ANOTHER VICTORY FOR RELIGIOUS WHITE PEOPLE

by Colin Liddell

It didn't take long for the Liberal Left to exert its hegemonic power and destroy the feeble attempt by Indiana and Arkansas to bring in Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). From what I could tell, these laws were mainly designed to protect hypothetical Christian bakers from the unpleasantness of having to bake wedding cakes for hypothetical homosexual couples role-playing as married couples. But of course they were also symbolic.

Some analysts are seeing this defeat as an example of the perfidy of the GOP, others as some kind of ideological setback for a mythical ideology called Conservatism, which, if anybody took the trouble to check, they would find does not exist. Liberals, of course, are seeing it as the victory of the forces of light over the forces of darkness, because nothing screams unspeakable evil more than a couple of homosexuals not having their cake and eating it.

But, stupid as this may sound, this is actually the correct analysis of what happened. Not that Liberals are actually the forces of light and Conservative Christians the forces of evil. Far from it. No, what is true is that the Liberal view, whether they realise it or not, essentially conceives of this as a religious victory, a Manichean struggle with the purer and more holy side triumphing. The more fanatical faith, i.e. Liberalism, defeated the weaker, impurer faith, i.e. Christianity. In short, this was a victory for religious White people (just don't expect them to have been Christian, though).

Numbers were not important. I suspect that the Christian Conservatives were by far the larger group. Yet, despite this, they were soundly beaten. When small numbers beat large numbers in this way it is almost always down to superior faith and fanaticism – the Russian Revolution, the Conquest of Spain by the Berbers, etc., etc.

But why are Christian Conservatives so weak, so feeble, so unable to stand up on their two hind legs, except to beg for mercy? Some will say it's because they are too nice, too meek and mild "like Mary's holy child," too in love with love, and too at peace with peace to ever kick up a fuss. But the funny thing is that that is more or less exactly how their Liberal opponents like to see themselves – the good guys, the lovable peaceniks, everybody’s friend, etc. Their humanitarian totalitarianism and Twitter hate lynch mobs draw moral strength from the certainty that they are.

Whatever Liberals want they want it more, simply because their faith is stronger than that of the Christians. When John Lennon kicked up a fuss in the 1960s by saying his band was bigger than Jesus, he may have been a little premature on the American side of the pond, but he was essentially right and could see which way the wind was blowing. The Christian faith, however effective it might still be at raising money for the ministry and the building of mega churches, is very poor at mobilizing actual passions and passionate actions. Right now, surely they would settle for something equivalent to Beatlemania. As W.B. Yeats once said, "the best lack all conviction."

Companies knew they had nothing to fear and everything to gain by opposing the Christian Conservative position. They didn't even feel the need to remain neutral. One of the most prominent memes doing the rounds in the last few days has been this one featuring Tim Cook the CEO of Apple, whose company came out against the new laws.

Hypocrite?

Yes, he was prepared to boycott a state that wanted to stop a few hypothetical bakers being hypothetically offended, but he had no scruples about expanding business ties to another state where stoning homosexuals to death is still a major spectator sport. Why? The main reason was probably a lack of Christians in Saudi Arabia.

Cook was blamed for his hypocrisy, but this is a little unfair. Hypocrisy usually means you treat identical cases differently, but there is every difference between Saudi Arabia and Indiana, as there is between Islam and Christianity. In Christianity, Liberals merely see a faith that is weaker then their own; one that can be pushed around by their zealots with little fear of reprisals. With Islam they see a faith that is stronger than theirs and accordingly tread much more carefully and respectfully.

The problem revealed by the RFRA debacle in Indiana is not that Liberals exist and want Liberal things, but instead that Christians are not fully Christian and have no idea how to get Christian things. They are at best lukewarm believers in their supposed faith, incapable of acting to defend their beliefs.

The Nietzschean view is that this is because Christianity is simply a "slave religion." I can't buy that right now, because if Christianity can't inspire Christians to put up a fight against rampant faggotry – something the Bible is by no means vague on – how can it be expected to inspire them to be slaves? Surely it would be ineffective at both.

A more likely explanation is that Christianity in the modern West is only capable of inspiring a faith that is feeble, doubt-ridden, passive, and essentially worthless – except as a means of enriching its ministry. Perhaps that is where all its enthusiasm has gone, and why there is none left over to fight back against the rampant rival faith of Liberalism, which in itself is a fine example of just how potent comparatively small numbers of religiously motivated White people can be.

Make it alright by building another mega-church.

__________________________________________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here. He is also featured in Arktos's new collection A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders.