An Oxymoron

Secular Right

The recent series of victories against infanticide rendered two valuable services to the Right. First and foremost, they dealt the Death Cult a major blow by seriously curtailing their high sacrament of Moloch worship for the first time in decades.

Second, the wave of abortion bans in states like Georgia and Alabama helpfully smoked out the traitors in our midst, who couldn't refrain from publicly whining that finally winning was a defeat for the Right.

Pseudo-intellectual Christopher DeGroot offers himself as a definitive example of a Death Cult mole in this Taki Mag article, wherein he argues that defeating the secularizing Left requires embracing secularism.
The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein used to tell his students that a philosopher must not belong to any school, because such a priori allegiance may prevent him from thinking with proper detachment. Instead, he must reason in a context-specific fashion, and always be willing to change his mind as he learns more in new circumstances.
That advice is not only a proper model for all intellectual endeavors; it is quite useful in the political domain, too.
Yet nothing could be more averse to this approach, at once wise and humble, than religious dogmatism. That has long been a problem on the right, and the new law in Alabama, which makes abortion illegal even in cases of rape and of incest, is the latest proof. The law will probably be overturned at the district and appellate levels, and it is highly unlikely that the issue will reach the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, it is going to turn more people, particularly women, away from the right, at both the local and the national level, and for good reason.
Anyone who sucks up to people who abandon a movement because it doesn't meet their minimum threshold for baby murder is a saboteur.

What's baffling is DeGroot's pretense of being on the Right in the first place. It doesn't get more "How do you do, fellow right-wingers?" than click bait saturated with Mad-at-Dad antinomianism and Boomer-tier pedestal polishing.

Honestly, what kind of man lets women shake him down by threatening to take their ball and go home if he won't let them butcher enough children?

Oh, yeah. The kind of men who oversaw pro-life's timid, glacial movement while fifty million babies were slaughtered.

"Secular Right" is an oxymoron. DeGroot fancies himself a philosopher. He'd do well to study some history. The Right were those who supported king and Church, throne and altar against the secularizing forces of the French Revolution.

As many former atheists who were less dogmatic in their atheism than DeGroot is now realize, the Left's entire project is to separate people from God.

The secularists had 300 years to make their experiment work. It ended in Clown World.

That's why secular states like Germany, France, Canada, the UK and the US are dying. Meanwhile, Hungary, Poland, Italy, and Russia are successfully resisting secular globalism.

A people's religion is their origin story. It is how a nation explains itself to itself. Agitating to strip a people of their faith is a direct call for that people's destruction.


  1. Secularism makes you stupid, and that article is a good example as to how.

    In this day and age of soyfed media gluttons, slut walkers, commie crybabies, obesity enablers, kid drag queens, culture fracturing, and record high suicide rates, anyone suggesting to plug your ears and continuing off that cliff is either evil or stupid. Possibly both.

    It takes a special kind of person to see all that and still think the Christian religion is the problem.

    1. "Secular" means "of the world". Secularists will always seek the world's approval.

  2. A demonstration, assuming deGroot is recounting him correctly, of why Wittgenstein is not among the great philosophers: the very notion that one could get a better understanding, indeed, would even care if they got a better understanding, exposes the limits of his supposed open-mindedness. How does one 'learn'? about what? Why should learning affect positions one chooses? He's assuming - they all do - a fundamentally Aristotelian world, within which understanding can be better or worse, truth can be approached, and where it *matters* how closely the objective reality required for such things is understood.

    And a demonstration that DeGroot is just playing with words, or is an idiot. Or possibly both, I suppose.

    1. DeGroot advocates an epistemology that a priori thwarts the intellect's true end of finding truth and resting in it.

      So yes, that's either intellectual pride or profound ignorance.

    2. Brian

      Or in DeGroots case the additive power of and.
      The Alabama law is smoking out the wasps hidden in the house. Now to get rid of them.


  3. A religion explains past, present, and future.

    Past: How did we get here? The ultimate origin story.

    Present: What should we do? The definition of right action and thought.

    Future: What will happen? Specifically, what happens after death and after the end of the world.

    This is a very inclusive framework, but I contend that any system that answers these three questions (even if the answers are incoherent, like grounding absolute right and wrong in humanity itself) is functionally a religion.

    Change the religion, and you change those answers...and therefore how people act.

    1. Let's plug in Communism.

      Past: Class struggle driven by the materialist dialectic placed the means of production in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

      Present: The proletariat should seize the means of production.

      Future: We will usher in the New Soviet Man.

      Checks out.

    2. Secular Humanism

      Past: In the beginning was nothing, which exploded. Everything, including life, arose randomly.

      Present: The hylics should obey the proclamations of the pneumatics because they truly know better.

      Future: Obedience to the pneumatics will usher in a present-day utopia (for the right sort of people). Death is the end of being, of consciousness, and the universe will also someday end.

    3. It would seem that, by this definition, fandom is NOT a religion, except as a facet of political progressivism. But I would venture it is the most important thing in way too many people's lives.

    4. Fandom has the shared myths, public rituals, sacred texts, traditions, and icons of a religion, but it doesn't provide any answers.

      That's why the multitudes who've tried to replace faith with fandom are so pitiable.

    5. Fandom is a cult, not a religion. The media empire is their Leader and their kool-aid is the endless amount of poisonous froth they guzzle down like Gamer-fuel and Star Wars brand cereal.

      If the grid ever came down there would be shrieking in every street across the western world.

  4. This needs a signal boost: