Over at Faith and Heritage, Ehud Would has a piece titled The Top 10 Reasons the Secular Alt-Right Is Not The Answer. He outlines the problems posed by the Secular Alt-Right for Christians in particular, and specifically for the tradition-minded Christians who are the core readership of Faith and Heritage.
[An aside: I notice now that the F & H blog is described as being ‘from a traditionalist perspective’. Maybe I am mistaken but I thought that it originally was described as being from a Kinist perspective. And by the way, what became of Kinism as a distinct movement, or is it now officially dead? Was it thought to have too much ‘baggage’? To my mind, Kinism (small-k or capital-k) was one of the few signs of life among Christians, as most of Christendom has gone apostate and embraces the Babylon world system, multiculturalism, and racial cuckoldry. But I digress.]
The top of the list, the Number One reason why the secular Alt-Right is not the answer (for Christian ethnonationalists presumably) is the homosexual issue.
Attempting to woo Whites means, foremost, disaffected GOP voters. Doing so by adding White Nationalism to the big-state, progressive sodomite/catamite movement already extant in the GOP is effectively an invitation only to the Log Cabin wing of that party.”
Yes. this is something I was trying to get across in my recent post. To become ‘gay-friendly’ in the name of forging alliances or accepting all who are ‘on our side’ regardless of their obviously clashing interests is to follow in the path of the GOPe and their ‘big tent’ policy. As long as they profess what the Repubs call ‘conservative ideology’ they are welcome, and if we have to give a little, compromise in order to make our big tent more comfortable for them, then why not? We can’t afford to turn away allies, and besides why be mean-spirited and intolerant? The left calls us that, and here’s our big chance to show how not mean-spirited and how very tolerant and inclusive we can be.
In a reply I wrote in the comment box to reader and commenter Nick, I mentioned how gay activists, in the tradition of the Gramscian long march, set out to establish a base in the Republican Party as well, so that they have ‘friends’ and supporters on both sides, or all sides. No wonder the gay agenda makes such strides and meets with so little opposition from either of the two major parties. It only makes sense that they would be sure to get established in the Alt-Right too, so that their agenda always has its proponents from whichever quarter. Am I saying that there is a ”conspiracy”? I know there are always people who somehow doubt conspiracies ever happen — though to believe that, you have to explain away a lot of historical events — many of which are known to have been the result of conspiracies.
Conspiracy or not, obviously homosexuals feel they must have society’s approval and that they must be able to lobby openly for greater gains. Recent history shows how successful their efforts have been. Look how quickly the ”gay marriage” thing happened, and now the ‘transgender’ bathroom craziness. What next? We can only be sure that the activists will never be satisfied to stop where they are, but must push relentlessly on to some new conquest over oppressive straight America.
I’ve heard allegations that Soros and other ‘progressive’ sugar-daddies and outside agitator groups are funding the efforts of some of the more prominent homosexual ‘activists’ who are now established on the Alt-Right scene. Are those allegations proven? No. They can’t be easily proven or disproven. But the possibility can’t be denied out of hand.
I thought it worthwhile to re-post this link to a 2005 story on how homosexual activists planned to mainstream homosexuality by a systematic campaign to manipulate public attitudes. Some will say that WND is not a reliable source, but even if you don’t like WND (and even I don’t, particularly) the book these activists wrote, outlining their strategy, can be found to verify what the article claims. And the efforts continue, reaching to every corner of society, including organized Christianity, and also the secular Alt-Right.
Now, the Alt-Right has since its inception not been very friendly to Christianity, with many of its most prominent voices being those of atheists or pagans. So I don’t expect the Alt-Right to be a good fit for the believing Christian, though I tend to view them as allies, even though a Christian is not supposed to be ‘yoked together’ with rank unbelievers or those who are expressly hostile to our faith. But all the same it is troubling to see so many professed Christians arguing in favor of Milo against their brothers in Christ, even directing vitriol at their Christian brethren for taking a Biblical stand against homosexuality — spouting the usual liberal lines about ‘not judging’, or worse, professing the liberal doctrine of moral equivalency (“we’re all sinners, and you or I are no better than the homosexual” or ”you’re worse than the homosexual because you are hypocritical and judgmental”).
If for no other reason, those who want to make the Alt-Right (or especially the small Christian segment thereof) gay-friendly are dividing Christians. They are promoting polarization and division. And from a Christian perspective, they divide Christians amongst themselves in going on the offensive against other Christians — in the name of being more accepting of nonbelievers.
Then again — this may be a necessary sifting, a winnowing. We’ll see what the result is, and who is on which side.
If the Alt-Right is successful, will they just be another product of the corrupt social order that the Left has spearheaded, or will they uphold any kind of traditional morality and ethics? They must not fall prey to the same corruption that is the distinguishing mark of the secular left — if they want to reverse the rot. If.