Cultural Diversity Update

Tweets trying to avoid the implications of the Paris shootings

It was only in a series of Facebook interchanges with a FB friend on the topic of the Syrian refugees that I really understood for the first time how much liberals hate Western culture. I could not understand why he did not care about the potential damage to host countries. That same ‘friend’ is reposting tweets on FB. “If we don’t use reason in the face of evil and murder and horror, then what good is reason at all?” “Don’t allow this horrific act to allow you to be drawn into the loss of your humanity or tolerance. That is the intended outcome.” “Wanna shatter the Islamist extremist worldview? Show them we aren’t separate or different and don’t hate each and can be eternal friends.” “You know what pissed off Islamist extremists the most about Europe? It was watching their very humane, moral response to the refugee crisis.” “I pray that not all immigrants are lumped into a mass of hatred. Most of them flee this very same kind of terror, not cause it.”

The tweets desperately try to forestall drawing logical, rational conclusions about the wisdom of Muslim immigration to Europe from the Paris shootings.

Self-Sealing Fallacy

Philosophers refer to something called “the self-sealing fallacy.” This fallacy occurs when a factual claim is made and a counter-example is provided refuting the original claim. The person making the factual claim then amends his original statement to make it immune to counter-examples by producing a tautology – a statement true by definition.

All children like ice cream.

But Judy is a child and she doesn’t like ice cream.

Judy isn’t a real child at all. Real children love ice cream.

The last statement makes it true by definition that children like ice cream. This forestalls refutation through counter-example. However, one has gone from making a factual claim about the world to producing a tautology that is not saying anything about the world anymore; it is merely an arbitrary and silly attempt to redefine a word for one’s own purposes.

Self-Sealing Fallacy and Muslim Immigration

My claim: welcoming millions of Syrian refugees into Europe is likely to cause problems. One of them is that within that population is likely to be individuals who see it as their mission to destroy Western culture. Another problem is that the refugees in their extremely large numbers are likely to significantly harm that culture in predictable and unpredictable ways. Cultural suicide is a bad idea for immigrants and the host culture. Among other things, in inviting a sizable immigrant population in with a culture incompatible with and hostile to the host culture, one risks creating the very conditions (violent and/or impoverished, “intolerance”) that the immigrant population is fleeing.

The following are quotations from an article published by Quartz supporting my position:

“The prospect of homegrown help in carrying out the attacks is why security experts warn that the kind of violence Paris saw last night will be difficult to stop. Courting followers in the West is one of the aims of ISIL’s formidable propaganda machine. And indeed, the group has had success attracting European recruits to their ranks, particularly from France. The return of these radicals back home after indoctrination in Syria is a nightmare scenario for the security services.”

“Estimates published in January by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence put the number of people from France who have gone to fight for ISIL and like-minded militant groups in Iraq and Syria at 1,200, out of around 4,000 from western Europe. (Another estimate published in June put the ranks of French fighters at 1,500.)”

“The best way to guard against the burgeoning threat of local terror cells is better intelligence at home and abroad…” [!!!]

“France has one of the largest Muslim populations in western Europe. Many disillusioned young men among them live in bleak outer-city estates near Paris with chronically high unemployment and little integration with mainstream French society. These people are prime targets for jihadist recruiters, as shown by the worryingly high flow of indoctrinated locals between France and ISIL strongholds.”

http://qz.com/550215/complicity-from-the-inside-frances-biggest-worry-after-the-attacks-in-paris/

His claim: Jesus does not refer to cultural suicide. He didn’t object to Roman domination of Jerusalem. He promoted the golden rule. The FB friend says if he were a refugee in Europe, “I would like others to welcome me? Celebrate my existence? Treat me as a human being not as a threat?” …”What would it do to my head, being a refugee in a foreign country, scared, alone, fleeing war – and finding that people in my host country look at me as a dark invader, someone with plans to destroy them, or even who could destroy them without meaning to, just by merely existing?”

My claim: we are not talking about a single immigrant. We are talking about millions. A drop of water is harmless, a flood, potentially devastating.

His claim: “The notion of “cultural suicide” is not something I see anywhere in Jesus’ teaching. But I do see a lot of references to leaving one’s family, changing one’s heart and mind, being transformed, and being compassionate to widows, orphans, outcasts, foreigners, and the poor. And many references to embracing all cultures. Jesus’ strongest opposition seemed to come from the cultural conservatives of his nation – a nation whose religion was under siege by secular Rome, but the community Jesus built seemed to deliberately transcend all social and cultural divisions. And his followers, particularly Paul, celebrated that. ‘In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile…’ As Gentiles ourselves, ‘wild olives, grafted into the tree’, how can we claim some special primary religious status for ‘Western’ culture, being such a hybrid as it is?

It’s very hard for me to translate any part of the Gospels, frankly, into, ‘we must keep immigrants out of our country’.”

My claim: we regard cultural murder as wrong. People have a right to determine the manner in which they live. Cultural diversity makes the world a more interesting place. Moving in, taking over and effectively destroying another culture is a crime. Cultural suicide is self-murder. Thus it is wrong. The liberal immediately recognizes that harming Maori, Papua New Guinean, Amazon rain forest tribes is wrong and that the world is made poorer when these peoples disappear as peoples.

A belated understanding – the consequences of liberal self-hatred

This is when I had my belated epiphany and truly thoroughly understood the liberal dynamic for the first time. Our Christian heritage with its roots in Greece and Rome is what makes Western civilization distinctive and helped the emergence of modern science through its belief in truth as an important value and the notion that the universe is fundamentally intelligible. Even an atheist should not disavow the culture of which he is a product, especially a science-loving one. If one wants a reason to be proud of Western culture, one can look at the literary canon for examples. Dante’s Divine Comedy, Cervantes’ Don Quixote, Shakespeare, nearly all Dostoevsky, some Tolstoy, etc. However, liberals have attacked this canon as supposedly sexist and immoral products of the patriarchy. Some think because the canon has been used in some cases as a kind of test to divide the educated from the uneducated it is oppressive. Hating one’s history and one’s culture is to wish that one had never been born. But this hatred only applies to Western culture. To reject all Chinese culture on the same grounds would be seen as ethnocentric and intolerant. As René Girard says, in the liberal view, all cultures should be nurtured and cherished except our own. Cultural self-hatred is one’s ticket of admission to liberal self-righteousness. Liberals want to destroy themselves in the name of morality. It is similar to students who think that to be truly moral and tolerant they should tolerate evil. The more evil they tolerate, the more they demonstrate their moral rectitude.

This hatred of Western culture and supposed love of every other cultures makes rational discussion difficult or impossible. Analogies between the harm caused by Western imperialism and modern Western immigration policies mean nothing to the liberal. We are evil and deserve every harm we may encounter. Only the Other is good and deserving of preservation, sympathy and tolerance. This perversity has become a major characteristic of Western culture. Self-hatred leads to self-annihilation.

My claim: many of the immigrants are likely to be hostile to multiculturalism, tolerance, the nonpunitive treatment of women and all the things the liberal espouses. You are hostile to those who oppose these things in your own culture. Why are you so friendly and welcoming to those hostile to your ideals from another culture?

Do I have evidence for this?

See his retweet: “The Paris terrorists didn’t hit tourist sites, but places that epitomize the city’s vibrant multicultural life.”

This is supposed to support his position somehow but in fact it supports mine.

My claim: the mass importation of immigrants is a bad idea. The Paris shootings support my claim.

His claim: He sees the shootings as evidence that we must continue to promote multiculturalism in Europe and mass immigration of Muslims to historically Christian European cultures. We must definitely not change our minds about the wisdom of this immigration. The shootings must not be taken as proof that mass immigration is a bad idea.

As far as I can tell, his claim that multiculturalism is a good idea and that accepting millions of Syrian refugees is a good thing is immune to counter-example. He regards it as a moral truth and as a tautology. It seems that the more atrocities occur, the more entrenched his position, judging from the retweets; the more we must support multiculturalism. It is important to remember, however, that tautologies are not statements of fact about the real world. They are just playing with words and matters of (re)definition. “All bachelors are unmarried men” is not a statement about the world. We did not discover this inductively; by doing a survey. It is true by definition.

A test as to whether something is a factual claim or not is whether one could postulate a hypothetical counter-example. In other words, one must be able to think of a purely counterfactual hypothetical state of affairs that would mean that one’s factual claim had been proved wrong. For instance, one would be wrong that Usain Bolt was the fastest sprinter on Earth if one found someone else who was faster.

If however one says that everyone is selfish (factual claim), one need only provide one counter-example of altruistic behavior to refute the factual claim. One can “save” the claim that everyone is selfish if one then says “even when people are acting altruistically, people are still getting some pleasure or other out of their actions so their actions are in fact self-serving” then one gets a tautology. To prove that the claim is instead a meaningful factual claim one must be able to describe a counterfactual scenario where an action would not be selfish, otherwise one is saying that all actions whatsoever are selfish by definition.

What is happening is that the word “selfish” is being redefined to include anything from which one may profit. But in fact the word “selfish” means an exclusive concern for one’s own welfare. One is allowed to benefit from being unselfish. If one is not allowed to benefit from being unselfish one is led to the contradiction that unselfish people are selfish.

48 thoughts on “Cultural Diversity Update

  1. Pingback: Cultural Diversity Update | Neoreactive

  2. Cultural Marxists are just as much of an enemy as Muslims in my eyes.

    These events should wake up any one with a semblance of reason. Hopefully, the time for vengeance has come and the French and Western Europeans will wake up and drive out the Marxists, Muslims, and their enablers.

    This event is so big and hard to cover that it can’t be swept under the rug like Rotterdam and it comes right after the moralizing regarding Syrian “refugees”.

    The backlash to this will be so brutal and harsh, it will make Vlad Dracula look like limp-wrist. But it will be fair.

    • Svar: The existence of Cultural Marxists does seem to indicate that we are trying as hard as we can to self-destruct as much as the Muslim radicals are trying to exterminate us. Since our ruling elite are these Cultural Marxists…I’m not sure where we go from here.

    • Breivik acted out a Koranic scenario and killed people who were merely the children of the real miscreants, people who hadn’t done anything, so I could not possibly endorse him or excuse him. Nevertheless, I can put his act in context. That context is the civil war in Europe, driven by the importation of savagely inassimilable people under the suicidal doctrine of multiculturalism. That civil war has just manifested itself in another major episode, but has been in progress for at least a decade. The European civil war will involve numerous factions, like the civil war that dissolved Yugoslavia, but it will also be much longer and bloodier than the violence in ex-Yugoslavia.

      Look not to Breivik or his kith. Look to Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party in the Netherlands, who might well be the de facto leader of the West at the present moment, or to Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National in France, or Prime Minister Orban of Hungary. Wilders will probably be the next prime minister of his country. Once one European country enacts the policies that Wilders advocates, it will have a domino-effect on the rest of Europe. This might actually already have happened in Hungary, which si refusing to be overrun by “refugees.”

    • Jim, we are defending a civilization which forbids that, let the opposition debase themselves. We are fighting a war which Christ has already won for us. But if you want to win battles too, then chalk up every act of civility a victory.

      My own sense of things is that there is little that one man can do except prepare yourself and your family for what’s coming. Teach your children the Gospel and also right thinking — which, in case they are teenagers, means urge them to be liberals. Ha ha.

    • Stephen-already there I guess, but at this rate I’m now comfortable saying that we have to prepare for what’s HERE.

      Dig in for the long haul, boys and girls. Keep writing, keep making friends, keep learning how to defend yourselves, and most importantly keep praying. Nothing short of a miracle is needed. And don’t let people espouse any of this nonsense they’ve been trying to shove down our throats for the past several centuries without calling them out on it anymore.

    • >Any solutions other than “don’t do anything” then?

      Restrict immigration (already done, albeit late), deport persons with sketchy or no documents, curtail freedom of certain religions, abandon liberalism.

      Note that not a single one of these solutions involve homicide.

      France (and Europe) reached the state it’s in due to its softness and lack of moral character. Consider the analogy of a human body. A person who lives an active, disciplined life will be more robust than one who does whatever (eating bad food, ingesting all sorts of chemicals, sexual licentiousness) and is less likely to require drastic surgical interventions later in life.

      Violence may be necessary but that’s because France (and Europe) abandoned the principles of living rightly as nations and states centuries ago–yes, even before the dreaded Dubya Dubya One. It’s PC-hatefact to acknowledge this, but taking over, colonizing and exploiting the heck out of far off countries will only end well if you totally destroy the people you’re bullying. (And genocide is always and everywhere wrong). Conservatives tend to cite sexual depravity, moral relativism and irreligion as some of Europeans’ extravagances, but mistreatment of lesser peoples is one they tend to ignore.

      This is not to say that Islam is a-OK is a fine religion. It is a vicious collection of lies from Lucifer himself. I’d be happy if the last faithful Muslim recites the Tawhid in hell, but I would be happier and a faithful Christian if I got that Muslim to recite the Nicene Creed instead.

      • @Aethelfrith

        First, nice handle! Second, you said: “Note that not a single one of these solutions involve homicide.” I suppose this is really the crux of the issue and, to the extent I’m interested in discussing violence as an option, this is it: many men now believe that none of the solutions you proposed – deportations, restrictions, abandoning Liberalism, curtailing the Freedom of Religion (for anyone but Christians, anyway) – has a snowball’s chance in hell of occurring peacefully. And that is the question many men are asking themselves nowadays: in a world where there are some very imminent, life-threatening perils, and where the elites running our governments seem actually to promote these evils for their own agenda, and where the great mass of people remain inert and demagogued, men wonder what their moral options *and obligations* may be. I think there are critical moral questions that do need to be hashed out, precisely because so many Reactionaries are good men and do not want to engage in pointless bloodshed – or, any bloodshed, if there is a feasible path that avoids it.

        But, is there? I personally think we could have a “velvet revolution” in this country, if simply the people showed up with force of arms. I think our enemies are cowards who depend upon our docility and meekness. But as Dr. Cocks points out, these people are destroying our civilization, our culture, our people, and are doing so rapidly. There is no justification for this. There is every justification for opposing. Therefore, the question becomes: what are the moral options and obligations for opposing?

    • Cui-Amen! (Well, except crashing someone who texts and drives since I’m about as guilty of that as can be.)

      Aeth-Yeah, I think we can agree on everything you just said. BUT how do you plan to enact any of these policies? My point was that there is a huge group of people, especially among the most powerful, who genuinely believe in a materialist utopia of interchangeable human cogs, and they tolerate no deviance from their ideology, AND they are willing to kill and let many people die for it. It remains to be seen if they themselves are willing to die for it.

      Like I said: specific people made specific decisions to make this happen. I hope something can be achieved peacefully and within the rule of law, but I don’t think so at this point.

    • “And “paranoia?” Is that even a serious statement? The bodies aren’t even cold yet, Paris is on lock-down, and the entire establishment is still planning to import millions of invaders into the heart of Europe. Nothing I’ve said here has contradicted the brute reality of the situation.”

      Exactly. What exactly are we supposed to be paranoid of again? Did the Paris bombings not actually happen? Are we not being browbeating into taking in “refugees?” Are these things not happening?

    • “Violence may be necessary but that’s because France (and Europe) abandoned the principles of living rightly as nations and states centuries ago–yes, even before the dreaded Dubya Dubya One. It’s PC-hatefact to acknowledge this, but taking over, colonizing and exploiting the heck out of far off countries will only end well if you totally destroy the people you’re bullying. (And genocide is always and everywhere wrong). Conservatives tend to cite sexual depravity, moral relativism and irreligion as some of Europeans’ extravagances, but mistreatment of lesser peoples is one they tend to ignore.”

      How is that a hatefact? That’s what every Cultural Marxist professor says about France and the nations of Europe. It’s probably the most PC thing I’ve ever read here.

      Considering that every nation has committed acts of conquest, does Europe deserve reparations from the Arab world (LOL, I think we just got them) and from Mongolia? Besides, America has done the same sort of thing and yet our problems do not stem from “taking over, colonizing and exploiting the heck out of far off countries “.

      And Muslims don’t belong in Anatolia, the Maghreb, or the Levant (let alone Europe) considering how those were all Christian lands.

      What is really happening is that we ignored the moral of the Aesop’s specifically, the Farmer and the Snake. We let a dangerous animal into our home and we got bit. It shouldn’t surprise us.

    • Jim–Pretty much everything the Church taught from its first centuries and its witnesses (martyrs) practiced is the solution. Not the solution to the specific, pressing problems of today, but the perennial problem of human life on earth. Rome becoming Christian did not stop it from falling; but those who remained ministered to those who survived.

      The Christians who take their faith seriously and are willing to suffer long for it have always, and will always, be vastly outnumbered by those who are coasting or those who going-along-to-get-along. But even a single candle can eventually light an entire building (as shown in the Paschal Matins of the Orthodox Church).

    • Listen, guys: you can’t kill people to solve your problems.

      Sr Mary Joseph, is that you? Are you well? How I miss circle sharing time and a rousing round of Kumbaya! Hearing your voice . . . it’s like gas lines, malaise, and Billy Beer never ended! Any progress in learning how to tune your guitar?

    • The Christians who take their faith seriously and are willing to suffer long for it have always, and will always, be vastly outnumbered by those who are coasting or those who going-along-to-get-along. But even a single candle can eventually light an entire building (as shown in the Paschal Matins of the Orthodox Church).”

      So Charles Martel, St. Joan of Arc, Franco, and Fr. Torquemada were NOT serious Christians?

      Good to know. I didn’t know that defending your countries from Muslims was so unChristian, the Crusaders shouldn’t have interfered and just have let Middle Eastern Christians get raped and murdered (and not necessarily in that order, look it up).

    • Dr. Bill,

      I don’t get the pop cultural reference (other than the references to the Carter years) and I also don’t deny that to save France as we know it, her enemies will have to be killed. However, such a drastic measure is akin to a surgical intervention to treat a preventable cancer–it will be bloody, *it may fail,* and in the first place, had the patient lived healthily, it would not have been necessary.

      • I think you’re largely right, Aeth: we would still be left with all our problems even if every muslim were expelled from Christian lands. But it doesn’t mean we can’t work on both problems. Piety reinforces practicality in my experience. Humans, like C.S. Lewis observed, are “amphibious,” we ignore the spirit to the detriment of the body and vice versa.

      • @Aethelfrith

        It’s pretty hard to see that in what you wrote, though, which was that restricting immigration is the solution and that killing people wouldn’t solve our problems.

        Our choice is plainly between quietism and violence. Political engagement will do nothing, nothing, that is, except unwisely grant dignity to either the party of Sodom or the party of Mammon. I don’t think violence will work, but that is a prudential judgement.

        The pop culture reference is to Catholic religious education classes of the seventies. Nowadays, of course, they are not taught by nuns, because there are no nuns. There is no longer any Kumbaya, badly played guitar, or sharing exercises either—the clowns seem to have got the message that running around in public with their red noses on is not actually a good idea. The classes have not improved. Now they just lack content entirely.

        By the way, is clowning without clown make-up a thing now? I’ve seen a couple of shows recently with make-up-free clowns. Can’t say I liked it. It did help with one thing. I now know that it isn’t the make-up, or at least not only the make-up, that makes me afraid of clowns. It’s something else.

  3. Siding with resentment, which is what liberals do, is the easiest type of mimesis; because it is easiest, it is also the most powerful. Christianity asks people not to resent and not to side with resentment, which means that Christianity, which has defined the West, is a more difficult religion than others – particularly Islam, which, like liberalism, articulates its crude positions around resentment and a matching self-righteousness. When liberals use terms like “Christer” and dismiss Christianity as a “crutch” for weak people, they merely demonstrate their own intellectual weakness and ignorance, which the whole educational system has been restructured to reinforce. Liberalism preserves that weakness against the strength of reality by constructing a second reality. That’s what your tweeters are doing. And that is what the Western governing elites who set immigration policy have been doing for decades.

    • Christianity is most definitely not a crutch but from what I’ve seen, lots of weak people use it as one.

      There is a difference between people who desperately need to believe and those who just do.

  4. He’s a hack, a narcissist, and a shameless self-promoter, but I think Vox Day’s rules are relevant here:

    1. SJWs always lie
    2. SJWs always project their own failings onto others
    3. SJWs never understand reasoned dialectic
    4. SJWs always double-down on their positions ESPECIALLY when those positions are proven wrong

    Replace “SJW” with your favorite word for these people: liberal, communist, cultural Marxist (my personal preference, since it makes them so angry), nihilist (probably the most fitting term as shown by Seraphim Rose), whatever else you can think of. They’re all the same (though I think “libtard” just sounds, well, retarded, so don’t use that one).

    Trying to reason with this guy may be pointless other than to show others how crazy people like him really are. In my experience they don’t even hear what you say.

    • Jim – Yes. I’m not trying to reason with him anymore. As you say, he’s just an example of a particular kind of craziness. I’m still glad we had our little to and fro because I felt like I finally properly understood the liberal mindset. I knew that Dances With Wolves, for instance, was just an inversion of Indians bad, White guys good. But I don’t think I had fully realized that we were still stuck in a bad 1980s movie or how this related to immigration policy.

      • YOU DON’T LIKE BAD 80’s MOVIES?!!!! BLASPHEMER!!!

        But kidding aside, a few years ago my old college newspaper actually featured an article about how Thanksgiving is racist and a shame. This would just be your typical histrionics if not for one difference: he actually cited MOVIES (Dances with Wolves, A man called Horse, and so on) as accurate portrayals of our “bleak history.” It was his only source for his beliefs. These people are beyond parody.

        I’ve never understood how any of them think, even though I’ve personally known many. Unfortunately, it’s about the easiest thing in the world to predict what they’ll say and do. As soon as I saw the news on Paris, I knew there would be this sort of reaction and that there would be a bunch of people laying flowers and lighting candles on sidewalks instead of purchasing firearms. It’s really starting to become unbearably disgusting. Cowardice is the worst of the vices, in my opinion.

        This really has hit me harder even than 9-11, since after that incident I still was under the delusion that the West would actually do something and take its own side. Now I realize that the barbarians are not only in the gates they’re throwing a mass-sacrificial blood orgy to celebrate.

  5. Tom: That sounds right about the second reality. The incongruity and contradictions involve the first reality, not their imaginary second. Not surprisingly, I still wish that something at all could count as a counter-example.

    • My sense of things is grim, Richard. If 3000 Americans dead on 9/11 weren’t a sufficient counter-example, how can 150 Frenchmen dead on 10/13 be one? Perhaps the small difference between the two incidents might count: Most of the victims of 9/11 (not, of course, the ones on the hijacked airliners) never knew fully what was happening to them; but the victims of the Islamic mass-murderers in Paris in all likelihood did know what was happening to them. As the details of this massacre in the name of Allah emerge, their survivors will have to deal with a terrible picture of just what their deceased family members and friends must have known in the last seconds of their lives.

      • The difference is that 9/11 was somewhat “out of the blue,” but 11/13 comes after 14 years of an ascendant, radical Islam… not to mention in the midst of a crisis of Moslem invaders, migrants and interlopers throughout Europe, and the growing visibility of the corruption and venality of the elites. There have been growing nationalist movements for a few years, now, and this is likely to fuel that sentiment. The internet has also developed a bit since then, and the tension between media narratives and factual information is always growing.

        It is a volatile time, and that’s an understatement.

  6. Regarding that tweeter who cited the commands of Jesus, it is a gross distortion of the Gospel and an obscene usurpation of moral standing for a government to forgive offenders on behalf of the injured or to extend a self-abandoning and culture-abandoning level of charity to needy strangers on behalf of the people. Buckley described it nicely: A takes from B and gives it to C. Conclusion: C is deserving, B is greedy and A is a generous man.

    Christ does indeed command His followers to be self-abandoning in our charity but the decision to follow Christ belongs to each of us not to someone sitting in a palace.

    • Stephen – Yes. That makes sense. I also don’t like it when people claim moral superiority, they care, for asserting that someone else should do something.

  7. Christians were prominent in calls for unilateral disarmament before WWII; they were (and, I imagine, are) prominent in the similar position of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I assume, however, that they were outnumbered by cynical manipulators of various persuasions. Let me add a major caveat about “Christians” in this context. There are plenty of very active SJWs who so label themselves, and my acid test is simple: do you believe that Jesus actually, physically rose from the dead, and was subsequently present, in the flesh, to his disciples? There is a disheartening number of priests, ministers and pastors who cannot answer “yes” to that question, as all here will know. This is not necessarily the case with SJWs, but it is surprisingly prevalent. The “social gospel” becomes for them a substitute faith, and a motivator to “good works.” How about your interlocutor?

    The especially fascinating part of the public hand-wring and virtue signalling of such people in Western societies is that they so often are calling for “the government” to act; that is, they are passionately committed to having someone else make the sacrifices, and to imposing such sacrifices on the society as a whole. It is also surprising how often SJWs in the US or in Australia will be outraged that European countries are closing their borders. The internet does wonders in enabling such remote empathy.

    That said, the Gospel (including Acts) is quite clear about the radical nature of the Christian life, and every now and then saints arise who actually live it out. The enduring popularity of St Francis is testimony to the recognition of their own shortcomings in so many Christians. When next someone uses Gospel arguments in support of country and culture destroying policies, ask him when he sold all his possessions, gave the money to the poor, and followed Jesus. There won’t be too many.

  8. Richard Cocks and I have both been fired from the same institution for our resolve not to play along with the suicidal agenda of modernity; and I have been fired from two other institutions for the same reason. I have taken risks and I have accepted the consequences, and so has Richard. Has Jim or “Cui” or Svar done the same? How serious are they when they won’t do what Richard and I – and Alan Roebuck and Kristor – do – appear in public under their real names.

    The Nietzschean argument is that liberals are people who want other people to act out their morality. Richard Cocks and I take a risk in publishing under our own names. We act on our own morality. Please make no mistake about it, we could be fired for participating in The Orthosphere. It would take one screaming crybully to effectuate the process. When pseudonymous commenters in Richard’s thread or mine or anyone’s make intemperate, bloody-minded statements, they are taking no risk on their own – they are leaving Richard or me, or anyone, to live with the consequences of their idea of morality.

    Just like liberals.

    Knock it off. Get your own goddamned website. Take your own risks.

    • As the writer of the article that got this thread started I have exercised editorial control. Please address any complaints to me. Some innocuous replies have been removed since the original statement no longer exists. As Thomas Bertonneau says, there are those of us writing under our real names and those who are not. It is unreasonable to expect us to be answerable for proposals that you yourselves are unwilling to take public responsibility for. Please maintain a minimum of civility and refrain from name-calling. There is also a difference between predicting a violent end and actively promoting it. The latter is illegal, at least in your own country, and immoral. As Tom says, I’ve been fired once, for unpopular views, though neither immoral nor illegal. That was enough.

      • Have it your way, but don’t say people did something they didn’t do. No one called you any names, or advocated anything illegal. Encouraging people to express their opinions and learn how to defend themselves isn’t illegal.

        If you’re uncomfortable, just write anonymously. It’s not a big deal.

        I know Dr. Cocks is new, but Dr. Bertonneau, was anything anyone wrote outside the range of what you expect on this website? Two of your articles are on Counter-Currents for goodness’ sake.

        I’m sorry you guys got fired, but we’ve all had backlash over our views, including myself.

      • Hi, Jim – The name calling was not aimed at me but at another. You were actually holding up for admiration someone who had done something illegal; presumably as a role model. I made the editorial changes after consultation with Dr. Bertonneau, but at my own discretion, the advice being that it’s up to me! Neither of us are calling anyone any names, certainly not cowards. It’s a common observation that internet anonymity is not conducive to civility, though it’s understandable why people would choose to be anonymous, especially if you plan to deviate from the party line. We are allies, as you say. If we can’t be polite to each other, then to whom? I don’t want my name or thread attached to condoning terrorism, homegrown or otherwise. I’m OK with saying that we may need to defend ourselves but not with calls for murder. It may come to a civil war in Europe but individuals shooting into crowds is the very thing we just witnessed and are condemning in Paris.

      • That’s fine. Your call. I’m more upset with Dr. B.

        But did I miss something? I still don’t know who was insulted.

    • Do you guys not approve comments now? You could have just not published them, and then said something like “hey guys chill-out” instead of calling your allies, who have been pretty civil on this thread considering how high emotions are running right now, cowards.

      And the comments were pretty tame considering what I’ve read on places like youtube or even major news outlets.

      I hope this doesn’t hurt our relationship Dr. B, but I don’t think you are really being fair to us.

      • Relax, Jim. If there is a delay in moderation of comments – yours or anyone else’s – it’s only because the moderators were all engaged in other activities for a while.

      • Religion should not be a personal matter since it concerns the fundamental nature of reality. If it is useless to one, it should then be useless to all. We would be obliged to say, to hell with it.

      • Oh it wasn’t about delay in moderation. It was that they left our comments up for a significant amount of time, responded to them, and then became really angry at us that they weren’t appropriate, but Dr. Cocks has cleared it up.

    • I’m surprised by this comment, Mr. Bertonneau. I’ve always tried to participate in this website in good faith, and thought I had made contributions that people valued. When have I asked you to act out “my” morality for me? How have I offended? How are you held responsible for the comments of others, pseudonymous or not?

      I post under a pseudonym because I am a monk, and I get a lot of supportive comments from men, and often get solicitations for advice and other things on my private email as a result of my comments. It is helpful to my humility, that people not know who I am. Monks have long had a tradition of making anonymous contributions to the intellectual and artistic world for this reason. It also helps those contributions to be evaluated objectively, rather than through human respect.

      I was scheduled to be ordained in 2010, and again in 2012. Both times it fell through because I stuck to my principles – opposing financial and sexual misconduct at my first, very comfortable monastery (and refusing to let the bishop buy my silence), and refusing to obtain the priesthood by simony when, at my next scheduled ordination, the vicar solicited a hefty “ordination fee” from me (yes, that’s what he called it)! A year later, working on my Master’s degree, my theological reading convinced me to become a Catholic. I won’t tell you all the troubles I ran into with that, but I’m sure you can imagine. And, in the attempt, I discovered the great crisis in the Church. Further reading convinced me that the sedevacantist view is really the correct one, from the principles of Catholic theology itself. And yes, this has also severely limited my options. I am an intelligent, polite man who have always received every position, for which I interviewed in my pre-monastic days. I have a Master’s Degree and extensive theological, liturgical, etc. training. But my “career” has been destroyed, in terms of public success, precisely because I do stick to my principles. I now live as an hermit, in penury; I have nothing to be fired from, other than the life of a quasi-hobo who has to go to the family cotton farm to use a computer and an internet connection. Don’t pity me; at this point I do it by choice – our Lady at Fatima mentioned the need for prayer, penance, reparation. The world needs more people doing this, so I don’t begrudge the life. But, I truly have little to risk at this point because I already lost so much. And who are you to call such things into question? And why? What have I done before to offend you personally?

      I think it is important that Catholics discuss the tough moral questions facing us at present: why has Western Civilization declined so badly, what are the premises of the ideological rot, and what are the moral means of reaction at our disposal? I agree that questions of violence, questions of separation from heterodox confessions and ideologies, etc., are difficult and even tragic matters. But they must be discussed and understood. I thought that was the point of the blog. Have people been participating in a way that is contrary to the purpose of your blog? What is its purpose, clearly stated? I will admit to being confused by it – it being listed in two Neoreactionary blogrolls, the quote from deMaistre at the top, these led me to believe it was a part of the Catholic Reaction, and that it therefore wished to address these topics seriously. They are not polite topics – yes, they are topics that get you fired and excluded from polite society, so it seems disingenuous to write with a real name while fearing such exclusion, and then to style one’s self a Reactionary against the system whose approval one still desires to have, at least at a bare minimum level. I don’t fault you for fearing that exclusion; to the extent that I fear loss, it is not social or professional exclusion, so much as a revanchist and punitive state, but I also fear, to some extent. But how can one be a Reactionary, while keeping one’s self to a mainstream, Protestantesque respectability?

      It is your blog, and certainly you have every right to set the parameters of participation; so, I say without any rancor, but in genuine curiosity: what is the point of your site? How do you want people to participate? Have you been intending to imply that you are a Reactionary/Neoreactionary site or do you wish to disavow that association? If you intend that association, then what does Reaction mean to you? What, specifically, has been unsatisfactory about my participation? As to asking others to act out “my morals,” I am a Catholic and don’t believe in “your” morals and “my” morals, but in plain old morals, which we have a duty to understand and act upon, all alike. Every Catholic should know that violence is not off the table, so why should it be odd to discuss the moral parameters involved?

    • “I have taken risks and I have accepted the consequences, and so has Richard. Has Jim or “Cui” or Svar done the same? How serious are they when they won’t do what Richard and I – and Alan Roebuck and Kristor – do – appear in public under their real names.”

      What did I do? I’ve never called any of the editors here cowards, FFS, don’t conflate me with Jim on every single issue because I agree with him on some stuff.

      “The Nietzschean argument is that liberals are people who want other people to act out their morality. Richard Cocks and I take a risk in publishing under our own names. We act on our own morality. Please make no mistake about it, we could be fired for participating in The Orthosphere. It would take one screaming crybully to effectuate the process. When pseudonymous commenters in Richard’s thread or mine or anyone’s make intemperate, bloody-minded statements, they are taking no risk on their own – they are leaving Richard or me, or anyone, to live with the consequences of their idea of morality.”

      I’ll just say this, I don’t support any of the attacks by deranged lone wolves but once the state is in our hands, liberals and their pets will get what’s coming to them.

      That is the ultimate goal no? To take control of the state?

    • I won’t presume to answer your question since this is not my house but I felt a sense of embarrassment after Professors Cocks and Bertonneau blew the whistle. Readers and commenters are guests, we sit at this table and enjoy the intellectual feasts that have been prepared for us. When we cross the line of decorum, when we figuratively extinguish our cigarettes by sticking them into our unfinished mashed potatoes, painstakingly prepared by the host for our nourishment, it is an embarrassment. And I’ve embarrassed myself too many times in the past to presume to say these things from any kind of position. We all do it and learn from it.

  9. I guess this is insensitive but here’s my initial reaction. They attacked a concert by a heavy metal band called “Eagles of Death.” The “Eagles of Death” fled the Muslim death (I’m probably would have run too). We have this death fixation, but when real death comes to us we run like a bunch of little girls.

  10. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/11/15) | The Reactivity Place

Comment

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s