I almost got into a fight yesterday and while the other gentleman backed down, the conflict (as far as I know) remains unresolved and I expect further trouble Wednesday.
Is it unChristlike to be excited about it?
A further question: Was this God’s way of reprimanding me for my recent posts on apologetics (including my list of arguments against miscegenation)?
Here’s what I mean:
Suppose a few democrats become stranded on an island. None of them are Christian (it’s only by a Satanic turn in history that people claiming Christ also claim democracy). Not having a pre-existing infrastructure in place, they revert to a primal state of association, with a formal assumption of equality among all members of the party. Something like the following conversation results:
Democrat A: I’d like to bring a motion to the group. I move that we stay near the water and eat fish.
Democrat B: I’d like to raise a counter-proposal. I move that we go inland and search for food.
Democrat C: I move we put the proposals to vote and Dem D will act as chairman. All in favor of A say Aye, all in favor of B, say Aye.
Democrat D: The A’s have it.
Of course, Democrat B isn’t going to accept this. He’ll move for dismissal of the vote by lodging a formal protest. By appealing to the rationality of the others, he’s affirming (implicitly) that their course of action should be decided by determining which adheres closest to a mutually-agreed-upon standard — say, “survival” for instance.
Oftentimes, however, the mutually-agreed-upon-standard is only formal. Or, it’s “ceremonial” in a way. In other words, people have different agendas — different standards — but instead of formally voicing their intent to adhere to their personal standard, they lie and pretend that they’re really adhering to the formal standard that everyone else has already agreed upon and which is usually regarded as sensible on the surface (no one would deny that “survival” is a sensible standard in the island-situation).
For instance, Democrat B may have had his pride damaged as a result of the vote. It may seem (so he thinks) that the others have rejected his position because they don’t see it as rational, implying subsequently, that Democrat B is also not rational. So, Democrat B now has a vested interest in reiterating his initial position, not because he’s interested in which course of action will best lend to the survivability of the group, but because he’s trying to redeem himself.
This happens to people all the time, even when they’re not stranded on deserted islands.
Apologetics is the use of arguments to persuade people that your position (or, to keep with the illustration: your desired course of action) best adheres to a formally agreed-upon standard. Before the voting process, Democrat A and Democrat B would both act as apologists for their positions and try to persuade the other democrats.
Now, let me apply this to arguments against race-mixing.
There is a formal standard that we’re all adhering to in the debate. All parties in the debate are usually attempting to determine which position would best lead to the happiness and comfort of humanity.
But that’s only the formal (or ceremonial) standard. The real standards — the underlying goals and motivations of the two parties — are dramatically different.
The race-mixers are religiously devoted to destroying old Christian Europe and rubbing out the memory of it.
The antique-Europeans are equally devoted to restoring old Europe and dismantling the kingdom of Satan.
The two are fundamentally opposed and to think that the one will yield to the other because of a sound set of reasoning or apologetic arguments, is the height of naivete.
I would even claim that it’s dishonest and the act of a coward to argue for a formal standard as a way to implement a personal agenda. Why not be very forthright about your desires?
Democracy (like contemporary Christendom) has bred dishonest and effeminate cowards who, under the guise of “reason” are trying to annihilate everything I love.
…and that calls for a sword, not a pen.
“His credit, not his crime, was non compliance with a wicked time.”