Tuesday, 23 September 2014

The Secular Right, Alternative Right, Neoreaction, Dark Enlightenment, Manosphere is an Antichrist ideology


The word Antichrist refers to an evil phenomenon that is a fake Christianity, something that takes some elements of Christianity but either omits Christ, or else makes him into something other than Lord and Master. An Antichrist may be a person such as any modern mainstream politician in the West advocating Christian language or concepts, or a movement/ ideology such as communism.

The Secular Right movements listed above are Antichrist phenomena because they take elements of Christian morality - especially related to social organization - as a basis for gaining support from Christians, and to make their agenda seem Good.

But at root the agenda is simply a different blend of Leftism - the Secular Right is anti-Christian, pro-pride and with a bottom-line hedonic moral calculus (i.e. good is what makes you feel good, evil is what causes you pain and suffering). Since it is Secular - their ultimate weapon, the One Ring, is hatred (the second most powerful motivator in the universe, but the most powerful one available to secular ideologies): and it will not long resist deploying it.


The Secular Right uses Christianity as a means to an opposite end; similarly some Christians hope to use the Secular Right as a means to Christian objectives. Both strategies will fail, both will end in disaster, and of the same (secular) variety.

The Secular Right (ie. the common-sense Left) hopes to use the impending collapse of modernity to grab power from the socialist pathological-altruism Left, with the help of Christians and other religions whom they then intend first to enlist then to betray, when that becomes expedient. (Obviously betray! since they don't want a religious society.)


How do you know which you are?

Easy - Ask yourself what comes first: what is your priority; is it religious or political; is it repentance and revival, or is it swift and tough action to stop the rot?

(Is it not-of-this-world or this-worldly?)

Simple question: unambiguous answer.

Now you know which side you are on.


(And the pressure to focus on 'this world' as the first priority will only increase as the crisis deepens.)


Note: Commenter Ingemar (below) has dubbed the Secular Right, Alternative Right, Neoreaction, Dark Enlightenment, Manosphere blogplex by the name: 

The Boromirosphere 

with the attributed mission statement: 

"Hey lads, let's use the One Ring to fight Sauron!" 


Ingemar said...

How appropriate.

On another site, I called those collected movements the "Boromirosphere."

"Hey lads, let's use the One Ring to fight Sauron!"

Bruce Charlton said...

@Ingemar - That's brilliant! I have added a note.

Bruce B. said...

The neo-reactionaries, dark-enlightenment, alt-right sites are largely ethnic/racial nationalist or “race-realist.” Yes, they feature posts on anti-feminism, anti-democracy, etc. but I think they’re largely driven by reaction to the West’s immigration policies and racial/ethnic egalitarianism. You can see this in the disproportionate attention they give to these issues (with some exceptions, of course). They’re often anti-Christian because almost all contemporary Christians are liberal or leftist with respect to ethnic/racial issues.

Leo said...

Yes, brilliant post that cuts right to the heart of the matter. See also Matt. 6:24 and 16:26 and Ps 127:1.

davidstanley said...

most of them have you on their blog rolls however so maybe you have some benign influence?

Samson J. said...

On another site, I called those collected movements the "Boromirosphere."

At first I was aghast at this, because Boromir is my favourite LotR character, and I did not want his name cheapened in this way. But then I realized why the comparison is appropriate.

Boromir, the character, is widely misunderstood and under-appreciated. In fact he's a great man who simply, unlike most of the other characters, gives in to his sinful desire. But other than that, there's much that's noble about him - and that in particular is why the analogy to the manosphere is apt: there's a lot about the manosphere that's not only important but actually crucial to know, and yet... the 'sphere is ultimately corrupting.

I wrote a comment to this effect on a manosphere blog just recently; I won't link to it, but it's one of the few blogs that I still read very occasionally, having foresworn almost all of the others. Any given manosphere post will *explicitly* contain specific bits of information that are important to know, but the great harm comes from all of the many things that are consistently *implicit* but not stated outright. Thus the great harm of the manosphere is the way that it warps one's worldview. The ultimate effect of being a regular consumer of the manosphere is that's one's view regarding sexuality, and men, and women, becomes satanic and joyless.

(It should go without saying, but perhaps doesn't, that all of the above applies to "Christian" manosphere sites too! I've seen no shortage of manosphere sites billing themselves as "Christian" whose implicit premises, tastes and teachings are satanic.)

Leo said...


Thought you might like this comment from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement

“Neoreactionaries are the latest in a long line of intellectuals who somehow think that their chosen authoritarian thugs wouldn't put them up against the wall. Possibly using sheer volume of words as a bulletproof shield.”

dfordoom said...

"They’re often anti-Christian because almost all contemporary Christians are liberal or leftist with respect to ethnic/racial issues."

Exactly. The problem is that mainstream Christianity today is just secular leftism with a very vague spiritual gloss. And even the vague spiritual gloss is often absent.

It's not that people have deserted Christianity. The problem is that Christianity (for the most part) has deserted Christianity.

Bruce Charlton said...

@dfd - I am talking historically; the West *first* weakened then abandoned Christianity (incrementally); and the situation is *now* as you describe.

Christianity did not 'lead the way' into the present situation - instead Mainstream Christian institutions first tolerated then adopted secular attitudes, secular ways of speaking, a secular focus - and more recently secular values as their *core* values.

For example it is not allowed for Church of England clergy to belong to so-called Right Wing political parties - indeed, political beliefs and values are prescribed and enforced.

But clergy (and especially bishops, also official theologians) are allowed (and indeed it is quite usual) to argue publicly against the reality of God, the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth; and *many* aspects of real Christian morality are now hated and persecuted within the mainstream Churchs.

This just is the situation: real Christians are a tiny and worldly-weak minority with very little perceptible prospect of 'winning' the culture and political wars. (We hope to win, but canot be optimistic.)

This must be accepted as a baseline. Work up from that.

TE said...

I just want to add in another Catholic Tolkienesque line of thought to this discussion. It seems to me that despite the secular alt-right's overall pernicious influence, as with all evils God is able to use it for the ultimate victory of good. At least in my own case and many others, the secular alt-right led to a lot of bad things, but in the end, by the grace of God, to a conversion to Christianity.


"It's not that people have deserted Christianity. The problem is that Christianity (for the most part) has deserted Christianity."

Just want to say that I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but that I fear some people could take it to be a valid excuse for not being Christian.

I also disagree that people haven't deserted Christianity; but the ultimate point is that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God and no matter the degree of corruption found in Christian institutions there is no good excuse for leaving Him. There may be reduced culpability-- I have no problem with that notion-- but we should be very careful not to encourage people to use that as an excuse for rejecting Christ himself.

JP said...

I am hard pressed to think of a country (or group) that was able to defeat its enemies without pride and hatred. If you don't love yourself and hate the enemy, your resistance will falter and you will lose all motivation and willingness to endure the suffering that any contest demands. In short you will surrender and do nothing but grumble. The Left has sought to prohibit - and even legally proscribe - white / Christian / European national pride (and hatred of their opponents) precisely because the Left wants whites / Christians / European nations to stop resisting, lie down, and die.

So the question arises - is it possible to be a good Christian and still retain the power of resistance if that requires pride and hatred? If the answer is no, then we must conclude that the most powerful, successful, and long-lived Christian nations and empires (such as the Byzantine Empire and British Empire) were not really Christian after all.

Bruce Charlton said...

@JP - If you are a Christian there is nothing to debate - Pride is the worst sin.

But it is possible you may be using the word in a different sense.

If you think that the Byzantine or British Empires were built on pride and hate, I would disagree.

JP said...

If you think that the Byzantine or British Empires were built on pride and hate, I would disagree.

I think it is indisputable that they were proud to be Byzantines and Britons, and that they hated their enemies. The British fought the French constantly for 800 years. This was not a casual dislike; it involved considerable suffering and sacrifice. I have some reproduction propaganda posters from the Napoleonic Wars, and there isn't a lot of "love your enemy" in them.

I cannot imagine the Byzantines did not hate the Arabs, Ottomans, or Bulgars.

What carried the cross and the Union Jack to cover a quarter of the Earth's surface if not, to some degree, pride and hate?

Bruce Charlton said...

@JP - This just strikes me as a silly line of argument which can't go anywhere useful.