True North Points East?...

Alternative Right writer Andy Nowicki demonstrates the illogic that must be harnessed to defend Christianity in this article.

He writes,

What is more, it is only through a transcendentalist creed like Christianity that one is enabled to advocate for justice for one’s own people, because only a transcendent, universalist perspective gives one the obligation to stand up for what is right, good, and proper.

And then he “borrows” an old C.S. Lewis gambit to try to drive home his point.

In Mein Kampf, the mustachioed one thunders against the “November criminals” whom, he believed, betrayed his country at the end of World War I. He also inveighs against the harsh and vindictive terms of the Versailles treaty, which seemed to be designed specially to humiliate Germans.

…Hitler seems to be making the point that his people have been treated unfairly, and deserve redress. This is well and good… but then Hitler’s patently atheistic and social Darwinist views seem to undermine whatever moral case could have been made against the legitimate grievances he expressed previously. Germany needs to crush its enemies, and show no mercy—weakness must not be tolerated, ever, at any juncture—Might Makes Right—the strong dominate the weak—such is the way of nature.

Of course what Mr. Nowicki, and Mr. Lewis before him, must do (with a terrific amount of obtuseness), is pretend not to notice that Hitler was pleading his case to the German people exclusively and not to the universe, or “mankind” at large.

Mein Kampf was a letter from a German to a German. It was not addressed to the world and made no appeal to a universal presupposition of morality.

What Mr. Nowicki and company are not willing to comprehend is that there is no universal morality. And particular morals very from race to race, era to era and from place to place.

That is why interracial marriage was viewed as immoral and illegal just two generations ago by all, but is considered ethical and moral by many today.

That is why homosexuality and gay marriage were viewed as immoral and illegal just one generation ago, but is deemed respectable and acceptable by many today.

And yet, what do all of those generations have in common?  The majority of them adhered to the Christian religion.

But this is what happens when you attempt to base your morality on an inconsistent foreign system which functions as a creed rather than a natural reaction endemic to your own kind.

 Even the writings of the Bible make no effort to purport a universal morality. Every significant figure within the Old and New Testament demonstrates a schizophrenic sense of right and wrong. From Yahweh crying over the ill treatment of his people but having no qualms about slaughtering women and children in “the promised land” to Jesus angrily beating moneychangers one minute then kicking back for a few beers with tax collectors the next (one minute his kingdom “is not of this world” the next a man-made stone building is his “my house”)

Mr. Nowicki continues,

In other words, where is the claim to justice? And indeed, in the wake of the devastation of World War II, why are we supposed to shed crocodile tears for battered, bombed-out Dresden, for the victims of merciless Allied aerial raids on civilian centers in Hamburg and Berlin and elsewhere? How can we, why should we feel the least bit sorry for Germany, following Hitler’s own Nietzschian-Darwinian-derived worship of ruthless strength?

Funny thing is I don’t recall seeing a single crocodile tear or even remorse for the atrocities committed against Germany outside of Germany.

Quite the opposite, I see annual celebrations of the atrocities by Mr. Nowicki’s universal-morality-minded Christian fellow travelers, i.e. the victors of WWII.

But of course it should be pointed out that the allies view of WWII was shaped and formed, in large part, by jews; a non-European people.

So again, one side has one set of particular morals and the other side has another. 

Not that that is a bad thing in and of itself. Each race does in fact have its own morality and notions of law and justice, and each one is valid to each people.

Of course the fact that the “Christian worldview” is so malleable is another demonstration of its lack of consistent standard.

Mr. Nowicki continues,

The Christian conception of things is quite different. It insists, not that might makes right, but that a just cause is a just cause, whether it be temporally triumphant or not.

And with that Mr. Nowicki successfully demolishes his own position. If there is a “Christian conception of things” and if it is indeed “quite different” then it is hardly universal, now is it.

In ‘Mere Christianty’ C.S. Lewis made the unconvincing argument that there is a universal morality that exists in all places and all times and is acknowledged by all, and that Christianity simply articulates the obvious. Attila the Hun would disagree, of course, but then so does Mr. Nowicki in that last quote.

 Mr. Nowicki continues

If a nation or a race is oppressed, then it has valid grounds to seek redress. Just as individuals possess the inherent dignity of being children of God, so does a particular subset of humanity.

This is a rather generous over extrapolation of a non-existent textual statement to the matter. Which is why so many of Mr. Nowicki’s “brothers and sisters in Christ” deny the reality of both nations (ethnic groups) and races.

Then Mr. Nowicki hits us with this assertion/back-track/comedy,

The notion that Christianity makes white Westerners into meek little lambs fit for racial dilution, if not slaughter, is thus a crass and ill-informed misconception. For it is in the context of Christianity—or some other universal vision of humanity and human justice—that White advocates can be sure of the worthiness of their cause.

Umm…

“Christianity—or some other universal vision of humanity and human justice”

Not to be a smart-ass or anything, but isn’t the notion of multiple universals an oxymoron?

This is twice, in the same article, that Mr. Nowicki has discredited his own argument.

Mr. Nowicki stumbles on,

Christianity enjoins all people and all races to be mindful of justice, regardless of who is strong and who is weak.

Well, no, actually, it doesn’t.

If anything, the Old Testament flip-flops between orders to conquer and slaughter and orders to submit and die, while the New Testament says the same, except in a more subdued manner. Which is to say, it instructs its adherents to simply adapt to their ever-changing predicaments. See Romans, chapter 13 for a case in point.

In other words, the bible (and Christianity by extension) has no single standard, or concept, of justice or morality. It is, quite literally, all over the map.

Sometimes its inconsistencies are unintentionally humorous,

"And I [Jesus] say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do."
(Luke 12:4)

"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him."
(John 7:1)

 And other times they are downright revealing,

“love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”

 -Jesus, Matthew 5:44

 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law”

 

Jesus, Matt. 10:34

Either way, the Bible fails on multiple fronts to present itself as anything other than the incoherent ramblings of a bunch of uncivilized, backwater sand peoples from the orient. Which, in reality, is precisely what it is. 

If there is anything universal in or about it, its in the fact that its tenets are universally debated and argued about the world over.  

 ...