Bojidar comes back for a curtain call;
“McAtee’s ideology is not that we should love all but there is an order of love, his ideology that because we are commanded to love some, we are supposed to hate others.”
BLMc responds,
It is clear that we are to love those in Christ while hating those who oppose Christ. To have any other attitude is to deny the Reformed anti-thesis. However, Bojidar, sine you are not Reformed, you wouldn’t have any understanding concerning the Reformed Anti-thesis.
Bojidar writes,
The concept of “illegality” for certain people is exactly that: a judicial expression of hatred. No one declares a person “illegal” unless they hate that person. I may love my wife more than I love any other woman, but that doesn’t lead to asking the government to declare other women illegal. I love my children more than I love other people’s children, but I am not asking the government to declare other children illegal.
BLMc responds,
My dear Marxinov, “Illegality” means the state of not being legal. “Not being legal,” when applied to immigrants has certain implications such as not being allowed to occupy space wherein one does not have the authority to be present. It does not imply hate automatically. It merely means one’s dismissal from said space. So, as you can see, it is painfully obvious to those not diseased with afflictions that affect the ability to reason that “illegality is not a judicial expression of hatred.”
If I could I would have the government make laws that made other women who are wives of particular men to be illegal to men not their husbands in terms of sharing a bed, and the doing of that would not be hate to other women but would be love to wives. Certainly, you are not so dense that you can not see this.
I think here, I smell your controlling Libertarianism. You hate the idea that God has ordained particular nations, and peoples and prefer the New World Order where all colors bleed together as one.
Bojidar writes,
So this article is garbage. Contrary to the nonsense of this author, the moral logic behind “America First” is exactly hostility and hatred.
Bret responds,
You heard it here first folks. Blowjidar Marxinov believes the logic of “America First,” is exactly hostility and hatred. One can’t help but wonder if Blow would say that the logic of “Christ First,” is also exactly hostility and hatred? As a Libertarian Marxist, (See Max Stirner) Marxinov is convinced that it is not possible to have a unique love for one’s own people. All I can offer as evidence that I have no hatred for those not my own are my friendship with folks of other races, who, by the way, agree with Kinsim. They are my testimony that I have no inherent hate for other peoples. (Well, except possibly for Bulgarians. 😉 )
Blowidar Marxinov writes,
Otherwise there would be no declaration of someone “illegal” by the stroke of a pen, for the “crime” of trying to build a better life to themselves and their families. Ordered responsibility would simply involve rationing resources between helping different people. It would not involve spending resources to declare people “illegal” and then even more resources to hurt them.
BLMc responds,
Of course this is a denial of National particularism. Blow, cannot stand the idea of particular peoples, clans, and nations. Also notice, in Blow’s reasoning there is the thought of rationing resources. This is epic socialism. Biblical Christianity believes in making the economic pie bigger, so there is more for a particular people, living in a particular nation. It does not believe in rationing resources.
Blow, also misses the fact that God himself in Deuteronomy said that an expression of His judgment against a people is that the stranger and alien would climb higher than the native born. We are experiencing that here and Blow thinks that is just fine.
Blow speaks of resources used to hurt people and yet if the man could follow statistics he would learn that the people being hurt right now are not the stranger and the alien but the people being hurt right now most significantly is the straight young white male. But Blow, cares more about the stranger and the alien than he does the homeborn. That’s probably because Blowjidar himself is a stranger and alien to this nation.
Blow writes,
In conclusion, both McAtee and trumpism share the same religion: a religion of hatred against outsiders.
Bret response,
Blowijdar keeps saying this. I do not think hatred means what he thinks it means.
Blow writes,
They are not satisfied by just letting outsiders live. They have to vilify them, de-legalize them, hurt them, expel them, incarcerate them, put them in concentration camps, segregate them, and eventually murder them, all under the excuse of “we have a higher responsibility to our own.” It’s a religion of hatred and worship of power.
BLMc responds,
First, there is no necessity to de-legalize someone who is, by definition, illegal. Second, Blow is just a damnable liar when he says that I desire to see the stranger and alien murdered. But the man has always been unfamiliar with the truth.
Yes, it is usually the action of the sane to segregate those who are trying to harm your family. Given the fact that upwards to 80% of the illegal entering the West are young men in their thirties it is clear that this is an invasion force and not a “we’re just looking for jobs” force.
That does not mean hatred for those criminals who do not belong here. It means love and protection for one’s own wife, children, grandchildren, and people.
Blowjidar is giving us a religion that is a suicide cult. We must extirpate ourselves for the good of the stranger and the alien. Blow’s religion is the religion of Marxism … the religion that teaches egalitarianism. The religion that would have faulted God for having and blessing a particular people in the Old Testament. Blow has the religion that hates Christians who believe in the racial/familial dynamics inherent in covenant theology.
Not only are some people illegal, some are illegitimate and we call them bastards.
“Blow’s religion is the religion of Marxism … the religion that teaches egalitarianism.”
AND libertarianism. Marinov would probably differentiate himself from outright Marxists precisely by claiming that he is very much for “liberty” – and atomistic individualism.
The Jacobin trinity of “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” was not ALL about equality, after all. These kind of nuances can be important, and intellectually lazy Rightists who just think, “Bah, all of them Reds look alike to me” can easily miss them.
Agreed … which is why I encourage people to listen to Rushdoony’s lectures on Max Stirner. Stirner took Marx’s work and applied Marx’s principle on a Libertarian individual level. Rushdoony says that nobody was punished more by Marx in his response than was Stirner when Marx replied to Max Stirner’s Marxist Libertarianism.
Historically, I would say that “liberty” came to the Jacobins from the ancient Greek philosophers, with their proud intellectual assertion of human autonomy (versus both the tyrannical gods and earthly tyrants). Originally such freedom was promised only for the small philosophical elite, but the ideal inevitably became more and more “democratized” as time went on. (Likewise in the ancient Egypt, glorious afterlife through magical rites was originally promised ONLY for the Pharaoh, and perhaps some of his top servants, but as centuries rolled on, this privilege eventually became promised to all Egyptians who could afford the rites.)
“Equality” came from the Roman Empire, which, ironically enough, given its “aristocratic” reputation, served in the history on mankind as the great LEVELLING MACHINE – as it is seen in Daniel 7:7, where it pulverizes or levels the kingdoms that come under its rule, into an “equalized” pile of rubble, where every senator and serf is ultimately just a servant of the omnipotent state (at least in theory). As Richard Wagner wittily observed:
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.156971/page/n59/mode/2up?view=theater
“These gladiators and fighters with wild beasts, were sprung from every European nation; and the kings, nobles, and serfs of these nations were all slaves alike of the Roman Emperor, who showed them, in this most practical of ways, that all men were equals; just as, on the other hand, he himself was often shown most palpably by his own Pretorian Guard, that he also was no more than a mere slave.”
And as for “fraternity” – that part of Jacobinism seems to be pretty directly plagiarized from Christianity, not from the ancient heathen. The utopian promise of universal brotherhood, which the Masonic brotherhood had already sought to achieve apart of Jesus Christ, presenting the ideal of worldwide fraternity of decent and reasonable men of all faiths.