The Common (((God)))Gang Huckster of The Alternative Sphere, Death of The Logos Cult & “The Appeal to Faith” fallacy

Note: These comments of course do not apply to all Christians in the Alt Right.  There are many examples of race realists who do important and admirable work that identify as Christian.  I won’t mention them personally for fear they don’t desire the endorsement.  Their attachment to Christianity, I believe, is often related to a generally healthy instinct to honor the Gods and ways of their fathers. These comments do, however, apply to a certain zealous and belligerent strand of Christianity within the Alt Right and adjacent spheres. 

Some of you will have seen the “debate” between Jay Dyer and myself on Ralph Retort.  I had come to contrast paradigms as Jay Dyer might put it.  I had been invited by Jay Dyer via the Ralph Retort to discuss the Religious parables of the Bible.  Jay styles himself a “debater” among other things.  I know little about Jay and his work.  It was my first public debate which by itself would not have been a problem.

My debate partner and the whole affair, in general, struck me as wholly unserious.  Ralph himself seems like a fair, sincere, likable guy but his emphasis is on a common entertainment.  Smug behavior, acrimony, mockery between debaters, implied or otherwise, and a vaguely WWE atmosphere is what audience members are looking for.  Jay’s style fits the bill perfectly. Hence the climate was not conducive to a serious discussion of important ideas.

Apparently some portion of Jay’s audience had been urging him to debate me because my ground breaking analysis of Biblical texts had become disruptive to his common, rote superstitious “interpretations” of the same material.  For instance,  he claims to believe the following parables to have occurred as actual events.  1) Moses’ parting of the Red Sea, 2) Noah’s nautical transport of all the animal species on earth to safety during the flood and 3) the parables of the Garden of Eden including a talking or telepathically communicative snake.  I argue they are parables as all reasonable men understand them to be.

My work indicates strongly that they are also imbued with JEM (Jewish Esoteric Moralization). Incidentally this would seem to make Jay’s “analysis” on Hollywood Esoteric Symbolism deeply flawed from the outset.  After all Jewish artists, as my study shows, are constantly referencing Biblical works in their Art, including, if not especially, the New Testament. There it is evident Jews understand these Biblical parables, which they created, to, of course, be parables.  Though I am not familiar with Jay’s specific thoughts on Hollywood, knowing his Religious position, I assure you he approaches the problem with massive blindspots.

In any case, Jay Dyer’s plan this evening was to present his baseless superstitious position and then obfuscate my own position through the “rules of debate.” He accomplished this through a liberal use of trivial objections designed to divert attention from the topic being discussed. It was, in truth, pure high school debate team chicanery and tedious in the extreme.  It was a very unserious discussion and Jay, as far as I can tell, is an unserious thinker.

Adults and men in particular, of course, do not typically debate in this disingenuous fashion.  For instance, never once has one seen such foolishness appear even in the sometimes carnival like Presidential debates. Ideally men allow other men to state their position and don’t attempt to mischaracterize them toward the audience.

Honest men are actually interested in knowing the arguments of the opponents and allowing their audience to know these positions as well.  A debater confident in his ideas would not be interested in obfuscating his opponents ideas. But this is Jay.  And though I’ve largely ignored the uninteresting trajectory of his work, I am now aware of this.

Jay’s been called the Destiny of the Right and my discussion with him has been compared a debate Michael Enoch had with Halsey English.  These are references that I am more or less familiar with.  The upshot is this: one party came to debate in good faith, with a sound position, and the other, with a Religious and superstitious position, looked to tie up the other in sophistic tangle so as to actually prevent the examination of either position.

At some point Jay announced that debate had been won from his side because I had admitted to being a “relativist” and therefore could not designate degenerate from non-degenerate (I was describing to him my idea of the Apollo cult versus the Dionysian cult).  In truth, I can’t remember when I admitted to being a relativist (because the debate itself was tedious and forgettable). What is clear is that Jay had no interest in having me present my position clearly.

Jay Dyer’s plan this evening was to present his baseless superstitious position and then obfuscate my own position through the “rules of debate.”

Brahmin the Particularist (“Relativist”?!) and Jay the Universalist

In any case, the Objectivist/Relativist dichotomy is one popularized especially by the work of the Jewish atheist Ayn Rand. Many a callow college dorm debates have been conducted where one sophomore is taking the Objectivist position and another sophomore or Freshmen is taking the relativist position, using this or that example.

Occasionally one gets a relativist Jew to admit there is an objective morality by reminding him that the Holocaust is “objectively evil.”  What this accomplishes is unclear.  Most people have lost interest in this simple discussion by Junior year.

I think I was thrown for a loop because I found it odd that Dyer was questioning my ability to discern between degenerate and non-degenerate (and I will address what I believe to be his spurious claim to this right below).  After all, I had implicitly granted him the right to make these distinctions himself, despite the fact that he doesn’t seem like an especially moral or honest type, even with his elaborate religious pretensions.

In any case, the real relevant dichotomy is between particularist and universalist as post-Randian adults in the Alternative Right are aware.  I am a particularist and Jay is a universalist. Christianity, understood at face value, is a universalist faith exoterically concerned for the welfare, and especially heavenly salvation, of all human groups.  Aside from the superstitious and “traditionalist” trappings of the Church, it is by far in a way the “liberal position,” when compared to particularism.

I, on the other hand, believe what is Good for Whites, defines Good.  This includes projecting an appearance and/or reality of “virtue” both inwardly, to the in group, and outwardly, toward out groups.  It’s akin to the Jewish perspective yet from a White perspective. This, in my view, is a much more sound and clear moral position from which to operate.  “Christian values” on the other hand are ostensibly developed from the sometime contradictory commands and parables of the Jewish authored Biblical works.

I actually think Jay fully understands my position, he was just hoping to mischaracterize it and score “points.” That he might believe these “points” would lead useful and sound thinkers to believe his position more sound than mind, seems misguided.  As far as the ideas go, only a declining minority believe Jay’s irrational ideas about the Bible.  So it is actually unclear as to what he was hoping to accomplish.

The Death of the Logos Cult and its Achilles’ Heel

Jay’s claim that I had no basis to determine what was degenerate or non-degenerate is  interesting and strange. Here he appeared to be indicating that he, on the other hand, had a basis by which to determine things either degenerate or non-degenerate.

Ultimately it may not be a position he has fully thought out himself.  Of course everyman, equipped with reason, has this ability. Men have always possessed reason, so far as we understand the term, to one extent or another.  I, of course, had granted Jay this basis for himself to make these distinctions between degenerate and non-degenerate. 

Jay’s basis to claim that he has a right to determine between degenerate and non-degenerate stems, of course, from his faith. Here, among these sometimes contradictory commands and mysterious Biblical events, it is suggested, he finds “objective” morality. It’s worth looking at the moral commands and instructions of that the faith briefly.

“Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land Yahweh your God is giving you.”  — Exodus 20:12

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, and, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” — Luke 14:26

The Biblical works contain many such examples where what exactly is indicated as moral or immoral is unclear.  Always a priest must be on hand to explain.  It is, if nothing else, job security for priests and for whoever else happens to make it the brand of their business.

But there is something more specific here I suspect. The Alt Right/Alt Lite Christians of late have become addicted to the concept of Logos.  It appears to have permeated across at least two sects of this cult. Michael E. Jones, a person with whom I’ve had pleasant interactions, appears to be at the head of this campaign.

Briefly, in the gospel of John, “Logos” becomes associated with Christ.  There Logos is Christ.  Logos, in this context, may simply mean “word” (which I argue) or it may mean “reason.”  Jones, so far as I understand him, explains Logos as meaning “reason” and also “order.”  Hence God becomes the necessary ordering element of the universe.

Maybe in a sense this harkens to the idea of Apollo as a God of order and harmony versus Bacchus as a God of madness.  As I pointed out in our discussion, Roman mythographers considered Bacchus and Yahweh the same God.  In other words, this idea of the Jewish God as a God of order or even Order Incarnate is not something Romans, at least, would have agreed with.

I had written about Logos as this term was starting to fly around the Alt Right in a Christian context.  Yet I had never considered a possible “practical” utility of this formation except that it indicated Christianity as “reasonable” as opposed to the emotional and superstitious cult that our Roman forebears knew it to be. As I pointed out in my article on Logos, pathos and ethos are much clearer and stronger elements of that cult.

However it seems to follow as well, at least based on this interpretation, that Christ ALONE is “reason.”   This seems possibly to be at least one of Jay Dyer’s operating principles.  It may as well explain, in part, why he has styled himself a “logician” and debater (as opposed to a priest).

This would also tend to explain why he’s so quick with this handy fallacy claims whenever his opponent appears he might gain a head of steam.  In a sense, he’s God’s lawyer.  And God needs a good one especially if he requires one believe in the cartoonish stories of the Bible.

Of course the Achilles’ heel to all this is that John was written by a man, likely a Jew.  Thus there is no actual reason to believe God or Christ is “Reason.”  It is in the end: a simple “Appeal to Faith” fallacy.  Hence if Jay’s claim is that “God (or Christ) is Reason” and therefore he can determine what is objective, based presumably on a perfect interpretation of this God, he should be reminded that this is premised on a fallacy and not a legitimate claim.

The argument becomes even easier if Jay makes the claim that the commandments and parables of Christianity, Orthodoxy or otherwise, contain a clear, objective morality or set of moral instructions, when, as shown above, they plainly do not.  But even if they were clear and consistent, the idea that the commandments or moral instructions of the Bible are divinely delivered or the events of the Bible make them true or “objective,” is, again, a simple “Appeal to Faith” fallacy.

Then again the absurdity of all these fallacy claims is revealed when one understands that from Descartes hyperbolic doubt, everything, save oneself, can be usurped with an “Appeal to Faith” objection.

Thus debate is only useful between two honest and sane men advocating for things they believe to be true. Insane men or dishonest men, forced to defend what one would normally consider plainly false or untenable, naturally would develop their intelligence toward the deceptive sophistic tactics described above.

Meaning of the Alt Right Christian Zealot Cults

Edward Gibbon talks about personal superstitious cults becoming rife during the fall of Rome. The situation is in some ways no different now.

Yet when universally accepted, Christianity was relatively normal and normal behaving because everyone adhered to it in a more or less default, perfunctory, nominalist, corporate way. In other words, its madness, for long, various periods, was mitigated by the innate health of the flock. Of course there were always the true-believing, glassy eyed zealots and, as well, the opportunistic, narcissistic, priestly hucksters.

As it declines among the White race, however, the main let go and its adherents increasingly are the zealots, increasingly desperate, increasingly isolated.  It does find a little growth room, however, in the presently demoralized Alt Right.  There it finds some over anxious men who need at least a power substitute and so look for it in drugs and opiates like Christianity.

The current Republican party, essentially a Christian party, demonstrates the uselessness of Christianity in politics.  One does not lack for Christians here.  “But they are not the real Christians!”a Christian might complain about literally any other Christian.

Its a cliched slur against the Alt Right that the Alt Right is just the SJWs from the other side, yet this is actually true with this new superstitious, zealot brand of Christianity at least vis-a-vis the non-Christian Alt Right.

These zealots are frequently more interested in mischaracterizing, slandering, harming and ostracizing intellectual opponents, when they can’t convert them, than dealing with them in an intellectually honest way.  There is, at present, certainly no evidence that they are more “moral” than their secular or pagan counterparts. There is strong evidence that they are less honest.

If Christians in general have greater fecundity than others, in the absence of a healthy Aryan alternative Religion or Culture, this can’t be pointed to as indicating greater morality by any civilized standard. After all, Mexicans, Indians, Africans and Islamites also have greater fecundity.  This should be a concern for them because theoretically “morality” is their brand.

Likewise the zealot Christian Right, to the extent it is “anti-Semitic” or uncharacteristically “racist,” becomes a ready tool for Leftist propagandists.  The ADL recently released a video featuring “hate speech” on youtube.  Every single clip included a Bible-thumping Christian anti-Semite. The ADL knows this is a bad look vis-a-vis White Nationalists.

Rolling forth Biblical arguments against Jews, or even for political change more generally, is the perfect way to sound completely unhinged. Hence Christian zealotry is discrediting to Whites. It asks the normal White “do you really want to join this lunatic brigade?” 

Indeed, Trump rode improbably into the White House not on an emphasis of Christian piety, which only enrages rival Christian sects when the candidate is outside of their brand, but on nominalism.  This may be the only model in politics for the moment at least in America. But a day fast approaches when even this will become unnecessary.  There will be a day after that when no one trusts a Christian.  

As far as my work versus Jay’s, the supposed subject of that aborted debate, men can judge for themselves on this site and his.  Useful sane men will come to the conclusion that mine is more original, more compelling and more true.  Deceivers, mad men and fools are not our concern and it is right that some works and some men act as sifters.