In Praise of Beale
Some of my readers are apparently wondering how deeply I hate, loathe, and despise Vox Day, on the grounds that I sharply disagree with one idea he has.
If I understand his position, he believes race defines culture. I believe religion defines culture. Hence our view of human nature is different, hence the priorities we place on different political policies also differ.
This question of how much to hate a man who holds a different opinion on public issues is a Leftist question, since Leftist dogma states (1) no honest disagreement is ever possible between two men; (2) all disagreements, no matter how mild, are the sign and the effect of irremovable and profound hatred; (3) only profound hatred causes disagreement.
It is on these grounds that Leftist routinely characterize any lack of total and unthinking loyalty to their ideas as “hate speech” hence as an excuse for rioting (c.f. Milo at Berkeley).
As with all their dogmas, merely to state them in clear terms shows them to refute themselves.
(If to disagree with hate-speech laws is itself hate speech, by the same token so is support for such laws, or support for any proposition whatsoever, as it must disagree with someone, somewhere.)
The concept that gentlemen never have honest disagreements is risible.
Yes, there are points were my public statements disagree with the public statements of Vox Day. He is the Darkest of Dark Lords. I am the most severe of the Grand Inquisitors. We agree on most things. Who expects we should agree on all?
Perfect uniformity of thought is neither desirable nor possible, except among the most debased imaginable population of cringing helots, fearful of the scowl of Big Brother.
I confine my remark to helots, to state-owned slaves, because personal slaves, such as those the Romans used to instruct young scholars, were given more liberty to speak and contradict their masters than political correctness allows.
In any case, I wanted to take the opportunity to calm frazzled nerves, and to emphasize in how few matters Vox Day and I disagree.
First, we both voted for Chuck Tingle for a Hugo Award. Love is real!
Second, we both support a permanent ban on further immigration into the United States, but would settle reluctantly for a fifty year ban. We both would prefer immigrants, if they must come, to be from civilized nations, and persons who clearly offer more to the nation than the likely burden their coming imposes.
Third, we both believe Mohammedanism is incompatible with Western Civilization. Koranic Law allows neither for the Rights of Man nor any republican form of government.
Fourth, neither of us believes coerced integration of the races is desirable nor possible. There is nothing wrong with a man seeking out his own kind.
Fifth, we both regard the ‘open borders’ and ‘New World Order’ and ‘One World Government’ type talk as treason against the United States and against the West.
Sixth, we both think feminism is cancer. Woman are happier and society is healthier when brides are young, and families are large.
Seventh, we both reject the strategy embraced by GOP politicos and pundits that noble defeat is better than crass victory. The Culture War is real, it is a war, and our side has suffered decades of humiliating defeats. A gentleman does not use the Marquis of Queensbury rules with a guttersnipe, a cur, \a blackguard, or when facing a mob.
Eighth, we both call Western Civilization, the legacy of the Christian religion, Roman law, and Greek philosophy, the peak of human glory. It is worth defending; indeed, it is the only thing on this world worth defending. Everything else is cruelty, fatalism, superstition, and injustice.
Ninth, we are both nationalist, and both anti-globalist: there is no moral wrong with a nation existing nor with a nation prioritizing its own interests.
Tenth, he and I both believe that every race, nation, people, tongue and tribe has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers. We both reject the subjugation of one ethnic group by another.
Eleventh, he and I hold similar views on war: imposing democracy by force, or imposing conversion by the edge of the sword, is both cruel and foolish.
Finally, he and I are both Christians, which means, we are both beloved sons of God living in a universe whose Creator has fashioned objective laws of logic, objective imperatives of morality, objective standards of truth and beauty, and also fashioned the human soul to crave and seek and be able to find these things.
The insane atheist world of moral subjectivism and cultural relativism, of deconstruction, postmodernism, and nihilism, he and I both see to be the work of darkness.
He is a heretic, of course, but so is everyone who rejects the authoritative magisterium of the one, true, holy, apostolic and catholic Church.
The important thing to remember about heretics is that they are Christian.
Let not your hearts be troubled. Vox Day’s opinions on these matters, as he himself says, have changed and evolved over the years, as have mine. He thinks I will eventually see the light and come to his side; I pray for his eyes to be opened and his heart to soften.
Honest men do not take disagreement on scientific, political, or practical matters as a bar to friendship, mutual respect, or mutual alliance.
Only Leftists, whose cruel, crooked and false religion is nothing but the worship of political power, regard disagreement on politics as apostasy, and regard those who disagree to be infidels, worthy only to be scorned, silenced, and slain.
We are friends. Disagreement on such matters neither surprises nor irks us. It is rather to be expected. No one agrees on all points with all his family and friends.
Disagreement is everywhere, and not to be feared.
And I think we both agree on that, too.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
