal dysgenic policies, alienate from their cause those sectors of the white population that are reproducing.  When certain elements of the Alt Right push a moral code that normal white Christian people find appalling, they prevent the emergence of what could be a powerful alliance between the post-religious-right and secular ethnic nationalists.  Such posturing, of showing one’s sophistication relative to the jeezus-loving rubes of the heartland, is a form of status signaling that is destructive to the very ends the Alt Right seeks to realize.  The mass of Christian whites (as opposed to their self-appointed leaders) are natural allies of the Alt Right, consistently supporting Alt Right immigration policies in opinion polls, and forsaking this alliance could have catastrophic consequences for our people.

Any white society has more than ample resources to provide for our sick and infirm, and an Alt Right government would seek to reassure, not castigate, parents that resources will be available to take care of special needs children.  No parent particularly wants such a burden, but with each conception parents are acutely aware of the risk, but it is a risk we take because we love our children.  If we want to have pro-natal policies and compensate parents for the costs they endure to the benefit of everyone else, an Alt Right regime would seek to provide social insurance to parents that their children will be cared for, even if something goes wrong in the process.

Furthermore, the availability of abortion is a signal to young women that they can easily escape the consequences of shirking their historical duty to restrict their sexual activity to marriage.  Such a policy encourages hedonism and will systematically produce young women unfit to be mothers due to moral degradation in youth.  Feminists, of course, love abortion, because feminists loathe both men and mothers, and abortion is a policy that says that fathers have no rights to their children, even in matters of life and death.

What about rape?  First, pregnancy from rape is rare, as the nonconsensual nature of the act is not conducive to the survival of sperm to fertilize an egg.  Personally, I believe the availability of “morning after” emergency contraception is sufficient to cover true cases of rape, as opposed to those merely claiming it in retrospect.  Since the woman has no specific knowledge of an embryo, and 40% of fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant in the uterus, to take a medicine to intentionally eliminate the conditions for implantation is not, in my view, morally problematic.  We can have a reasonable pro-life position without giving away the whole store with actual surgical abortion of a fetus.  The classic moral question of whether one would save a 2-year-old or a beaker of 20 fertilized eggs (if you could only save one from a fire) is compatible with this position – I would save the 2-year-old, not the fertilized eggs.  But if the same choice were between a woman in her first trimester of pregnancy, or the two-year old, a valid choice could arguably be the woman.  Hence life begins, in my view, at the moment the mother and child become one flesh at the time of implantation – the mother being the medium and the child being the message, a set of information ready to develop into a human.  This may be a minority view among virulent pro-lifers, but I bring it up to demonstrate that a reasonable anti-abortion position is possible that still accounts for outlier cases of rape.  Such a position does not even have to be official public policy, as the drugs necessary for emergency contraception are the same as those used for conventional contraception.  No one would have sufficient evidence to prosecute even in a 100% pro-life official policy.

I implore the secular Alt-Right to reconsider any support for abortion.  What are the odds the feminists are right on this one issue?  The alienation of potential allies, if nothing else, would advise the wise against it.  We want to win, not show our status relative to the very people – the non-pozzed, heartland Christian whites –  we wish to preserve.

 

Christian Ethics & Dysgenics

The New Testament’s approach to charity is fairly restricted.  Paul tells us that those who do not work should not eat.  Paul also goes through great pains to delineate which widows in the church were worthy of support – they had to be old (young ones should remarry) and blameless, holy women.  There is no specific provision made for the social welfare of anyone else beyond widows and orphans, and absent such commands, none can be reliably inferred from Scripture itself.

Nevertheless, most Christians see charity of some sort as an obligation, and it has always been appropriate to give alms to the “worthy poor.”  Prior to the modern era, charity was by necessity local, limited in scale and voluntary, due to the general scarcity of resources. When occasional crises like famines came, there simply was not enough excess production available to help everyone.  Charity, then, was not a social welfare program so much as a prophylactic for the wealthy and powerful to avoid destructive overconfidence, to acknowledge the role of Providence in their position by showing consideration to the poor.

Christian charity as historically practiced was not dysgenic.  Caring for widows, for example, usually involved supporting women who were formerly married, had children and were no longer able to care for themselves – the impact on dysgenics was zero.  The care of orphans was likewise not dysgenic, as the ancient world featured a lot of random death from disease – orphans were children whose parents were taken by this randomness, and as a group their genetic quality was no different from the general population.

The Christian practice of saving infants from exposure was likewise non-dysgenic, as the vast majority of these cases were not due to actual deformity, but rather due to a preference for male children or fewer children.  The Greek historian Polybius describes the depopulation of Greece:

For instance, take the following case. In our own time the whole of Greece has been subject to a low birth-rate and a general decrease of the population, owing to which cities have become deserted and the land has ceased to yield fruit, although there have neither been continuous wars nor epidemics. If, then, any one had advised us to send and ask the gods about this, and find out what we ought to say or do, to increase in number and make our cities more populous, would it not seem absurd, the cause of the evil being evident and the remedy being in our own hands? For as men had fallen into such a state of pretentiousness, avarice, and indolence that they did not wish to marry, or if they married to rear the children born to them, or at most as a rule but one or two of them, so as to leave these in affluence and bring them up to waste their substance, the evil rapidly and insensibly grew.  For in cases where of one or two children the one was carried off by war and the other by sickness, it is evident that the houses must have been left unoccupied, and as in the case of swarms of bees, so by small degrees cities became resourceless and feeble.

The emphasis is mine, but the scholarly consensus is that Polybius was censoring the Greeks for killing their children simply for their own convenience.  Christian efforts to save exposed children would be positively eugenic in a time of population decline.

Only in the last 100 years has human ingenuity risen to a level where all people could theoretically be cared for, with cheap food, energy and housing from a general rise in technological-fueled productivity.  It is not Christian charitable ethics, but rather the capability to care for large numbers of non-productive people at scale, that is the root cause of dysgenics today.

There is a valid argument, I believe, to the idea that our unprecedented productivity ought to be put to use to better the human condition through certain socialistic practices.  I’m not sure where I fall on this issue, but Huey Long’s appeal to share the wealth of our industrial abundance does not sound crazy to me.  This might seem particularly just in a place like Denmark where everyone is closely related – the state, arguably, simply formalizes and enforces (against cheaters) social norms that members of one’s extended family ought to be supported in their sickness and old age.

Among the Alt Right, there is some support for this sort of socialistic enterprise in a future ethnostate, but we are also aware of the externalities of such a situation.  The nations of Europe, for example, have collapsed their birthrates, partially through spiritual decline, but also partially due to a change in incentives.  When the state provides cradle to grave care, no one has motivation to make the sacrifices necessary to have children to in turn care for them in their old age.  Human children, particularly in the high investment European culture, represent 20 years of voluntary slavery.  Why bother if other people will pick up the tab for your old age support?

The Alt Right recognizes that these policies have externalities that must be fixed.  In particular, productive citizens need to be highly financially incentivized to have children.  So far, modest efforts to encourage native reproduction in Europe have been somewhat successful, but none to the point of raising the fertility to the magic 2.1+ children per woman level necessary for population stability.  If and when a nationalist party holds complete power in a nation of Europe, hopefully experimentation with policy will reveal whether financial incentives are sufficient to induce childbearing.  My guess is that they will be partially effective, but the overall trend towards dematerialization will tend to depress any merely economic (as opposed to spiritual) efforts to increase births.  It is an unfortunate fact that many Western women are so spiritually impoverished that no amount of money could induce them away from Instagram, the clubs and their smartphone.

Most contemporary Christians would support pro-child policies, and indeed have historically supported eugenic policies like the Child Tax Credit.  The more immediate problem, however, is the dysgenic effect of the welfare state.  We have a lot of time for spiritual renewal and policy experimentation to encourage child-rearing among the productive, but lowering the overall quality of the gene pool through incentivizing the less productive to reproduce cannot be easily reversed.

I think many Christians would see the logic of my argument, but cringe at taking any action to address the problem.  While positive incentives seem just, negative actions, such as sterilization, seem unjust.  Let us look at the ethical questions involved.

It is important to recognize that the vast majority of welfare recipients are not legitimate causes for Christian charity.  Despite cucky pastors’ rhetoric, a single mother who becomes pregnant through her own promiscuity, and shows bad judgment in mating with a man who will not support his child, is not a widow and her child is not an orphan, if the words of the Bible have any objective meaning.  Her life will be hard, no doubt, but the hardships she will endure as a natural consequence of her sin may be the only thing that can shake her out of her vanity and cause her to repent.  It’s important to recognize that we as a society have made a choice, a choice we are not ethically obligated to make, to show mercy to such individuals and go beyond the strict requirements of equity to care for the truly infirm and fatherless.  Since we are not obligated to help the single mother ethically, it would be proper for us to put conditions on that aid, particularly when the conditions are necessary for the system of aid to continue.  In short, a society that continually encourages the non-productive to reproduce will eventually destroy not only itself but also the very system of aid that comes from the abundance of a productive society.

Most Christians understand that giving cash to the homeless is irresponsible, as much of it will go to enable sin.  Similarly, giving aid to the single mother without requiring her to take action to prevent the destruction of the system of aid that benefits her is irresponsible.  As such, I believe it is entirely within the realm of Christian ethics to require, as a condition of aid, that single mothers be sterilized.  This would not apply to widows with legitimate children of a dead father (and I’ll note here that the conflation of bastardy and widowing is a profound insult to widows, who are entitled to the aid of the church).  For single mothers, they can choose to meet the condition and receive aid, or may choose to not meet the condition and not receive aid.  There is no coercion, simply an exchange of promises, a covenant if you will, that those who receive extraordinary mercy must take extraordinary measures.

I have often, as a Christian, been annoyed by some of the atheist Alt Right’s embrace of abortion as a supposed eugenic practice.  Proper rationing of charity, however, would ethically address this concern without the need to assault the dignity of motherhood with the availability of abortion.  Irresponsible parents would be “one and done,” ensuring that their share of the population steadily decrease by natural attrition rather than unjust violence towards infants.

 

Tom Wolfe’s The Kingdom of Speech, A Review

With little fanfare Tom Wolfe has released another of his non-fiction narratives, this time dealing with the history of the Theory of Evolution and the problem of the origin of human speech.  Wolfe, surprisingly, flirts extensively with the idea of Intelligent Design, particularly evolution’s inability to explain certain properties of human beings.

The overall theme of Wolfe’s book is that we severely underappreciate human ability in relation to animals, the huge gulf between the simplest human and the most advanced apes, and all of this is enabled by human language.  Wolfe claims language is an artifact of humanity, not an instinct, and emerged as a type of mnemonic to help our early ancestors remember the things around them.  I find this a little fuzzy, and he avoids the biological issue of the necessity of the human brain to produce such an artifact.  The obvious question is if speech is the artifact that enables all other artifacts

Wolfe took a lot of chances with this book, and his takedown of Noam Chomsky is particularly rich.  His summary of Daniel Everett’s experiences with a primitive Amazon tribe that lacked any concept of time, complex sentences and produced no artifacts beyond the bow and arrow, and constructed no permanent dwellings is a treat for connoisseurs of human biodiversity.  Everett’s field work destroyed Chomsky’s Freud-like pseudoscience in linguistics, and the tension between them (Everett being a highly goyish outdoorsman, former Christian missionary from a flyover town) is particularly rich.

The first half of the book includes some critiques of evolution that are never quite taken to a conclusion, likely because Wolfe either doesn’t want to think about their implications or doesn’t want to “out” himself as a theist in his old age.

I would rate the book a 3/5 but Wolfe is such a damn good writer it’s a 4/5.

An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part Five: Practical Steps

As mentioned previously, I think it a common error among infrequent or non-church-attenders to consider themselves disqualified from being a part of a community of faith because of their difficulty in believing all of the claims of Christianity.  The extreme individualism of Americans has infected our church experience.  Church is not primarily about individual reason and beliefs, but rather experiential and communal.  We do not have to reason ourselves into faith, we merely have to get reason out of the way, to consider the possibility of religious truth, and then allow our experiences and intuitions to shape our faith over time.

The Alt Right vision of enlightened nationalism is a universal moral position.  We do not need to go beyond good and evil, for our ordinary categories of good and evil are sufficient to defend our position and ensure our survival.  We declare that each people has a right to a homeland without interference from others.  We declare the objective evil of aggressive war in interfering with those boundaries and killing off the best of our young men too often in service of private gains for a privileged group of elites.  So many of us are like hipsters, ironically detached from the positions we hold, afraid to truly take our own side in the argument.  Moral universalism is an extremely powerful motivator for humans, particularly whites, and our ideas are just, right universal moral principles.  We need not be afraid that embracing an objective morality will ensure our doom.  To the contrary, the bravest and best motivations for the preservation of anything, particularly the beauty and glory of Western Civilization, contain within them the idea that something is inherently, objectively, universally good.  Few men are willing to die, or even live, for arbitrary configurations of matter.  We feel in our souls that we are more than matter, that the world of immaterial forms is the prime reality and that goodness, truth and beauty are more real than the material forms that represent them.  Christian religious faith is a particularization of trusting these intuitions over the pessimism of materialism.

Christianity also focuses on the concept of sin.  Sin is the commission of an act at odds with natural law, and Christian theologians universally testify that sin is always against our broad self-interest at the group level.  Lying and cheating in business dealings, for example, may benefit one in the short-term, but writ large results in the backwards, crushing poverty we observe in low trust societies.  Materialism has no explanation for the human tendency for self-destruction, the “death drive” as it is called, something we do not observe in animals.  Whether beautiful white women marring their angelic skin with morbid tattoos, or the situation in Germany, where many whites welcome third world rapists with open arms, self-destruction is a powerful force in humanity’s behavior.  The theology of sin explains this, in that it posits a flaw in our wills that needs divine correction.  Perhaps this is true for you, but I certainly have areas in my life where I do things that are entirely self-destructive for no good reason.  My faith practice has helped me reduce these areas over time, but the process will be lifelong.  At my best, I am motivated not by guilt, but by the realization that I need help and grace infused into my soul to overcome my own worst tendencies.  The sanctifying work of Christianity is properly directed towards personal areas of failure, and perverted when used to stoke societal guilt.  The theologian R. J. Rushdoony elucidated this perfectly in his masterpiece, The Politics of Guilt and Pity:

The reality of man apart from Christ is guilt and masochism. And guilt and masochism involve the unshakeable inner slavery which governs the total life of the non-Christian. The politics of the anti-Christian will thus inescapably be the politics of guilt. In the politics of guilt, man is perpetually drained of his social energy and cultural activity by his over-riding sense of guilt and his masochistic activity. He will progressively demand of the state a redemptive role. What he cannot do personally, i.e., to save himself, he demands that the state do for him, so that the state, as man enlarged, becomes the human savior of man. The politics of guilt, therefore, is not directed, as the Christian politics of liberty, to the creation of godly justice and order, but to the creation of a redeeming order, a saving state. Guilt must be projected, therefore, on all those who oppose this new order and new age.

Finally, I will bring up perhaps the most practical consideration, which is the challenge of reproduction outside of religious faith.  Child-rearing, I can attest, is a form voluntary slavery.  I have never observed, and I challenge anyone to disprove me, above-replacement fertility in a non-religious population.  Having 3+ small children is very difficult – sleep deprivation, lack of ability to focus, negative effects on the body, etc.  Without the certainty that one’s life and reproduction has objective meaning, it is very difficult to bear the burden of above-replacement fertility.  It’s much more comfortable to blackpill and remain childless, which is unfortunately one of the dominant messages emanating from the “red pill” men’s rights oriented part of the Alt Right.  Without an objective good to one’s sacrifice, the ready offer of comfort is compelling, if we are but undirected arrangements of matter with no ultimate meaning.  The red-pill black-pill is both correct and incorrect at the same time.

It is practically correct in the sense that the risk of divorce theft is very real.  I also think it is correct to say, as Tucker Max did, reflecting on his past degeneracy, that the pickup scene consists of men with mommy issues interacting with women with daddy issues.  We live in a culture where a striking percentage of the adults now are children of divorce, so it is not surprising that being an aloof jerk would be attractive to many women.  Many of the “game” concepts are valid beyond that, particularly the analysis of what men vs. women find attractive, and the important of sexual polarity.  The blackpill part is the insistence that all marriages are best avoided.  There is even an acronym to mock those who point out exceptions – NAXALT (“Not All X Are Like That”).  It is true that NAXALT is not a valid counterargument to broad statistical truths, whether talking about the need for society-wide divorce/alimony reform or the case for restricting non-white immigration.  However, to mock the idea that one can find exceptions and solutions in the midst of otherwise bad situations is suicidal.  The same black-pillers advocate economic independence, despite the fact that small businesses are more likely to fail than marriages.  The irrationality is akin to a person owning a gold mine who complains that the ore is 99% base metals – the 1% gold is the point, not the overall distribution.

Statistically, there are many factors that can reduce the odds of divorce to a reasonable level.  In our degenerate society today, the only attractive women who are constraining their sexuality are those with a moral pre-commitment, and those women are largely found in the churches.  I observe it all the time: beta men marrying attractive women and producing beautiful families.  It still happens, contrary to the blackpill pessimists, and it happens in communities of faith.  The women in these communities outnumber the men, and the men who are there are very beta.  An Alt Right man showing masculine confidence in such a community would have his pick of Christian women.  Many of the men in charge of these institutions are so weak, as evidenced by their constant public cucking, that taking over the leadership of the churches would be fairly easy in many cases.

This is not to say that one should go around faking belief for the social benefits.  If there is an overarching theme to this series, it is that churches are as much about and for people who desire faith, and to deepen their faith, as they are about those who are firm in it.  The church is a community, a body of those following that intuition of objective truth, goodness, and beauty, and believing as much as they can while accepting the grace offered for remaining unbelief.  All Christian flavors of theology make allowances for doubt, and you will not be isolated or castigated in a church because you struggle.  We all struggle, we all seek, we all wish these mysteries could be made more clear.  God knows the mind he gave you, and the skeptical mind, the independent thinker, that which characterizes the Alt Right, is not excluded from the community of faith.  We are to believe, and obey, and fulfill the good, beautiful and true as best we are able.  In an age of lies, it is no coincidence those who are least able to delude themselves would be at the forefront of defending all of those things for which the Christian faith provides objective value.

Faith provides hope in the darkest of struggles, and there is a reason despair is considered among the worst Christian sins.  Throughout history, it appears as if some thumb has been on the scale, saving our people at the last moment.  If we can achieve faith that the arc of history has direction, that the things we defend are real and not perhaps, in our despairing moments, an evolutionary cul-de-sac destined to be ground to powder by a pitiless Darwinian mill, then the temptation to despair will be overcome.  Bertrand Russell honestly captured the unyielding despair of atheism when he said,

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair can the soul’s habitation be safely built.

Though he struggles to end on a note of optimism, the fruits of atheism are well-known.  Cut off from meaning and salvation, as a group they seek it on earth, voting for the enemies of our civilization.  Fertility rates are the lowest of any identifiable religious view.  Two centuries of atheist thought have yet to build a scaffold sufficient for the atheist to overcome his unyielding despair.  For the act of having children, particularly many children, is an act of optimism towards the future, and optimism is irrational to the atheist worldview.

As an Alt Righter, you struggle for things of objective value.  You are torn, I believe, by a perception of Christianity that causes you to believe it weakness, that morality must somehow constrain our ability to survive.  You are among the few who can face despair and struggle on in spite of it, for the good of our people.  Faith is not weakness, but strength to carry on no matter the odds, of hope that the struggle is never lost.    I hope you will consider struggling for faith, and perhaps as you behold your own children, your flesh and blood, you will be confirmed in your intuition that there are things of infinite and eternal value, that this material world is but a shadow of things beyond.  The flower of Western Civilization points to it, another world of forms and perfection, hidden in plain sight.

An Alt Right Defense of Theism, Part Four: Critiques of Christianity

Alt Right critiques of Christianity come in two prominent varieties.  The first is the Nietschzian view that Christianity is a “slave religion” that teaches pathological altruism.  The second is that the Bible, and Christianity itself, constitute jingoistic Jewish propaganda.

Pathological altruism is self-evidently one of the biggest problems in the West today.  The question is whether Christianity causes pathological altruism.  There are a few logical ways to test that.  First, we might form a hypothesis that post-Christian whites would be less pathologically altruistic than Christian whites.  That hypothesis is false because atheists and agnostics are the most ardently Democratic voting bloc, moreso than Jews.  What we do find is that religious, red-state whites are more personally altruistic, giving more of their income to charity than blue state liberals, but less pathologically altruistic in supporting massive transfers of wealth through government redistribution.  This observation is exactly what an Alt Right defender of Christianity would expect.  Going further, a Christian theologian would also predict that those who abandon Christianity will become more driven by guilt, as the essence of Christianity is forgiveness by free grace not based on merit.  If Christianity is true, men will have natural guilt in their hearts.  And what we find is that post-Christian Europeans feel “white guilt” more strongly than Christian Europeans.

Second, if Christianity causes pathological altruism, we might form the hypothesis that as society has become less Christian, it has engaged in less of it over time.  Again, we observe this to be false.  The more ardently Christian eras were marked less by altruism and more by enlightened co-prosperity.  Colonialism was materially beneficial first to the Christian West but also to those it helped civilize. While the Alt Right today recognizes colonialism as a mistake, because of the corrupting influence of cheap labor and the internationalism it engendered, nevertheless we do not see massive, pathological transfers of wealth to the Third World until the post-Christian era.

The choice is whether to assess Christianity as Nietschze caricatured it, or as it is actually practiced.  The Marxists believe Christianity to be a legitimizing myth for exploitive hierarchy (“slaves, obey your masters” and all that), whereas Nietschze believed it to be a religion that elevated weakness.  It cannot be both.  The more fair synthesis for Christianity is that it is a comprehensive, balanced moral system that provides dignity for people regardless of their position in life.  Such a system will affirm a benevolent hierarchy, curbing both the abuses of tyranny and rebellion, and this is the system we observe in Christian societies in history.

The second critique is that Christianity is but an extension of Judaism, which is itself a vile, propagandistic religion of a genocidal desert god named Yahweh, the claims of which serve to validate the “Chosen’s” claims and blind our people to their own self-interest.  Let’s take these one at a time.

First, Christianity is most definitely not an extension of Judaism.  Christ’s entire ministry, as recorded in the gospels, can be understood as the antithesis of Judaism.  The founding fathers of Judaism are not the Old Testament patriarchs but rather the first century Pharisees.  The claim of the Pharisees is that the Old Testament was but the minor part of God’s law, and that the more important part was given orally to Aaron, who transmitted it orally to his descendants and then to the Pharisees themselves.  The Talmud, the governing document of Judaism, consists of the writings and debates of the Pharisees, who used the purported existence of this unwritten law to undermine and amend much of the written law of Moses.  The few Jews who reject the Talmud are considered a fringe cult by mainstream Judaism.

So if Judaism is not the same faith as the Old Testament Israelites, we must still answer this claim that the Old Testament is a narrow, ethnocentric religion for Jews, that Christianity merely co-opted.  I suppose the objection some Alt Rightists would have with such a religion is not the ethnocentrism, but rather the fact that it is someone else’s ethnocentrism – and, of course, a narrowly ethnocentrist religion promoting one people is likely to be objectively false since it obviously serves propaganda purposes for elites in that society, who would have an incentive to invent it.  So is the Old Testament fundamentally ethnocentric?

In a certain sense, yes, in that it tells the story of one particular people as it narrows its focus from Adam to Noah to Abraham and his descendants.  But in the more important sense, it is not, for the entire history of Israel as recorded in the Old Testament is not one of glory, promoting the Israelites over all people, but rather a story of Israel’s faults, failures and unfaithfulness.  Abraham is portrayed as a liar and coward, Jacob as a trickster and deceiver.  The Israelites themselves are portrayed as the most ungrateful, whiny, cowardly, bitchy group of people imaginable.  After being liberated from slavery in Egypt, and witnessing the supernatural parting of the Red Sea, within days they are complaining about having to rough it in the desert.  After taking posession of Canaan, they immediately degenerate into all kinds of lawlessness and chaos.  King David is a coward, adulterer and murderer, a weak man, unwilling to take decisive action, whose loyalty to his rebellious son, Absalom, and contempt for those trying to protect him, nearly becomes his undoing.  David’s son, Solomon, despite an early period of wisdom, proceeds to idolatry to appease his foreign wives, and then nearly bankrupts the kingdom through his building projects, such that the short-lived Kingdom of Israel splits in two upon his death.

The Old Testament is unlike any piece of ancient literature, in that it tells the history of one particular people, but mostly shows how feckless and worthless they are despite God’s condescending to favor them based on promises to their fathers.  An entire book of the Old Testament, Hosea, is dedicated to God’s calling of a prophet to literally cuckold himself by marrying a whore, a bit of “performance art” to show the unfaithfulness of Israel.  What precedent is there for an “ethnocentric” work to compare the people it supposedly lauds to an adulterous whore, an offense punishable by death in the ancient world?

The needle is threaded in the New Testament, where Christ consistently speaks mostly positively of the Romans, declaring the Roman centurion to have greater faith than all of Israel.  Pilate is portrayed as a sympathetic, tragic figure, caught between his desire for justice and a gaggle of troublemaking, scheming Jews demanding the death of an innocent man.  Christ himself declared that had his miracles been performed in Gentile cities, they would have immediately repented.  Consistently, the Pharisees are portrayed as power-hungry schemers completely uninterested in actual evidence.  The Christians taught that God dramatically demonstrated his love for humanity in picking the most contemptible part of it, the Israelites, as his own, before dramatically revealing himself universally at the coming of Christ:

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. – Matthew 21:43

Ancient and historical Christianity defined itself as fundamentally anti-Jewish.  Alt Right critics point to modern Christians’ support for Zionism as evidence of the tainted roots of Christianity in undermining our people’s sense of their interests, a sort of false consciousness to borrow from Marx.  This is very easy to explain: first, this is a very American affliction.  Christians in Europe, West and East, are not particularly Zionist.  Americans are afflicted by this due to the influence of the Scofield Bible, which popularized the near-heretical doctrine of dispensationalism.  Whereas the universal testimony of Christianity prior to Scofield was that the Church had replaced Israel as God’s Chosen (or had really been God’s chosen all along), Scofield affirmed the opposite, that the “church age” was a temporary pause in Biblical history before God would resume his plans for the Jews.

The United States has always been the breeding ground for various cults, and the cult of Zionism is no exception.  While those who adhere to dispensationalism are Christian in an essential sense, they are completely out-of-line with the historical Church and its teachings.  I agree that Christian Zionism is a form of false consciousness, but to ascribe its defects, the result of the American religious fever swamp, to Christianity as a whole, historically, is not logical.

In the next and final installment of this series I will recommend practical action for Alt Rightists considering the merits of Christianity.