Fuck Yeah Satan!
David Frum’s website “Frum Forum” claims that it is “dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.” In his infamous article “Unpatriotic Conservatives,” David Frum made it clear that some voices should be shunned within the conservative movement, namely, the coalition of paleocons, nationalists, and libertarians opposed to Iraq War. His words: “In a time of danger, they have turned their backs on their country. Now we turn our backs on them.”
In the last seven years, David Frum has continued to attack voices to his right (Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul) while embracing left-of-center moderates who reject traditional values. Apparently, Frum’s antipathy toward the Alt Right is matched only by his tolerance of fellow boat people washing up on conservative shores from the Left, many of whom entertain views that most conservatives would find abhorrent.
Lately, David Frum has been publishing Alex Knepper, a flamboyant homosexual atheist and undergraduate at American University. Alex Knepper is a supporter of abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization, euthanasia, eugenics, legalization of prostitution, racial profiling, and the repeal of anti-discrimination laws. He describes himself as an opponent of school prayer and the Ten Commandments.
Alex Knepper is an enthusiastic supporter of LaVeyan Satanism. He came to Occidental Dissent and proudly announced that he bashes Christians and owns most of the books the Church of Satan has published. On Facebook, Alex Knepper is a member of groups like “Fuck Christianity” and “Fuck the Pope”. He gives shout outs to Satan and uses Beelzebub as his profile picture. Alex Knepper is also friends with Michael Steele, GOP Chairman, to whom he is sexually attracted.
Apparently, this is what David Frum has in mind when he speaks of “renewing” the conservative movement. Homosexual Satanists now have a seat at the table in mainstream conservative discourse, but those who support the preservation of America as a European nation are considered “fringe” and “beyond the pale.” The term “conservative” has become so utterly devoid of substantial content that it ought to be abandoned in favor of a new label.
That sinking ship should be left to the David Frums and Alex Kneppers of the world.
Based on what you see in anonymous comments to news articles nationwide, Alt Right and White Nationalists and Paleocons are a lot more widespread out among the peasantry than any of the nonsenese coming out of official conservatives in DC. That’s why they say the culture war is over, by the way, because for DC conservatives it mostly is. For real instinctual conservatives it’s not over, we’re still pissed, and we hate the web of lies, myths, and guilt-tripping that define the liberal, mainstream consensus.
That said, the term conservative is valuable and most paleoconservatives and white natioanlist circles are conservatives or reactionaries of one kind or another, trying to restore or recapture something within living memory that was real, pleasant, and tangible, and, therefore, real and not fanciful. This instinct of restoration and this passion for historical and family memory is quite unlike the libertarian fantasy world of Ipods, legalized prostitution, peaceful coexistence of Europeans and Third Worlders, and God knows what else sold by the Cato Institute and Alex K.
So I beg slightly to differ with you, Hunter. The term conservative is useful. The term is simply misused by the Frums of the world, who are in fact liberals, that judge the world through liberal principles like non-discrimination and universalism, and are simply a bit more bellicose and forthright than the nihilist left. That doesn’t make them conservatives, any more than FDR, LBJ, Woodrow Wilson or other belliose liberals were conservatives. Frum, George Will, David Brooks, and the like are just liars, plain and simple, who want to conserve nothing meaningful about historical America and its way of life.
The mainstream right is nearly as perverse and abnormal as the left.
Republican senator Roy Ashburn revealed to be a homosexual after arrested for DUI after visiting a gay nightclub:
http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1534505.html
Roach,
I try to dissuade WNs from actively attacking the “conservative” label, but I think we would all do well strategically to retreat to the higher grounds of “Traditionalism”, “Restoration”, and “Alternative Right”. This episode with gay Satanic libertarian warmongers being totally integrated into the conservative movement might be the last straw for me.
I swear, this is straight out of one of Bill White’s manic tirades…
I think you misunderstand LaVeyan Satanism. LaVeyan Satanists — and I do not consider myself one — do not worship Satan. Satan is used as a provocative, aesthetically-dark symbol. It’s all very tongue-in-cheek and has a mordant sense of humor. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism
Nice broadside. 🙂
I think it’s beyond hilarious that the Canadian Jew has to use wet behind the ears undergrads (Rand! Satan! Pay attention to me! I know the answer to everything! If only the sheep were as smart as meeeeeee!) for his dirty work. It’s quite laughable.
By the way, I am now pro-life.
Hey Alex, I choked the other couple of threads about you with questions, please read and respond at your convenience:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/03/15/alexander-knepper-theory-monster/
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/03/15/alex-knepper-racist/
Highlights include:
Is freedom of association in your repertoire? I.e., do you acknowledge the right of individuals of X persuasion to create their own societies and communities? If not, how do you call yourself an advocate of liberty?
Do, or should, Jews enjoy rights above and beyond those enjoyed by non-Jews? Does this explain why you give Jews in Israel a pass, but condemn non-Jews who want for themselves what Jews have for themselves in Israel?
Do you mean your claims of ideological consistency seriously? If so, why pick on low-ethnocentrism groups like whites, and give high-ethnocentrism groups like Jews, blacks, and mestizos a pass (yes, treating white, black, Jewish, and mestizo ethnocentrism as equivalents is giving Jews, blacks, and mestizos a pass)? For many more examples, see the threads linked above.
Alex,
I really don’t think you’re a bad guy. You’ve got some strange views, but I would attribute that to your age. It is a shame that you are attacking Spencer and writing for a hack like David Frum.
Alex,
I know it’s really all about self-worship and snarky dismissal of any and all Tradition. You’re a vocal advocate of slaughtering millions of innocents in wars and wombs. You’re opposed to the preservation of this historical American republic. You even support Michael Steele.
Given all that, you might as well make it official: You serve Satan.
He changed his position to pro-life at the very moment I was denigrating him for supporting abortion. In light of this, I retract the thing about wombs…
At FF you repeatedly condemn ethnocentrism (which you acknowledge as real, and tacitly acknowledge as inherent) as irrational. Can you explain why going directly against the grain of human nature is a good idea? We’ve all had it up to here with liberals doing this so I’d like to know WTF makes you think we want to hear it from you. I’d really like an explanation for why aligning a society in opposition to human nature is a better idea than aligning it in harmony with human nature. What’s the up side?
Why are “Jewish people” so smart and wonderful on one hand, yet “national IQ does not exist” on the other hand? Square the circle for us, please. Here are the quotes kindly provided by Vercingetorix:
Alex K:
There is no such thing as a “National IQ.” Only individuals have IQs.
Alex K again:
I can’t help but admire the Jews, though, insular as many of them are (and most of them are not, really). — Jewish culture has produced so many intellectuals, so many scientists, so many great thinkers — that it’s impossible not to conclude that the root of anti-Semitism — the singling out of Jews for opprobrium — is envy. — Alex
Which is it, Alex? This is a rhetorical question, the horse has left the barn and you’re already screwed, but maybe you have an actual answer. My guess is you don’t, and you’ll just refrain from making this mistake twice.
Holocaust denial laws (and similar umbrella laws, e.g., “hate speech” laws) are a travesty, at least according to ostensible libertarian values. Where is the greater threat to the freedom of speech in the west?
WHERE IS THE LIBERTARIAN STINK OVER HOLOCAUST DENIAL LAWS? This particular shit pile should be number one on their threats to freedom of speech list; does their behavior accord?
Alex, I’m going to continue to give you a hard time, but don’t let that run you off. I hope you stick around and explain yourself.
Also, you might be interested in knowing that I, like many ethnopatriots, don’t base my ethnopatriotism on IQ-fetishism. I don’t want to be “one” with high-IQ Asian or Jewish overlords any more than I want to be “one” with low-IQ black or mestizo serfs. I could point out that so-called “cognitive elites” like Jews and Asians seem to be long on moving to societies created by their cognitive inferiors and short on making societies that said inferiors want (and can) move to, but that’s neither here nor there. The fact is I’m not an ethnopatriot because of IQ, or GDP, or any other side-effect of group identity. I’m an ethnopatriot because I’m in touch with my humanity, my biology. Every organism has a hierarchy of interests based on its classification (single-celled vs. multicellular, animal vs. vegetable, man vs. primate, white vs. non-white, black vs. non-black, man vs. woman, etc.). I have decided not to eschew a part of my organic identity as many would have me do. I am what I was born. That is the bedrock (not the totality) of who and what I am.
It’s not rocket science. It shouldn’t even be profound, but in the racially insane (I use that term advisedly; the west is collectively certifiable) age in which we live, it is.
Alex,
We know exactly what it is. It is Might Makes Right stripped of any profound messages or civilizational analysis. Then you mix it with Ayn Rand and some anti-Christian imagery to shock the squares and have some Jew circus performer throw it together to entertain the kiddies and titillate the media. It has no actual divine (or, uh, anti-divine content). We know that. The irony is by adopting these symbols, you are much more guilty of posing as a “Superman” than Spencer.
The problem is, such a vision of hatred for tradition, community, heritage, and religion literally has nothing to do with conservatism. Would Russell Kirk or Eric Voegelin somehow recognize this as being something akin to their vision?
This wouldn’t matter, except you have somehow appointed yourself as the guardian of respectability and moderation, writing for a hack whose entire career consists of attacking people to his right. You can’t pretend to be shocked because some guy (not even Spencer) wears a Thor’s Hammer or cry because he expresses views on race and IQ that more and more people are admitting are completely true.
And you know racial differences in intelligence exist because you say you have read Murray, and I suspect a good deal more. This obviously has societal consequences. Saying that we are all “individuals” and aren’t allowed to think about them is a cop out. You can’t pose as a champion of truth, against all religions and dogmas, and then try to be a PC enforcer.
The fact that you are trying to do that makes YOU an intellectual coward, as well as a physical one.
I swear, this is straight out of one of Bill White’s manic tirades…
I’m aware of Bill White, but I don’t really get the reference.
Can anybody elucidate?
Have to agree with Roach: Conservative remains a useful and meaningful term. As opposed to neo-con, signifying Jewish and Jewized fake conservatives who are all about Israelite wars, state socialism, and the culture of death….for which boy Knepper seems an excellent advertisement.
What’s irrational about nationhood based on, well, nationality (natio=race)? I’d be particularly interested in knowing, since I consider myself a pretty rational guy.
Guys,
Mr. Knepper is constructively dialoguing with us, and on our grounds. Man deserves some credit for that.
Unless shown otherwise, we can and should extend the same courtesies.
After all, he is light years ahead of that jerk ‘Red Jeffrey’ Imm.
smythe,
Bill White would often rail against things like “Queer Nigger Jews” and other seemingly impossible hybrids. The presence of a Satanic Queer Zionist reminded me of Commander Bill’s hilarious essays.
To be clear, because some of you have asked:
* I support the right of people to privately discriminate. I support freedom of association in all of its forms. There should be no laws on the books barring employees from hiring or firing on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. This is a basic corollary of property rights.
* I oppose all laws that punish Holocaust-deniers. This is a basic freedom of speech issue.
* I understand and admit that group IQ differences exist between the ‘races.’ What the cause of this is — is not so certain. And whether the government should get involved in these matters is another question entirely.
* I am not a LaVeyan Satanist. I simply admire the organization and find much that’s amusing in it.
* Svigor — I fail to see the contradiction. I’m simply saying that some cultures produce more intelligent people than others. That doesn’t mean that I believe in a “Jewish IQ.”
“The presence of a Satanic Queer Zionist”
I am neither Satanic, nor queer, nor a Zionist. LOL.
“Can you explain why going directly against the grain of human nature is a good idea?”
Unless you’re Jean-Jacques Rousseau or something, I think that we can both admit that human nature is not conducive to monogamy. Care to abolish that, too?
I am neither Satanic, nor queer, nor a Zionist. LOL.
Well it seems fair to say that you at least dabble in all three of those things.
Unless you’re Jean-Jacques Rousseau or something, I think that we can both admit that human nature is not conducive to monogamy. Care to abolish that, too?
Some of us here do in fact advocate polygamy. And not just blindly, but with careful, reasoned arguments.
Hilarious and completely accurate article.
I am astounded how interested people are in debating the intern’s “philosophy.” I guess a paycheck makes you credible.
I’m not an intern. I’ve been a contributor since the site’s launch. I’ve previously written for Race42012.com (now Rightosphere.com) and the Independent Gay Forum. My work has been excerpted in or featured at the websites of the New York Times, C-SPAN, the Atlantic, the Salt Lake Tribune, Real Clear Politics, Newsweek, and other outlets. I’m not a “household name”– yet! — but I’m not nobody.
You can also listen to me publicly debate Ryan Sorba (the “CPAC gay-basher”) at wtpshow.com. Skip to about 29:00 in the relevant broadcast to hear me speak live.
http://www.wtpshow.com/interviews/
That usually happens when you tow the party line.
To be clear, because some of you have asked:
* I support the right of people to privately discriminate. I support freedom of association in all of its forms. There should be no laws on the books barring employees from hiring or firing on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. This is a basic corollary of property rights.
I think the right to free association should be more broadly interpreted: people should be able to form schools, businesses, communities, neighborhoods, and whatever TF else they want according to their wishes.
I oppose all laws that punish Holocaust-deniers. This is a basic freedom of speech issue.
This isn’t an answer. We all know that libertarians oppose these laws, but that isn’t what we asked you. We asked you if you’re going to start taking your stated positions seriously.
* Svigor — I fail to see the contradiction. I’m simply saying that some cultures produce more intelligent people than others. That doesn’t mean that I believe in a “Jewish IQ.”
What a weaselly answer! And absurd, too. So you guys have nothing to say about the human condition, really. We just “choose” to be smart or dumb. I won’t even bother to ask what produces more cultures that produce more intelligent people than others.
“Can you explain why going directly against the grain of human nature is a good idea?”
Unless you’re Jean-Jacques Rousseau or something, I think that we can both admit that human nature is not conducive to monogamy. Care to abolish that, too?
Let’s say your implication (monogamy goes against the grain of human nature, hardly a settled argument) is correct. No, I don’t say we should abolish it, I say we should organize society vis-a-vis the question of monogamy in a way that is most harmonious with human nature and the collective good. I.e., I need a good reason to go against the (supposed) fact that human nature is polygamous. Human nature, fortunately, provides some heavy reasons (polygamy is inherently destabilizing and unsustainable, for one). Forget the rhetoric of the naturalistic fallacy for a moment. I can think of tons of practical, real-world down sides to polygamy. Where are the practical, real-world down sides to ethnocentrism? (Please refrain from external down-sides as they aren’t convincing if they parallel what masters tell slaves, e.g., “there’ll be trouble for y’all if y’all keep trying to read and escape and such”)
These days just having a blog or writing for one makes you credible to some.
I support the right of people to privately discriminate. I support freedom of association in all of its forms.
You also support the right for people to miscegenate, non-white immigration, and the destruction of whites countries through race replacement. When did genocide against whites become a right?
Alex: please read Kevin MacDonald’s work. Start looking askance at the liberal idiocy of total self-authorship. No, we can’t all be President when we grow up.
“I think the right to free association should be more broadly interpreted: people should be able to form schools, businesses, communities, neighborhoods, and whatever TF else they want according to their wishes.”
Agreed.
“This isn’t an answer. We all know that libertarians oppose these laws, but that isn’t what we asked you. We asked you if you’re going to start taking your stated positions seriously.”
Someone asked me a question specifically about Holocaust-denial laws. I answered that.
“So you guys have nothing to say about the human condition, really. We just “choose” to be smart or dumb. I won’t even bother to ask what produces more cultures that produce more intelligent people than others.”
What produces that? A dedication to individual achievement, productive work, healthy lifestyle choices, and intellectual integrity and openness. That’s something found in Jewish culture. But there’s nothing inherently “Jewish” about it any more than playing basketball is something inherently black. At the very, very bottom of things, the race is just a coincidence.
America is decadent at the moment, and it ain’t the fault of black people — although the dominant black culture is decadent, too. It’s the fault of a bunch of consumerist, anti-intellectual bullshit. Jose Ortega y Gasset explained it well 70 years ago in his classic, “The Revolt of the Masses.”
“Where are the practical, real-world down sides to ethnocentrism?”
If it’s voluntary, go for it. At the very bottom of things, I’m in favor of a voluntary order. If that produces racial tension and separatism, so be it — but I don’t think that it would. I’m supremely confident that laissez-faire capitalism would do what it has always done since its beginnings: lead us toward a more open, tolerant society. All of the top-name corporations today, for instance, are favorable toward gay couples — it didn’t happen through government fiat. It happened because it makes no sense to alienate potential customers and employees.
“You also support the right for people to miscegenate,”
Of course. If it’s voluntary, I support it.
“non-white immigration,”
Of course.
“and the destruction of whites countries through race replacement.”
Ah, ah, ah — now there’s the problem. The only legitimate claim to a country is through values. This is why, for instance, Saddam Hussein had no right to sovereignty.
“When did genocide against whites become a right?”
Look at the way you people manipulate language! “Genocide” — hah! Start having more babies!
“Alex: please read Kevin MacDonald’s work. Start looking askance at the liberal idiocy of total self-authorship. No, we can’t all be President when we grow up.”
As much as I love heterodoxy and challenging my views, I draw the line at Holocaust-denial. That shit is just absolutely fucking retarded. It’s as asinine to deny the Holocaust as it is to deny — to use an example you’d like — that American blacks do not disproportionately commit crimes.
Somebody should tell the intern here that MacDonald is not a Holocaust revisionist. It’s hardly surprising that Jews are lying about him though.
“This isn’t an answer. We all know that libertarians oppose these laws, but that isn’t what we asked you. We asked you if you’re going to start taking your stated positions seriously.”
Someone asked me a question specifically about Holocaust-denial laws. I answered that.
It’s tough taking on the gallery. Been there, done that, many times before. So I sympathize. I’ll restate:
Are you going to start acting like Holocaust laws (and other “hate speech” type laws) are a libertarian 4 alarm fire? Or is this just pillow talk and you’re going back to your wife?
If it’s voluntary, go for it. At the very bottom of things, I’m in favor of a voluntary order. If that produces racial tension and separatism, so be it — but I don’t think that it would. I’m supremely confident that laissez-faire capitalism would do what it has always done since its beginnings: lead us toward a more open, tolerant society. All of the top-name corporations today, for instance, are favorable toward gay couples — it didn’t happen through government fiat. It happened because it makes no sense to alienate potential customers and employees.
That doesn’t answer my question. You’ve equated ethnocentrism to burning down civilization. I’d like you to explain what that means, sans high-minded abstractions if possible.
As for diversity in the absence of anti-freedom (AKA anti-discrimination) laws, who knows? That’s like saying Soviet citizens loved the USSR because polls said so. That’s probably the whole point of diversitard worldwide hegemonic lust; remove the competition and no one will find out his products are superior.
It’s as asinine to deny the Holocaust as it is to deny — to use an example you’d like — that American blacks do not disproportionately commit crimes.
Disproportionately high black crime is a lot more difficult to deny, considering it’s happening right now, in all countries where they reside and here in America. Every day, every week, every month and every year we have evidence of it. Even with all of that there are still people who do in fact deny it.
You at least have to admit the Holocaust is manipulated and used by Jews for political and financial gain. What do you think of Norman Finkelstein? MacDonald doesn’t deny or discuss the Holocaust BTW, his books are about Jewish group evolutionary behavior.
The only legitimate claim to a country is through values.
1. Why? Cuz you sed so?
2. Obviously this is the same as saying there’s no legitimate claim to country, because there’s no test for values. Consistent with libertardianism, I suppose.
Look at the way you people manipulate language! “Genocide” — hah! Start having more babies!
I don’t have time to dredge up the quotes, but actually what’s being done to whites is textbook genocide (using the UN definition), on several counts.
As much as I love heterodoxy and challenging my views, I draw the line at Holocaust-denial. That shit is just absolutely fucking retarded. It’s as asinine to deny the Holocaust as it is to deny — to use an example you’d like — that American blacks do not disproportionately commit crimes.
Okay, so you draw the line at “holocaust denial” (an odd way to characterize – or respond to – the lack of belief in something, but I digress). What the holy hell does that have to do with anything you quoted?
Don’t believe in God? Check, Alex approves.
Don’t believe in race? Check, Alex approves.
Don’t believe in tradition? Check, Alex approves.
Don’t believe in THE Holocaust? Error, error, Alex thinks “that shit is just absolutely fucking retarded. It’s as asinine.”
“Are you going to start acting like Holocaust laws (and other “hate speech” type laws) are a libertarian 4 alarm fire? Or is this just pillow talk and you’re going back to your wife?”
Such laws are not on the books in the United States.
“That doesn’t answer my question. You’ve equated ethnocentrism to burning down civilization. I’d like you to explain what that means, sans high-minded abstractions if possible.”
Because it elevates faith, collectivism, and group-loyalty over reason, individualism, and personal achievement.
“As for diversity in the absence of anti-freedom (AKA anti-discrimination) laws, who knows? That’s like saying Soviet citizens loved the USSR because polls said so. That’s probably the whole point of diversitard worldwide hegemonic lust; remove the competition and no one will find out his products are superior.”
I gave an example of what I meant with corporations leading the way in being gay-friendly today. In the past, religious sects have learned to cooperate through commerce. The North had plenty of racists, but there weren’t really segregated public venues because it wasn’t profitable. Even the segregation of the South became intense only when the government made it official. The seeds of racial resentment were sown in large part by government.
What We Believe
“The white race is a historically constructed social formation. It consists of all those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to a system that degrades them.
The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in US society.
The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse.
RACE TRAITOR aims to serve as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white race. It will encourage dissent from the conformity that maintains it and popularize examples of defection from its ranks, analyze the forces that hold it together and those that promise to tear it apart. Part of its task will be to promote debate among abolitionists. When possible, it will support practical measures, guided by the principle, Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.”
Noel Ignutiev (jew), former Harvard Professor
http://racetraitor.org/
“Don’t believe in tradition? Check, Alex approves.”
Depends upon the tradition. I don’t support old things because they’re old.
“What the holy hell does that have to do with anything you quoted?”
Kevin MacDonald? The man who apparently said that he’s “agnostic” about the Holocaust?
Ryan Sorba makes some interesting arguments on that radio show about the evils of certain types of eros, such as homosexuality because it is against the public good. He didn’t include miscegenation, but that is also an example of a corrupt and evil form of eros that is against the public good, and for that reason it was sensibly made illegal since the founding of the country and until 1967.
http://www.wtpshow.com/interviews/
Knepper sounds like a free-love type of hippie on that show.
Such laws are not on the books in the United States.
Neither is the Muslim world, about which you sally forth regularly.
Kevin MacDonald? The man who apparently said that he’s “agnostic” about the Holocaust?
Oh, SHIT! Agnostic, as in, he has no opinion? Whoah, there’s a heretic needin’ a burnin. So much for open-mindedness, the guy’s agnostic about THE Holocaust so we should burn his books, which have nothing to do with THE central religious belief of the modern age, from which even libertarian “mavericks” will not diverge.
But it’s too late, you’re already hip-deep; I’m agnostic about THE Holocaust too, so you’re already over the line.
Not long ago, you were “agreeing” with Linder that conservatism is trash.
See that is the one redeeming quality about NS people. They bash hypocritical religious bullshit.
Depends upon the tradition. I don’t support old things because they’re old.
Be honest. You find as many traditions (well, except for the Kosher ones anyway) to tilt against as possible.
“Freedom” and “individual choice” are more illusory than Knepper would care to admit or even imagine. For instance, to what degree would a White woman be “free” to reproduce with a nigger were the price of that act banishment from a White milieu? And, just how “free” are Whites en masse if they cannot so banish someone for doing the former? Moreover, why would Whites think having Negroes around in the first place was moral or desirable, grist to exercising freedom and choice upon, if the idea had not been put in their heads via media and education indoctrination? They were never free to choose their own indoctrination, now were they?
“That doesn’t answer my question. You’ve equated ethnocentrism to burning down civilization. I’d like you to explain what that means, sans high-minded abstractions if possible.”
Because it elevates faith, collectivism, and group-loyalty over reason, individualism, and personal achievement.
High-minded abstraction alert. You’re talking to an agnostic (so much for faith) who thinks collectivism is the best way to defend against collectivism,, an individualist who sees no contradiction between personal achievement or reason and group loyalty (on the contrary, group loyalty is perfectly reasonable).
You’re going to have to work for your supper, talking points won’t cut it.