Charlottesville: A Clash of False Alternatives

Charlottesville: A Clash of False Alternatives

JOHN HORVAT II
8/18/17

The events in Charlottesville have shaken the nation, and many have rightly condemned the violence at the August 12 protest that resulted in one tragic death and many wounded.

Some were hesitant to make a sweeping condemnation pointing to the violence of the counter-protesters as a factor that must also be considered. Others feared that the public’s perception that the protesters were somehow conservative would be exploited to condemn anyone espousing conservative views.

However, the violent nature and motives of the Charlottesville incident requires that such considerations be put aside and an unequivocal condemnation be made.

A Clash of False Alternatives
Such unequivocal condemnations should not obscure the real issues involved. In this case, America faces the horns of a dilemma as it is presented with two undesirable alternatives. What happened in Virginia was a clash of two false alternatives around the highly explosive issue of rewriting history by removing historic statues. This revisionist trend represents a dangerous new development in the moral and cultural decay of the nation.

This is no battle between two legitimate sides. Rather, these two clashing sides are nothing more than the two horns of a single anarchical false dilemma.

The positions opposing order, police and rule of law of the Antifa movement, Black Lives Matter movement and other groups are well-known. Also hostile to the remnants of Christian civilization within the rule of law and established political order are the alt-right movement’s Nazi, nationalist, socialist, racist and ultimately anarchical proclivities. Neither horn in this false dilemma represents America’s heritage and must, therefore, be rejected.

Above all, the notion that the alt-right represents a Christian or conservative perspective must be refuted. The alt-right has much more in common with the radical left’s utopian, nightmarish dreams than with Senator Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative.

An Expression of Anarchy
This can be seen in the movement’s literature and the declared views of its leaders. The alt-right is a movement that fundamentally rejects traditional conservativism. It does not share the moral values of religious conservatives since its adherents generally support abortion and the homosexual agenda. Economically, they exhibit a hostility toward the free market economics espoused by fiscal conservatives.

The alt-right notion of being Christian is often expressed by a vague cultural “Christendom,” that is associated much more with a white European cultural or even tribal identity than the worship of a Triune God and the loving and following of the Ten Commandments. That is why Richard Spencer, a key figure in the movement, calls himself both an atheist and “cultural Christian.” Even more disconcerting is the strong neo-pagan influence found in the movement. Neo-pagans see in past, pre-Christian, mythical religions the deep and dark roots of a supposedly glorious Nordic past that they idealized.

Thus, people mistakenly think that the alt-right represents the extreme right end of the political spectrum. However, it might more accurately be said that it merely manifests markedly different expressions of the same anarchical movement that is tearing the nation apart. Charlottesville was a fight among anarchists. It was not a clash between left and right.

It should be remembered that Germany’s Third Reich National Socialists, Nazis for short, were no less socialist than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics against which they violently fought. The Nazis simply manifested their equally atheistic, materialistic, socialist philosophy differently than Russia’s communists.

A Breakdown of the Moral Order
What happened at Charlottesville is a symptom of the breakdown of the moral order in America. When a moral order is rejected, it leads to a proliferation of subcultures. Outside the framework of an order, the imagination is free to create narratives that fragment society into different myths and lifestyles. When order is weak, anarchy is emboldened; resentments are resurrected; and groups feel empowered and entitled to overthrow the status quo.

These fragmented groups tend to use and even welcome violence. They do this not just because it attracts much media attention by its sensationalism, but because it expresses their struggle.

False Alternatives Not Shared by Most Americans
Fanned by the media, a climate of shock and tension has been fabricated around a narrative that does not reflect America, past or present. The fringe groups of anarchists that clashed in Charlottesville do not represent the majority of Americans.

Their class-struggle revisions of history do not correspond to the nation’s social reality. Most Americans long to see at work again the common sense and can-do practical spirit that have united the nation in the past. They want out from this nightmare of false alternatives forced upon America that is streaming on their computer screens and social media.

Charlottesville presented Americans with a false dilemma: two expressions of the same anarchical spirit. Both options lead to ruin.

Charlottesville presented Americans with an indecent choice which must be categorically rejected and unequivocally condemned. Instead, America must embrace the true third option: The return to a moral order founded on the respect and love for God and his law.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2017/08/18/charlottesville-a-clash-of-false-alternatives/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

3 comments on “Charlottesville: A Clash of False Alternatives

  1. Transcendent truth, not leftist hypocrisy, needed to overcome racism and other evils

    The Left always seeks to claim and re-name the moral high ground, but has no objective foundations for its radical political project

    August 17, 2017
    Carl E. Olson

    “Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community – however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.” — Pope Pius XII, Mit brennender Sorge (March 14, 1937)

    “Their conflict is not one of ideologies, for Communism and Naziism are both destructive of human freedom.” — Abp. Fulton Sheen, Philosophies at War (1943)

    There are many aspects to the violent, ugly, and shameful actions that have taken place in Charlottesville, Virginia, these past few days but I focus here on just a couple of them, seeking to make a couple of connections to ongoing troubles in the Church.

    First, at risk of being misunderstood or misrepresented, I am a bit bemused at the flood of statements, remarks, exhortations, demands, tweets, posts, and declarations that certain groups must—must!—renounce, condemn, and otherwise harshly decry the words and deeds of the white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and related haters. It’s as if we GenXers and the Millennials nipping at our heels have never, in all of our many years in public schools and in various public settings, really heard or learned that racism is an evil, as it surely is. But, in fact, if there are any evils that approach the status of objective certainty in the eyes of the ordinary, younger American today, they are surely racism, sexism, and homophobia (and perhaps Islamophobia as well).

    A couple of nights ago, as matters turned deadly in Charlottesville, I saw that a well-known Catholic commentator was excoriating “conservatives” and “Trump supporters” and other apparently dubious deplorables for failing to step up and offer endless condemnations. Silence or even a low level of social media shouting was taken, it appears, as a tacit admission of support of said racists. It was a ploy both clever and crude: “Do this, or I’ll have to conclude that you aren’t upholding my lacking, emotive, and ideological assumptions!”

    Some study of history, both American and otherwise, as well as nearly thirty years of following politics closely has taught me a handful of near certain things. One of them is that the Left, from its extreme fringes to even its more moderate and mainstream forms, will use anything and everything to smear, deride, shame, and even destroy those deemed politically conservative and orthodox Christian. (I don’t have time, unfortunately, to explain why I’ve never believed Donald Trump is conservative. Another time.) For such folks, many of them quite active in Charlottesville, history exists to be re-written or destroyed, reason is ignored or attacked, and order—social, political, religious, etc.—is to be broken and discarded.

    Those considered enemies by the Left are called “bigots” and “racists” and worse, and they told to shut up, grovel, and bow to the angry hordes—whether in the streets or on social media. David Harsanyi sums it well over at The Federalist:

    The left doesn’t take responsibility for the violence on its fringes, for the murder of five cops in Dallas, or the assassination attempt on Republican leadership, or the serial vandalism, or the mobs of free-speech antagonists on campuses, or the rioters at WTO, or those who desire to massacre social conservatives in Washington, because it’s inconvenient to the left’s preferred narrative. They don’t see these people as their responsibility. But you, my conservative voter, do you condemn in the harshest terms those Nazis in Charlottesville that you spawned by supporting tax cuts and judicial restraint and Donald Trump? And even then, condemnation is not enough. You may not mention anyone else or any other factor or you risk being smeared as a Nazi-apologist.
    Put another way, the Left always seeks to claim and re-name the moral high ground—and has been doing so since the French Revolution (although dated in some ways, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s Leftism, published in 1974, is very instructive regarding the Left’s history, foundations, and tactics). And while not all on the Left are overtly communist or Marxist, they share in the general belief that agitation and the undermining of social order are not just helpful, but necessary, in remaking America. “Communism,” as Fulton Sheen observed eight decades ago, “believes that the only way it can establish itself is by inciting revolution, class struggle, and violence.” Naziism, in both its 20th century and 21st century forms, also relies on similar actions, but often seek to appeal to a perverted form of religion in doing so, while focusing on race rather than class. (Of course, “identity politics” are just another form of racism, and one used very effectively by the Left.)

    Violence, hatred, and disorder are essential to both; they are not so much directly opposed to one another as they are demented twins separated at birth, pursuing forms of atheism that cut the bonds between God and man, moral law and social order, objective truth and human nature. Thus, Sheen also said: “There are two kinds of ‘atheism’: the atheism of the right, which professes to love God and ignores neighbor; and the atheism of the left, which professes to love neighbor and ignores God.” The two were responsible, in the past century, for the deaths of tens of millions; the two are now, in various forms and under many (and often misleading) names, battling and brawling on American soil. Both ideologies are diabolical and both rely heavily on youth who are unmoored, unrooted, historically illiterate, philosophically clueless, angry, preening, and morally confused.

    The incoherence of the Leftist mobs can be seen in the now escalating destruction of statues and the demand that others be destroyed. Personally, I think each community (as locally as possible) should decide, after coherent and careful discussion and debate, what should be done with particular statues. But, of course, the morally superior among us have taken it upon themselves to make final judgments. Democracy? Who cares! Rational discussion? Hell, no! Respect for fellow citizens? Never! For these philistines, it’s very simple: they have judged these monuments to be racist, bigoted, and hateful, and so they must be destroyed. Those who object must be shamed and silenced. Period.

    None of this should be surprising. The Left has worked with maniacal focus for decades to remake country, culture, and creed in the shape of an equality that is incoherent and a freedom that is inhuman. Yes, of course the neo-Nazis, racists, and white supremacists should be denounced and exposed for what they are and what they do. But they have not been the ones dominating the political classes, the media, the halls of higher education, and other key positions of power these past several decades. They are not the ones preaching and promoting the supposed joys and freedoms of the sexual revolution, abortion on demand, homosexuality, transgenderism, serial monogamy, cohabitation, and a hundred other sins and evils.

    In short, the Left has proven countless times it has no right to be taken seriously as the voice of moral goodness and social order. Quite the contrary. And yet there are those, even within the Church, who are happy to play the same hypocritical—and, alas, destructive—game of deflection, distraction, and obfuscation. And so, for example, Fr. James Martin, S.J, posted a ten-part tweet recently addressed to “Christian White Supremacists”, stating the following (I’ve combined the tweets into one statement here):

    Your Savior told you never to “lord” power over anyone, and that you must be the “servants” of all. (Mt 20: 25-27) Jesus also selected a group of nonwhite disciples, after growing up with his nonwhite family in the Middle East (Lk 2:51; Mt. 10: 1-4). And when Jesus encountered people from other regions (like Samaria, and Tyre and Sidon) or other religions (like the Roman centurion) …he always treated them with dignity, and offered them both welcome and healing (Jn 4:1-42; Mt 15:21-28; Mt 8: 5-13). The notion that Jesus would want his followers to exclude people because they’re different from us or that he wants us to see anyone, or any group, as “less than” is completely against his life and his teachings. So how can you call yourself “supreme” over anyone, or any race, or any group, and still consider yourself a Christian? Placing yourself over nonwhites also means that you’re placing yourself “first,” and do you remember Jesus’s teaching about that? “The first shall be last” (Mt 20:16). So your greatest danger is not nonwhites living in your state. It’s the state of your soul.

    The problem is not in what Fr. Martin says; in fact, I agree completely with his remarks as they stand. Again, we have been deeply and consistently catechized about the evils of racism. But why is racism wrong? Why do we rightly recognize that all men are equal in some objective and substantive way? The Catechism sums it up nicely, stating: “Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity” (par 1934).

    In other words, racism is evil because it is contrary to our origins, our nature, and our end. And social justice (a term misused often for many things contrary to social order and authentic justice), the Catechism emphasizes, “can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him…” (par 1929; emphasis added). Secular ideologies and philosophies are not capable of providing an objective basis for the equal dignity of all men. The protester who screams “Racist!” while also bowing to the creed of abortion, homosexuality, and other ills is intellectually incoherent and morally absurd.

    Yet Fr. Martin, who warns racists of the real danger to their eternal souls, has not and apparently will not utter warnings about the grave dangers (spiritual, surely, but also physical, emotional, and psychological) of homosexual acts and relationships. As Dr. Eduardo Echeverria observed in his CWR review of Fr. Martin’s best-selling book Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity:

    [O]ne would think that in a book about human sexuality, an author writing from a Catholic perspective would identify the specific sexual struggles of the moral life in Christ as the sixth commandment bears upon them, and the corresponding sexual sins against chastity. But no, they receive no attention; they do not figure in this book at all.

    The matters of race and sex are more closely related than might initially appear. One way of putting it is that just as racism is sinful because it goes contrary to man’s divine origin and end, homosexual acts are sinful because they are contrary to man’s nature; they are disordered and contrary to God’s law. “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered,” says the Catechism, “when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes” (par 2351). And in a passage that Fr. Martin says should be changed, the Catechism states:

    Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (par. 2357)

    To boldly denounce racism while tacitly accepting or even encouraging the aims and activities of the “LGBT community” (another convenient political construct) is to oh-so-bravely toe the dominant line and tactic of the Leftist agenda. It is hypocritical; it is disingenuous; it places lives and souls in grave danger. It is unfitting for any Catholic, whether a priest or a layman.

    “There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just,” the Church says in her divine wisdom, “The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to ‘the slavery of sin.’” (CCC, 1733). Which is worse: being a slave to another person or being a slave to sin? Stating the obvious truth about racism is a good thing; stating the inconvenient truth about man, sexuality, and our eternal end is also good. It is also imperative. And very unpopular. But touting social justice without proclaiming moral truth makes you no better than the political ideologues who lie, distort, bully, shame, and mock.

  2. White House Petition: Formally recognize AntiFa as a terrorist organization
    petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/formally-recognize-antifa-terrorist-organization-0

    Terrorism is defined as “the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims”. This definition is the same definition used to declare ISIS and other groups, as terrorist organizations. AntiFa has earned this title due to its violent actions in multiple cities and their influence in the killings of multiple police officers throughout the United States. It is time for the pentagon to be consistent in its actions – and just as they rightfully declared ISIS a terror group, they must declare AntiFa a terror group – on the grounds of principle, integrity, morality, and safety.

  3. CNN Publishes Fake Hate List – Targeting Well-Known Christian Groups
    by Todd Starnes, Aug 19

    Many Christian organizations are fearful for their safety after CNN published a bogus “hate map” concocted by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    “Here are all the active hate groups where you live,” CNN’s headline declared.

    The list included among others American Family Association, Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, Liberty Counsel and Pacific Justice Institute.

    American Family Association blasted the CNN story calling it a “sham news article that could easily incite violence and place AFA employees and supporters in harm’s way.”

    Liberty Counsel President Mat Staver demanded an immediate retraction – calling CNN’s report “false, defamatory and dangerous.”

    “Liberty Counsel is not a hate group,” he said. “The false ‘hate’ label is very damaging to our reputation and is a safety risk to our staff. Liberty Counsel is a Christian ministry, and hates no one.”

    Conservatives and Christians have good reason to be worried.

    In 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins opened fire inside Family Research Council headquarters in Washington, D.C. A security guard was shot and wounded.

    The domestic terrorist told police he wanted to kill as many employees as possible to intimidate opponents of same-sex marriage. Corkins brought along Chick-fil-A sandwiches, which he intended to smear on the faces of dead staffers.

    Corkins told authorities that he picked his target using the Southern Poverty Law Center’s so-called “hate map.”

    Family Research Council President Tony Perkins appeared on my nationally syndicated radio show Thursday to condemn CNN for using material from an organization that is “an attack dog of the Left.”

    “They are not a neutral arbiter that is calling balls and strikes. They are on the field – playing. They are pushing an agenda and anyone who opposes them – they slap a label on them,” Perkins told me.

    “They (SPLC) are inciting violence and it needs to stop,” he added.

    Liberty Counsel pointed out that had CNN done due diligence they would have discovered that the SPLC hate map has been widely discredited.

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation removed the SPLC as a resource in 2014 – during the Obama Administration.

    And Liberty Counsel reports that in 2016 the Justice Department reprimanded SPLC’s lawyers for repeating “hate” misinformation.

    Shortly after I called out CNN on my nationally syndicated radio show, they issued an editor’s note:

    “The headline on this story has been changed to more closely align with the content of the piece, which clearly indicates that the data on hate groups is from the Southern Poverty Law Center. This story has also been updated to provide direct links to the full list from the SPLC as opposed to publishing the entire list here.”

    That’s not good enough.

    CNN must retract the entire story and publicly vow to never again use Southern Poverty Law Center’s inflammatory propaganda.

    The cold hard reality is that CNN is responsible for placing a target on the backs of well-respected conservative groups and Christian ministries.

    We can only pray there’s not another Floyd Corkins lurking in the shadows – and reading CNN’s bogus report.

Leave a Reply