Continuing to Fisk the Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration) We start with a quote from Chrysostom;
Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration — Hereafter AD)
“We deny that disillusionment and resentment over the lies one has been told is adequate preparation for standing in the truth and resisting a new set of lies.”
Palecon responds,
This is generally true and would be fine except for the fact that the Boomer-Cons have not proven that those they are excoriating are not standing for the truth and are not resisting a new set of lies. The above denial may be true but if the Boomer-Cons have not proven their case (and they have not) then it is merely an assertion.
Humanist Manifesto III (AD)
“We affirm that disillusionment and resentment make a person vulnerable to deception and frequently prepare the ground for accepting new falsehoods, setting the stage for further disillusionment.”
Palecon responds,
I affirm that envy and jealousy make a person vulnerable to tearing others down without substantial reason and that apart from repentance this envy and jealousy is preparing the ground for new future rounds of attacks, thus setting the stage for further division.
Humanist Manifesto III (AD)
“We deny that neo-pagan secularism with its utopian religious motive arose as a consensus after World War II. Rather, it manifests itself as the political outworking of the so-called Enlightenment during the French Revolution and gradually won the hearts and minds of Western nations, being well expressed in the political philosophies dominating Europe prior to the outbreak of the two great global conflagrations.:”
Paleocon responds,
So your point here is that you’d rather refer to it as the post-Enlightenment consensus then “the post-war consensus?” Fine … if it will make you happy we will refer to it as the post-Endarkenment consensu.” However, that re-titling doesn’t help you in being right on these matters.
Can we at least get you to admit that with the 20th century WW I & II what was planted as a seed in 1789 came to full flower and has gone from blooming unto ever fuller blooming since those wars?
Humanist Manifesto III (AD)
“We affirm that the aftermath of World War II served as a cultural tipping point for the secular narrative and its myth of religious neutrality which has functioned as a centerpiece for these lies. It has promoted this deception with triumphal hubris throughout all Western institutions, insisting on both an idolatrous religious pluralism and a mandatory globalist cosmopolitanism.”
Paleocon,
Hmmm … globalist cosmopolitanism?
Who in history has been known as being characterized by a “wandering” that is characteristic of “cosmopolitanism?”
Humanist Manifesto III (AD)
“We affirm that a contradictory and pervasive thread of self-doubt and self-loathing has also formed an essential part of this secular narrative following the horrors of World War II. Thus, when the reactionary right challenges the “post-war narrative” they are not necessarily breaking free of it—this is a reflex that the post-war narrative itself has nurtured. The narrative thrives on an unstable mix of white imperiousness and white guilt.”
Paleocon,
So, what you’re saying is that self-doubt and self-loathing of bullied Western man is wrong and that self-confidence and self-assertion of Christian Western man is also wrong? Well, jeepers, is there any position that can be taken without being condemned by you Boomer-Con clowns? If we bow to the post-war narrative we are wrong. If we challenge the post-war narrative we are being reactionary and so wrong.
Why, you even seem to suggest here that any vigorous manly challenge of the false post-war narrative is likewise unhealthy and the result of woe begotten reactionary challenging. Why one might begin to think that only if we bow the knee to you ecclesiastical clowns can we discover just the right response to all this skubala narrative.
If we are imperious we have surrendered to the post-war narrative. If we are full of guilt we have surrendered to the post war-narrative. What is this? A version of Goldilocks where we are looking for the response that is neither too hard or too soft but is just right per the Boomer-cons writing Humanist Manifesto III?
