Argument from Self Interest

If I may be so bold as to proffer advice to the atheists of the camp I once served so faithfully and from which I departed so completely, keeping with me no regrets and no fond memories of camaraderie as I left, I would like to suggest that you support the coming Christian revival with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength, because the only alternative is Venezuela, is the Caliphate, and is a boot trampling on a human face forever.

The alternative is between civilization and barbarism.

There have been, to be sure, civilizations outside Christendom, but these consist of remorseless tyrannies, from Tenochtitlan to Peking, whose emperors were worshiped as gods. In the modern day, those once ruled by Mandarins in China are now ruled by Marxists, and the Brahmin now ruled by Anglican forms of common law and parliament. The Dar al-Islam is a desolation of petty tyrants endless bloodshed, limping along only because propped up by Western fiscal interests. Africa is hell on earth. Japan had a Western constitution imposed on it after the Second World War, and it stands forth as a lone exception to what I say: but Japan is unlikely to welcome any outsiders in any numbers now in the foreseeable future.

So even if a non-Christian civilization is something history says is possible, none are available as alternatives in this generation.  There is nowhere to go but here, and here will either return to its Christian roots, Anglican law, Roman virtue and Greek philosophy, and live, or degenerate through secularism, socialism, atheism, nihilism, and die.

Is Christian civilization perfect? By no means. But let us compare.

No one knows exactly how many people perished because of the Inquisition, but it is thought to be  between 3,000 and 5,000 people during the 350 years of its existence.

Compare that to six million killed by the National socialists of Germany, and the one hundred million killed by the international Communists of Russia, China, and elsewhere. The difference is five orders of magnitude.

In other words, your fellow atheists killed as many people, on average, for every day of the one hundred years of their movement as the Spanish Inquisition killed in the whole span of its existence.

Think on that, my dear atheists: One Inquisition of dead per day.

And at least the Christians build Cathedrals rather than gulags, so you will have something nice to look at while you grumble about how superstitious we are, and how afraid of us you are, that we might impose on your liberty by outlawing polygamy, child-murder, sodomy and pederasty.

Ponder this. Which sort of social order is more likely to produce a longer lifespan in its members, including its atheist members? (1) One whose worst historical manifestation, which even they regret, is the Spanish Inquisition; or (2) one whose worst historical manifestation is the Everest sized pile of corpses marking the Twentieth Century, and even larger enormities of ruined lives, dashed hopes, constant fear, and constant falsehoods, all perpetrated by folk who not only lack and trace of regret, they are all eager to attempt the program again. this time with more genocide!

Seriously. If the choice is between A HANDMAIDS TALE and NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR, which is better?

But since all Margaret Atwood did in her portrayal of an impossible evil Christian future was to portray the very actual evil Muslim present as it is currently enacted in lands under Shariah Law, the choice is really between various nightmare worlds of dystopia and the world portrayed in BELLS OF SAINT MARY’S or GOING MY WAY.

(And all Americans should be deeply ashamed that I had to go all the way back to 1944 to find a movie that portrayed priests and nuns in a positive light. If the monks and crusaders had known what you would do with their legacy, you ungrateful narcissists, they would have burned the Greek learning and Roman law, and just let the Paynim make of Europe the same wasteland they made of North Africa and the Middle East, wiping civilization away, and leaving the world forever without even any archaeologists to sweep dust from the fallen basilicas and haunted palaces.)

But then again, if you followed what was in your rational self interest and self preservation, you would not be atheists in the first place, would you, my dears?

For if there is no God, then there is no law higher than human law, no justice save human justice, and therefore there is no moral code save human sentiment or human opinion or human convenience, no innate meaning to life, no beauty save in the eye of the beholder, and no strong reason to be good when no one else is looking, is there?

One or two persons adhering to a code of conduct where one simply does whatever the powers that be dictate, following no ethical standard save the popular sentiment, having no meaning to life save pursuit of vain pleasures or vain honors, with aberrations instead of beauty in art and architecture, cacophony instead of music, if they live among a healthy and Christian peoples can be tolerated as a fringe group. When this is the mainstream, however, the social order becomes either an unchecked unruly mass, or an unruly mass kept in strict check by a jealous, self-serving, and powerhungry elite.

America is on her sick bed, perhaps her death bed, and the press, aided by the public school system, is tirelessly working as swiftly as so great a project can be done to devolve the coming generations a mass of screaming morons, addicted to vice and easily stampeded, unable to care for themselves, conduct themselves like self reliant individuals, or even to able to imagine doing so. Whatever you think secularism and atheism stand for or mean, that desolate future is their certain fruit and culmination. One need not be Nostradamus to predict the inevitable.

Think and think deeply on the shape of things to come. Think on Cuba. Think on Rwanda. Think on Kosovo. Think on the Soviet Union and all its works and all its ways.

I can understand supporting atheism to be true because you conclude it is true. Such is an honorable position (even if no atheist has a reason to be honorable, aside from fickle sentiment or fickle public opinion).

But I cannot understand supporting atheism on the grounds of its utility to your enlightened self interest, nor in the interests of preserving the peace and order of society.