CULTISH VOX DAY ATTACKS CHRISTIANS, PART IV

      Vox Day has published his fourth (and thankfully final) article purportedly refuting a Christian response to his Alt-Right Manifesto.  Vox' article was somewhat anti-climatic, but nonetheless predictable. Blogger Comic Hound wrote a lengthy point-by-point commentary on Vox' Manifesto explaining how it contradicted Christian Doctrine. Aside from calling Comic Hound a Churchian and cherry-picking a few pieces of Scripture out of context, Vox never once proved his theory was aligned with Christianity.

       And that's been the point of our following this controversy in all its agonizing detail. It's a practical illustration of a common cultish tactic. Whenever traditional religion opposes a cult, the cult-leaders and propagandists immediately shift the debate from its initial premise. They simply argue, as Vox has done, that his assertions are self-evident truths. And they liberally salt these assertions with jibes, insults, and mockery---all this is done to throw a smokescreen over the fact that few---if any---of their beliefs are consistent with traditional religion. 

       Cults are almost always vulnerable at this point, because they need the authority of a traditional religion to give their movement legitimacy; while at the same time rejecting its actually doctrine. Even cults like Scientology base their beliefs in allegedly prehistoric events; and some secular/political cults like Communism and Naziism state that their existence is a fulfillment of some evolutionary mandate. The Red Pills do both: they claim an inevitable triumph that fulfills both Biblical prophecy and evolutionary necessity. 

      To address some of the points in his fourth article: Vox claims that his opposition to international free-trade is in line with Conservative thought; while its advocates follow Marxism. This is completely wrong; Conservative economists like Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Baron von Hayek, Frederic Bastiat, and Harry Browne all argued that international free trade promoted world peace. And this is completely logical, since if nations mutually benefit from one another the threat of war is less likely. Marx believed in international trade---but controlled, not free trade. 

       Vox, however, claims---and re-asserts here---that wars come from his formula, "Diversity+Proximity=War." That fallacy has already been debunked; but the raw racism of such a position becomes clear when within the framework of economics. China and the US are radically different cultures but President Trump's trade policy with them has opened up a new era of cooperation and friendship. Neither country has an incentive for war now with both of us benefiting from the other. 

       Against this, though, Vox claims that the survival of the White race is a moral imperative, while at the same claiming that 'science' proves that there are human sub-species. What science he means, no one knows: but his position is contradictory. If the White Race is truly dying out (which is not likely) then it stands to reason that other races are better adapted in terms of human evolution and that survival of the fittest applies to them and not to us. 

      It's a good sign to see however that more and more Christians are standing up and denouncing the whole Cult of the Red Pill/Alt-Right/Gamers, or whatever they call themselves. As Pope Benedict once famously said of another group predicting that the downfall of the Church was imminent: "It's been imminent now for the last two millennia." Whatever these would-be Alphas imagine of themselves, they are the ones headed for the ash-can of history while, at the end of human history, the Church will remain standing and triumphant.