vs. Walsh & Tucker
I can use this segment from Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with Matt Walsh (both Christians) to show what the priest of the sacred words—an anti-Christian admirer of Nazi paganism—has in common with American conservatives. Let’s consider the values that, according to Walsh, those who share them are essentially on his side. According to Walsh, the first value is:
1) Objective truth
Here we seem to be in complete agreement.
But as commenter Gaedhal has said, when it comes to approaching the New Testament from the standpoint of objective truth, conservative Christians are more primitive than liberal Christians. Quite a few of the latter are aware of the historiographical problems that have been raised for centuries about 1st century Christian writings. In contrast, people like Walsh, Tucker, and racialist Christians generally ignore the issue, although it is evident that there is an objective truth regarding the historicity of the New Testament stories. If you ignore it, you are basically ignoring this first value.
If all these conservatives educated themselves honestly on the subject, they would realise that there is not even evidence for the existence of Jesus, and the same could be said about the existence of the Jewish god, whom both Walsh and Tucker worship.
Curiously, both recognise that everything stems from there: from objective truth. But if this pair and the Christians of the racial right don’t even dare to discuss the issue, we can assume that when it comes to Judeo-Christianity, they are not interested in such a thing as objective truth.
The next thing Walsh mentions is:
2) Preserving American identity in particular: the institution of the family (and therefore the institution of marriage), and Western civilisation in general.
Note that not for a second do these two Christians talk about preserving the white race, which is what the priest would mention as the priority. It is from the 14 words that one understands the need for the institution of marriage[1], which only makes sense if both husband and wife are whites. To the conservative question of what we are trying to conserve, my answer would be: the DNA of the Aryans.
It is precisely because of this omission that Walsh and Tucker later criticise multi-culturalism. The religion of this pair doesn’t allow them to criticise the multi-racial society that the US has become. (When an Aryan marries a coloured, for the priest of the sacred words s/he sins against the holy spirit of life.)
_________
[1] Remember that my favourite films are Sense & Sensibility (1995), and Pride & Prejudice (2005).
2 replies on “Tort”
See also what I recently said about Richard Spencer’s interview with Nick Fuentes.
On a side note, I think I too have an acknowledgement of objective truth in common with them, however muted their perception is due to the Christian bias. In a (revealed religions) godless universe I would draw objectivity from an observation of Natural physicalism itself (or to a degree from mathematics – I think Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems actually support me in this) i.e. there is a tangible world out there and tangible categories for empiricism to define, and such a thing pleasing to our eyes as Beauty (the best manifestation of truth in physical form), which is one of the reasons I shy aware from pure phenomenological idealism.
Much as I acknowledge their existence, at a level of biology we have not yet unified adequately with physics (particularly in relation to consciousness – and I think it’s physics’ fault over that), at a macroscopic scale that differs from the microcosm I think the world in itself is more than a set of stochastic processes or Markov chains, and thus I think there is a concrete ‘now’ to observe, however fuzzy the boundaries, at least which can be observed, just as there is a ‘then’ that can later be referred to, and there is more than empty space and the void to be filled only with abstract ideas – there is a discrete way things are to distinguish from how they are not, by pragmatic epistemology. One can reach out and feel their hand press against the warm bark of a flourishing tree. Ironically, given that objective truth is by definition independent of our minds (perhaps of any mind) it still seems to rely on there being Life at all in the universe to acknowledge it, whilst benefitting from it.
Perhaps I’m taking the wrong direction in thinking about all this. I had to make it clearer to myself as one who does not believe truth stems from their god. In my real life I find myself bending over backwards with convoluted ‘explanations’ to put to others as I’m practically surrounded by subjective relativists day to day, left to phrase, with increasing difficulty, what should be merely obvious (I dedicated a chapter of my essays book in 2024 to dealing with their sophistry and solipsism). I agree with them that an agreement on there being such thing as external truth lies at the foundation of all meaningful human communication (the logic of transactional inquiry that underpins rationality). The alternative is to fall to superstition and a priori protologic, or indeed nihilism.
With this Beauty evident throughout the natural world in its unviolated state, why do they even need their god? Quite aside from sacrificing our Aryan DNA for their egalitarian cowardice, I do not see conservatives ever really going out of their way to cultivate a Romantic spirit with regard to preserving Nature’s sacred truth.