Why Christianity's Universalism Trumps The Left's Diversity
Following the recent tragedy in Sri Lanka, I felt great pain for my fellow Christians. I feel solidarity with them in a way that permeates through the barriers of race, class, and culture. Through our mutual capacity for free will, we both had the moral intuition and spiritual enlightenment to come to the same conclusion regarding that which we cannot even be proven through empirical epistemology, due to the nature of the concept not necessitating empirical evidence, to begin with. We commonly found the way, and the truth, and the light, in Christ’s teachings, and yet on that day my fellow followers of Christ were blown into pieces while peacefully celebrating his resurrection.
Christianity offers a universalism of ethics that no other major religion truly does. This ethical universalism extends to non-believers, and people of all nationalities, races, and even religions (hence the use of the term “universal”). This concept may have been co-opted by the left in their worship of diversity (as if it has some artificial moral content), though we are all humans and deserve nothing less than to be treated as individual moral actors.
Despite what implications a leftist may try to draw from this, it, however, does not change the fact that we are also different from one another in our respective categories, whether it be race, ethnicity, nationality, culture, gender, or all matter or other divisions. Group differences absolutely exist, but they are no moral excuse to treat people inhumanely, or as not worthy of human dignity. Regardless of your views on various forms of separatism, those are cultural preferences that are irrelevant to the discussion of our shared humanity, and how that relates to ethics. What we all have in common as humans (other than genetic commonality) is our mutual ability to compare abstract concepts to potential decisions, in other words, free will. No other animal shares this ability with us, it is categorically different from all other animals’ ability to act. Animals act merely on instinct, and for some that are slightly more intelligent, reciprocal altruism may exist, although this did not give rise to any abstract conception of morality. We are rational beings, this does not mean that we always act rationally, but we have the capacity to act rationally. This capacity for free will gives us moral agency, and therefore we are all moral actors.
It is my contention here that any system of ethics that is not universal in its obligations or prohibitions is not actually an ethical system, but rather is a personal preference transposed onto society. Concepts do not exist, but people do exist. A collective group cannot have moral agency because it does not exist as a single unit with the capacity for free will, just as a forest can’t actually be on fire, only individual trees aggregated. Ethics must be universal among categories that are concrete, such as “moral actors”, or “humanity”.
What makes the universalism and celebration of common humanity “un-cucked” and distinct from the left’s worship of diversity is the fact that it does not rely on the false egalitarian presupposition that we are all the same, and that no group differences exist at all, and that if they do then it must be the fault of white people because of “muh subjective sociological analysis”, also that specific policy proposals must follow as a result or else you are hateful. Perhaps groups tend to self-segregate, but what moral content does this really contain?
The implications of the Christian moral modus operandi is that we ought to treat each other morally and love one another despite our substantial differences, which is no specific policy prescription (other than to not violate each other’s property rights), so much as it is an abstract value. We can have love in our hearts for those in the 3rd world without bringing the entirety of their population here, and destroying our own civilization by extension. Any notion that this necessitates a specific policy prescription on cultural integration is simply attempting the subvert the meaning to their own ends. I don’t have to hate people that I don’t want invading my culture, I understand why many of them want to be here, and I don’t see them as any less than human, but the circumstances are such that the endless waves of immigration threaten the structural integrity of our society, and if we lose our society to our rivals that wish to destroy it, there may effectively be no such thing as ethics for generations. Most of the people decrying strict immigration policy have no conception of ethics, let alone what constitutes objective morality, and yet they sophistically act as if they have computed all the variables of this complex moral calculation.
One would not assume that the duty to be altruistic extends to such a degree that one ought to give away all possessions simultaneous to his acquisition of them, and thereby sabotage his capacity to generate future altruism in the future. If this were to be the case, then the net total altruism in the world would crash down to zero, since no one would have the capacity to own anything (which would be the means by one would have the social leverage by which they could extend any altruism, to begin with).
One might try to challenge this and say that one ought to be able to own just enough to be able to extend altruism to other people, but nothing in excess, the challenge I present to anyone who suggests this would be to explain to me how we could measure this and calculate the optimal equilibrium for each individual at each given time, good luck. It is impossible to calculate these platonic ideal ratios, and thusly respect for property rights and the promotion of a general sentiment of altruism seems more feasible. The closest we can get to a platonic ideal ratio is the price mechanism, which takes into account aggregations of human subjective evaluations that are so complex it would be impossible to calculate individually, or even in a centralized collective manner.
Therefore, altruism must be a ratio and not some absolute extension that is unbound by material limitations. In the west, we are fed the illusion of unlimited resources that largely comes from central banking alleviating the current discomfort from any increase in spending, in a Faustian bargain that sells off future generations. Due to this permeation of the ethos of our society, it seems to those who superficially analyze our political situation that those who want limitations on immigration and welfare are just “mean”, rather than forward thinking.
We Need Your Support
We are constantly and collectively under attack from the Postmodern Left; they wish to destroy all forms of meritocratic competition, and completely eliminate all dissidents from public discourse. If given the opportunity, they would not hesitate to completely turn us into social pariahs to the point of not being able to ever achieve traditional employment ever again, de-platform us entirely to the point where we are no longer able to process credit cards, and leave us completely so far removed from society that we would not even be able to receive essential medical care or nutrition.
Please do not give them this opportunity. If we are able to count on you to provide us with the proper amount of money in exchange for all the risk that we take on your behalf to fight these people, then we will not only find success, but we will prevail in our struggle and bring you the content of which you want to see more.
The more resources that you provide us, the more we can achieve singularity of focus without concern for meeting our basic needs.
There is no victory without sacrifice, and we are doing our part in this struggle,
Donations: Support Our WorkPatreon Donation GoFundMe Donations Paypal Donations
Venmo DonationsShow QR Code
Donate CryptocurrencyShow QR Code
3MWPWwXQAECcPfe95 k33hbYkPxVvNnkWCdShow QR Code
0x6FbaaBe48c97aa61288 7Ba6B76311ac0Cc3491FeShow QR Code
MTSdZBdw3gAhRzhNL Gu91JoMaDYstGqtXSShow QR Code