Thursday, April 27, 2017

When principles become another term for idolatry.

When the conservative huffs, "I have my principles, and I won't sacrifice them - even if it elects Hillary! Even if it leads to this church being destroyed!", the expectation is we're supposed to say, "Wow, you're admirable! You're not giving up no matter what is threatened!"

Here's the part that goes unrealized nowadays: a commitment to one's principles is only admirable if the principles are worth the sacrifice. When the principles aren't all that valuable at all, the zealous preservation of them isn't admirable - especially not for a Christian. It's just another form of idolatry.

Watching Christians insist that they will fight Trump to the last because he talked about pussy-grabbing once and also he endorses protectionism and THEY are proud free-traders? They've got principles like Peter Singer does. Fucking rotten ones. The man who tries to make Peter Singer forsake his principles, all else being equal, may well have my admiration.

11 comments:

believingperpetuum said...

Crude, what are your thoughts on the whole syria incident?

It appears that the chemical attack was most likely a false flag, and Trump reacted to it in a completely unprecedented way, by apparently betraying his isolationist principles and striking a syrian base as retaliation.

Now there are some explanations as to why Trump would do something like this, ranging from him wanting to defang the "Russian interference" narrative to him using the strike primarily as a way to convince China to start acting against North Korea.

Of course, there is the whole theory that Trump has been compromised by the neocons.

After all, Trump's own daughter said in an interview about her own personal political opinions that she wouldn't rule out accepting migrants into the country, and Eric even stated on twitter that Ivanka influenced Trump on the decision to strike syria.

Many are using this as a reason to propose that Ivanka will also get Trump to abandon many of his other policies if she persuaded him to strike syria.

What do you think about that?

Mike said...

The surest sign that politics has become a religion is how often people describe what are prudential decisions in strikingly moral language. It is immoral to attack free trade.

Really? I could probably look up a list of sins worthy of hell fire and not once in 2000 years of thought by learned, godly men did anyone from an Apostle, to Billy Graham think that such policies will put you at odds with the Living God.

Amos Bellomy said...

believing,

I'm not Crude, but given how complex the geopolitical situation is right now I tend to doubt it was something as simple as "The neocons got in his ear".

Did Trump ever really bill himself as an isolationist anyway? People were hoping he'd turn out that way, but I don't think he ever promised to hols that particular position.

Crude said...

BP,

Well, a few things.

One, Trump never campaigned as a guy promising utter isolationism on the order of 'We completely stay out of all overseas military affairs.' One possibly solution to the refugee issue he floated was 'establish a safe zone in Syria', which isn't going to happen on its own.

Second, I don't have total faith in Trump. I never did. I said from the start, I see him as a means to an end - he's a cultural symbol first and foremost, and he also happens to be promising some amazing policies. On both fronts he's paid off, but he's always been a gamble, and somewhat unpredictable. (People who reference what he campaigned on sometimes forget that Trump the campaigner also had a nasty habit of going off-message at times.)

The worry of 'Is Ivanka/Jared getting to him?' relies on a few ideas I find sketchy. First, 'she's masterminding him now, despite being utterly incapable of this previously'. Second, 'she's the only one who can influence him, and he'll keep listening to her even if her decisions make him hated by his base and possibly deeply disagree with his other children'. Third, most doubtful of all - 'Trump is a figure who can be controlled.'

I think he's a wild card, and has always been one. This is a man who will get up at 5am and tweet 'The previous president had my wires tapped!' and set the news cycle on fire. He'll suddenly throw 50+ missiles at a target with pretty much no warning.

In other words, I think he's the same Trump I saw on the campaign trail. Get ready for 4-8 years of nonstop high-stakes dice rolls. I would not be shocked to see him announce a peaceful arrangement with North Korea, only to turn the whole place into craters 8 hours later with a tweet like 'Never trust a fat kid with a bad haircut. Tubby tried to double cross. Bad move!'

Damian Michael said...

...only to turn the whole place into craters 8 hours later with a tweet like 'Never trust a fat kid with a bad haircut. Tubby tried to double cross. Bad move!'

I know that war, especially nuclear war, is not funny, but damn that was a hilarious line!

Mike said...

If I weren't already banned, I probably would be banned for noting that in Jeff's post, the sides he mentions come down rather cleanly along Jew/Gentile lines. It's actually kinda amazing that I have yet to see a single Jewish commentator point out that nationalism is returning, it's a fact and Jews have a choice of either riding it with the nationalists or against them. That is why I have said that Israel's most rational course would be for Netanyahu to fly to a Le Pen or AfD rally and say "Just as Israel is for the Jews, I say Germany is for the Germans and France is for the French. Zionism is nationalism, and all true nationalists are brothers in arms against the specter of globalism." (Followed by a mic drop, and walking off the stage for dramatic effect)

Mike said...

I wonder if they really struggle to understand how, in a nationalist context, self-identifying Jews would rather prefer to define down the concept of nation to "nebulous collection of people who identify as holding the same or compatible values." It's like how someone said that David Brooks is a "good Jew" despite conservative criticism because one of his American-born sons went to serve in Israel's military at 18 instead of joining one of our services. The very fact that that even makes sense to anyone other than kooks means on some level we understand that even if Ashkenazim are rather closely related to us by blood, they have self-selected out of our nation and participate as a different ethnos within the same polity.

Crude said...

People are collectively nuts over the jewish question, to the point where I think a claim like "Israel is controlled by the jews" would make most of them reflexively react with horror at such a crazy hateful conspiracy theory.

Mike said...

I read David French's attack on Coulter, and I think I figured out what a lot of the problem is: to these people, it's all intellectual. They truly think that good arguments alone are going to carry the day. French's argument is that even if the police won't protect them, by God the legislators and judges must man up! Oh really? What is a legislator or judge going to do when the whole executive branch will not enforce the statutes, constitution or judicial orders? Write another strongly worded letter? Conservatives like these are simply dumb-founded that the law is literally just a bunch of words if the state enforcers resolutely refuse to do their jobs.

Valtandor Nought said...

Mike,

I suspect that what they can't get is that the kinds of rule-of-law middle-class people whom they historically appealed to, and whom they want to appeal to, are disappearing. They inhabit a world that no longer exists, and they can't bring themselves to take up the case of, and lead, the native working class, whom they clearly scorn. But therein lies the problem: it's not an intellectual problem; it's an emotional one.

As an aside, I would find it amusing, if it weren't so tragic, that they speak of a "functioning government". If the government that matters is neglecting its most basic task - making and enforcing laws that allow people, as individuals or in groups, to get on with their lives in a more or less secure and orderly atmosphere - in what sense is such a government functioning?

By the way, Crude, good to see you back blogging again. I was beginning to think you'd vanished!

Crude said...

Hey Valt. Thanks - it's very on and off for me, I'm elsewhere doing things. But seeing W4 finally emerge to do its defiance dance seemed worth a comment.

The point about the working class seems dead on - watching W4 defend that rotten NR piece which celebrated the death of 'white communities' was a hell of a thing. Best of all, when I once said that the proper way to deal with the corruption in universities was to burn academia to the ground, there was a chill over there - in part because at least a few of them are closely tied with academia. So, even though academic culture is heavily SJW-infested, toxic, and even dangerous for the right, it must remain.

It's the poor (specifically poor whites) who are supposed to suck it up, leave, and enter a totally new line of employment. Not them.