Why I’m Not an Activist


Research has a minor place in the scheme of things because research is dependent on an objective researcher and an objective examiner of the research. But man is not an objective creature. He does not use his reason to determine what is true; he uses his reason to defend that which he wants to be true. Is there then no way out of the rationalist dilemma? Yes, there is:
“You can prove anything with figures; and reason can lead you anywhere; but if you’ve got a real strong feeling about something, deep-seated and unshakable, it is bound to be right.”

— P. C. Wren in Bubble Reputation (Cited at CWNY). H/T to H.Mucklewrath.


While my shift in attitude over the years wont be of much interest to my readers, I believe I’ve struck upon a few conclusions that might be of overall interest:

I spent the entirety of my intellectual development (up to a few years ago) assuming without thought, the attitude of an apologist.  “Apologists”, so I thought, were the knights of the new democratic world order, where men attacked with ideals instead of force of arms.  I envisioned Sunday School classrooms like rural aristocratic courtyards, where young squires were trained in the art of rhetorical warfare, and upon graduation, were set loose upon a hoard of slobbering Satanists.

That the Sunday Schools of America were woefully inept for even this much training, was shelved and unconsidered.  And that the slobbering Satanists had vastly superior training grounds only intensified the glory of the intellectual contest.  We’d beat them despite their scientific institutions – the way Rocky beat the Russian; with guts and passion.

I got so good at this sort of rhetorical combat, atheists began avoiding the arguments all together.  But here-in I discovered a truth – one that the antique-Conservatives had known all along:  ideals *never* sway passion.  Rather, the passions sway the ideals.  As the heart, so the mouth speaketh…

Stalwart Reformed Kinists disagree here.  This point runs counter to their preferred dogmatics, which claim a man’s intellect guides his heart (or that the two are bound in such a way that the intellect and heart are ostensibly united, but that the intellect wins out in practice).  To say otherwise would damage the strictly rational apologetic these men were so passionate about.

I was passionate about it as well and tried to reconcile the antique-Conservative “heart” with the Reformed intellect:


The distinction between “heart” and “mind” is sometimes construed (in the philosophical literature) as a distinction between dispositions and intentional states.

I’m convinced that if we construe what is normally meant by “heart” (in western literature, as well as in certain Biblical texts) as an emotional disposition, then we can easily appropriate the antique-Conservative material into a Reformed framework.

Our emotional dispositions are intimately involved in the belief-forming process. For instance, consider Quines famous illustration. We have three beliefs:

1. Apollo is a god.
2. Gods are immortal.


3. We see Apollo die on the battlefield.


Now these three, at face value, are inconsistent. We must give up one of these beliefs, or all three.

Our emotional state determines which of the three propositions we are more devoted to maintaining. So, for instance, if we’re emotionally attached to 1, we might reject 2 (maybe gods aren’t immortal after all?) or we might reject 3 (maybe an evil witch hexed us on the battlefield and only made it appear as if Apollo died?). Or we might be more emotionally attached to 2, and reject 1 or 3 (or both). Or, we might be so emotionally attached to the reliability of our senses that we keep 3, but reject 1 or 2 (or both).

At this point, the only way we can save “reason” from the shifting “arrow of modus tollens”, is by suggesting that there is a “correct” emotional state.

Only the Christian worldview can provide this – God has created us to have certain emotional dispositions towards all the states of affairs we encounter, and only if we maintain this “regenerated” emotional state (ie: only if we have a regenerated heart) can we reason to the correct conclusions.

Poetically, we might refer to this as “thinking with a Christian heart” or some such.


Whatever the merits of this view (if any), I’m convinced that no apologetic will ever sway the heart of the zealous Satanist.  At best, apologetics simply annoy the Satanist and force him to jump through a few rhetorical hoops to rationalize his evil business; but his evil business will continue…and business (for the Satanists) is booming.

“Activism” is apologetics writ large.

I see it as prancing around with so many signs and flags, in a religious ceremony aimed at petitioning a minor deity of Satania – namely: “the people”.

“Please, dear people, hear our petitions and act accordingly!”

And it’s no mistake all the “conservative” activists are picking up the ways, means, and habits of all the vile degenerates who’ve pioneered “activist” strategies.  They’re copying the strategies because they’ve copied the theory – that is: they believe the nature of man is plastic and able, with enough rational engineering, to be molded into the desired form.

This is in stark contrast with the antique-conservative view.  STARK STARK STARK contrast!

The “conservative” activist needs to be active on his farm or homestead, or in his local area of influence, actively working away at children and community stability.  The “conservative” activist, to save himself, must either flee the offending Satanic encroachments, resist them when possible, or suffer under them … but the conservative can’t play the liberal’s game of trying to shape and mold his neighbors.

This is an evil desire and, while it seems temporarily successful for the Satanists, can’t yield anything other than Satanic fruit for the would-be conservative activists.

…or so it seems to me…

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Why I’m Not an Activist

  1. Swiss Kinist says:

    God’s ways are not our ways; good points. The way to defeat the enemy is through prayer and through godliness, including godly families. And the church must “come out from among them” and be separate (2Cor 6:14) and begin to form communities that are independent of the world’s system. The Amish have the right idea in that aspect; combine their separation with Rushdoony’s dominion and actual real holiness and prayer, and the enemy will be on the run.

  2. Matt Parrott says:

    I see it as prancing around with so many signs and flags, in a religious ceremony aimed at petitioning a minor deity of Satania – namely: “the people”.

    Everybody has their own reasons for activism, but that’s certainly never been mine. My reason for activism is simpler than that. I must fight them.

    If it wins hearts and minds, great. If we get clicks, great. If we trigger a revolution, great.

    But I absolutely will not look myself in the mirror and look back at a man who mumbled a bunch of evasive and cowardly nonsense about retreating into prayer and family when the enemies mortally threatened my faith, family, and folk. Whether we win against Satan or not is out of my hands, but whenever and wherever possible, I will resist. I will fight. And I will aid and support the other men fighting Satan with little regard for my theological and personal differences with them.

    There’s an obligation to fight effectively and intelligently. The Lord granted me a brain, and I do what I can with it. It’s why I’m not a suicide bomber, because to do so would not achieve any goals for my faith, family, and folk. But it’s important to fight them even when–especially when–we don’t seem to be winning, we don’t seem to have a path forward, and we don’t have our folk, our women, or our pastors at our backs.

    I hope with time and reflection that you’ll identify this melancholy bout of retreatism for what it is and rejoin us.

    • I doubt any of my friends who participate in activism care enough about my opinions to be discouraged by them; if any are, then I humbly apologize. I don’t want to dampen spirits or detract from their efforts (certainly not yours).

      Still – you say “fight”, but are you ready to pull triggers?

      When I think of pulling triggers, my conscience condemns me. I couldn’t assassinate someone, even someone as vile as Tim Wise. I couldn’t help but see it as murder; and I’m no murderer.

      Now – I’d gladly challenge the man to a duel and kill him that way, but our society doesn’t care about that, nor would the coward take me up on the offer. If we did live in a society that allowed for that, we could make short work of the most vocal Satanists in no time.

      Barring that, any martial jargon among our folk will be metaphorical … and that sort of crusade for hearts, in my reluctant opinion, is doomed.

      Even if we *were* in dire enough straights to pull triggers (in some revolutionary action), at whom would we aim?

      Far better, in my view, to flee and establish ourselves elsewhere while waiting for the inevitable collapse.

      • Matt Parrott says:

        There will be no collapse, and the prevailing narrative in our circles that it will all inevitably and imminently implode on itself is toxic and must be condemned precisely because it provides a false justification for inaction and indifference.

        The system’s systems will all steadily plug along, gradually weakening on account of its blood poisoning and the steady ascent of competing global regions and their elites. But there’s no sign of anything collapsing…much less a sign that we would actually be in a position to profit from such a collapse.

        You take the Far Right’s fundamental failure to grasp what it means to fight, what it means to be a warrior, to its logical extreme with your insistence on fisticuffs and dueling. This is why I give antiquarians a hard time, because there are moments, like this one, where not distinguishing between conservation and tradition proves paralytic or worse.

        We must fight by the means available to us, with the technologies and tactics most suited to advancing our cause. ISIS gets this. ISIS grasps that their pursuit of a medieval Islamic caliphate requires YouTube propaganda, onion-routing encrypted communication frameworks, and other means of asymmetrical massively distributed fourth-generation warfare.

        If we want a medieval Christian kingdom, we must do the same (…minus the gruesome beheadings and wanton debauchery and Israeli shekels, of course).

        You do realize that the weapons for dueling and sparring were at one point innovations, right? The brave men of yore were relying on what was then state-of-the-art metallurgy and gunsmithing to fight.

        The innumerable future generations of our kin who are relying upon so very few of us can’t afford for us to be lacking in imagination, agility, persistence, and pluck. For legality and humility’s sake, I’ll refrain from answering your question about whether I would pull the trigger if that were the tactically optimal thing to do. But it’s not the tactically optimal thing to do, anyway.

        The tactically optimal thing to do is to instantiate a youthful vanguard of Christian legionnaires, plug them into the overarching global struggle against the Jews and capitalists at the helm of this machine, and inspire them by our own unflagging examples of courage and sacrifice in the face of insurmountable odds. The tactically optimal thing to do is to declare who we are and why we fight as eloquently and effectively as possible, then make a public stand to prove our words are more than empty rhetoric.

        Put concisely, that’s why the street protests are so pivotal. As humble and conventionally silly as they may seem, they breathe life into our rhetoric.

        Thinking in mass political terms, analogizing what we’re doing to sixties protest shenanigans, what we’re doing is indeed pathetic and pointless. But if that public stand provokes a fight, then our cause wins, regardless of whether we win or not. If we’re overwhelmed at our upcoming event (which all signs point to being the case), then I’ll win a more important battle than the actual street fight taking place or even the general battle for our specific projects.

        I’ll win the personal struggle to be among the dwindling number of Western men who invested themselves entirely and without reservation in struggling for his faith, family, and folk.

  3. Swiss Kinist says:

    The question is not really whether or not we should fight, but how we should fight. If we are not building solid Christian communities on a small scale (in various locations), and we are just all individuals scattered across the vast continent, having internet debates and so on, then nothing will be accomplished. Whether collapse comes or not, the best option is to build communities.

    And the arm of the flesh will not prevail against the enemy. Building solid Christian communities that obey the voice of the LORD in all areas of life is in a way a foundation. Then afterward, perhaps “activism”, but as units (communities) rather than a few individuals scattered here and there. We have been too busy trying to build upon no foundation. Let us first seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness in every area of life and practice. There is no aspect of “retreat-ism” in this approach.

    God bless you my brothers; may Christ Jesus be glorified here on earth, even as in heaven.

  4. Matt Parrott says:

    God bless you, too, Swiss Kinist.

    But you’re presenting a false dichotomy. A man can pursue a Christian community and family, while also standing his ground. Though, for the subset of young men for whom a Christian family is not an option for them, the point is mute.

  5. Swiss Kinist says:

    You do not necessary need to have a large family in order to be part of a community. And I agree, you can do both. I am not pitting one against the other. I simply said that one is the foundation and you cannot build upon no foundation.

  6. Parrott,

    Say what you’d like about strategy and the future of our great republic (re: will it stand or collapse)… I’m not selling my soul to gain some small recognition from the Satanists.

    By “sell my soul”, I mean, take up the attitudes, mindsets, and ideals, of the Satanists – one such ideal, being that we can mold and shape the natures of our neighbors through proper educational techniques.

    I remember a poem where King Arthur unleashes his knights on his enemies, but his knights were so brutal and unChristlike that, when they won, Arthur cried.

  7. weavercht says:

    While you’re right that the “irrational” is what drives us, it is right to influence our community. Ideally you have a healthy culture, which is of course rooted in faith, and it’s best to live virtuously and so set a positive example for others.

    As to how to deal with outsiders, that’s different. As you say, you might not be able to attack from a position of weakness.

    Americans don’t really have communities, but villages of old, as well as city-states, would have enjoyed real communities. Nevertheless, we are a social being. So if we are rejecting mass society, we must try to live within our own community.

    There’s a danger in the Protestant mind that man is an individual, not a social being. Rightly, man is both. And the community’s culture should be of his concern.

  8. weavercht says:

    Regarding activists/politicians: It’s helpful to be a vain sociopath, manipulative.

    I once read a quote that went something like, “Politics isn’t for Christians”.

    I don’t mean to imply that I wouldn’t be more of an activist, had I the time. But it is an evil thing. I’ve read that the Orthodox, or at least Byzantines, view the concept of a “holy warrior” an absurd oxymoron.

  9. Gordon Baum had it figured out. He built a large and solid family, raised them as Christians, and still fought the fight. Yet for all his moral high ground and hours of sacrifice his golden moment was destroying the antifa rabble that attacked the CofCC picnic in Missouri.

    Does being ‘Amish’/old believers with teeth count as being an Activist?

    I will say that I debated a devil worshipper and he called me four years later and said that he’d decided to become a Christian due to our conversation. One never knows the seeds we plant when we engage in apologetics.

  10. It is not Christian to maintain a Quaker-like pacifism in the face of an enemy like the liberals and the colored barbarians, who are alternately the liberals’ gods and their henchmen.—CWNY

  11. Skyagusta says:

    Excellent article, and I agree 100%. Rightist activism is an oxymoron, and sets us up for failure. We should address our appeals for survival to “The People,” the very instrument of our destruction? Can anyone imagine Forrest or Jackson standing on a corner holding a dinky sign, or encouraging others to do the same? If they could see that some of those who are attempting to uphold their legacy are doing so, they would no doubt wish us to go ahead and surrender, for the sake of retaining our dignity if nothing else.
    Traditional societies stayed that way for one reason – leadership represented by the aristocracy. Regaining or rebuilding a traditional society can only be done through the same means – leaders dictating their will to the People, not petitioning them. No doubt we need to grow in order to assert our influence – how to do that, outside of activism? Targeted recruitment. The capable and intelligent natural aristocrats will most assuredly *not* be swayed by sign-holders and clever chants. However, they may be swayed by targeted recruitment coming from other intelligent, capable people.
    Southern traditionalists and Rightists must therefore strive to become leaders and aristocrats themselves, and selectively choosing other natural aristocrats to win over to our side. “Activism” as currently practiced is counter-productive in every way – it targets the wrong people through the wrong means.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s