Coming Halfway Out of Babel: Alienist Hypocrisy Regarding the Brexit

Here we are, just weeks since the historic British vote to depart from the odious European Union, and if you didn’t know better you’d think Facebook’s alienist coterie had come to their senses. Oh, the hosannas they have on offer to decentralization and liberty! Take, for example, this swooning tribute from David Bahnsen, posted on his Facebook page on June 23^rd and written in his trademark juvenile effervescence:

Geez the amount of ignorant mush out there on BREXIT is just unbelievable. Today marks an unbelievable moment for the great United Kingdom. As Larry Kudlow says, it is a MagnaCarta 2.0 moment. The market volatility will prove to be a total non event. And if Europe learns from this, she might be saved. Don’t hold your breath. But Great Britain has today made the great decision for sovereignty, for freedom, and to reject political elitist crony fraudulent coalitions.

In a bit of unintended hilarity, Bahnsen also let his wizened thoughts be known via his posting of a vid of Mel Gibson hollering ‘FREEEEEEDOM!!!!’ from Braveheart…despite the fact that Scotland itself voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. But he doesn’t receive unfathomably important bookings on CNBC and Fox Business because he’s a historian, after all.

In a June 26^th comment regarding a vid of Brexit: The Movie on Jeff Durbin’s wall, one commentator had this to say regarding the EU’s occult symbology:

Excellent movie and LOVE how they (accurately) referred to the EU bureaucrats as “priests.” They are indeed Babylonian priests after the line of Nimrod and his Statecraft-Priestcraft, Statism and Emperor Worship. Only complaint is use of “democracy” vs. “republic.” May the idols continue to fall and all bow before the True King of Kings!

Durbin’s partner in doltishness, Marcus Pittman, was apparently too busy filing a lawsuit against the TSA for destroying untold numbers of his vape pens to bother offering any kind of a reaction himself. Our loss.

On June 24^th R.C. Sproul, Jr., attempted to wax eloquent and wound up sounding drunk instead:

It seems my people’s overlords threw the off their overlords yesterday, & my people chose to be ruled by my overlords’ overlords.

And finally, we’ve got the notable reaction of that cat with the tats, the derision of American Vision, the deformed grub of the Reformed Pub Joel McDurmon, who decided to get all presuppositional in his analysis, posted on The American Vision page on June 23^rd:

Some people have asked me what I think about Brexit. It seems obvious, after all, that a vote in support to leave the EU would be consistent with the thesis of decentralization in Restoring America One County at a Time. A biblical worldview calls for smaller government and local control.

I agree with this view in theory, BUT, keep in mind that God wants small, local, decentralized governments built on free individuals and families that FOLLOW HIS LAW. If this basic commitment is not in place first, then decentralization could be even more disastrous that a strong, centralized government.

So let’s not confuse the ends and means, cart and horse, and all that. Brexit, pass or fail, will mean very little if there is not a revival of Christian ethics among the people.

The same will be true in America, One County at a Time. I would rather, in the mean time, have a strong central government that protects some biblical values than a decentralized local cabal that destroys them in the name of God and country.

All of which serves McDurmon well in his calling as an armchair resistance leader. Notwithstanding its stand against unnatural European hegemony, Britain remains the unregenerate Sodom of the North Sea it was prior to the vote. Hence, until that mass turning of hearts towards God occurs it is far better to sit in your air-conditioned office griping about taxes and regulations, and maybe picketing from time to time, while Mordor goes on its merry way, incidentally protecting ‘some’ biblical values. (Uh, such as…?) McDurmon’s sugar daddy Gary North obviously taught him a thing or two about strategy.

So the Alienist Team is thoroughly enamoured with the Brexit. And I have just one question: why? How does a once-mighty citadel for white Christendom taking its first tenuous step in decades towards affirming its right to exist jibe at all with the A-Team’s desire to consolidate all the peoples of the world into a rainbow stew, thereby fulfilling their exceedingly erroneous interpretation of the body of Christ being made whole? Why do they want to make their job more difficult? Do they enjoy a challenge? Obviously not, given how block-happy they are towards kinists who attempt to engage them in civil, though lively, debate. They certainly can’t be wistfully hoping for the return of Covenanter territory to rebuild the church on either since, as stated, Scotland voted to stick with the EU and is willing to consider another independence referendum to do so.

Of course, the most glaring contradiction in their position is their cheerleading for a sovereignty for Britain that they would deny, and have vehemently denied, to the Confederate States of America. How dare McDurmon give tacit approval to the Brexit (and he expresses considerably more enthusiasm for county autonomy in general, provided it is ‘Christian’, as documented here), yet feels free to spit upon those who fly the Confederate battle flag, representing one of the most dedicated and scripturally sound secession movements of all time? How can he even entertain the possibility of any type of secession when he has impugned the memory of R.L. Dabney, Christendom’s preeminent champion of anti-amalgamation of all sorts? Can he seriously claim to be (as he modestly does in his Confederate flag piece) to be “one of the most radically outspoken voices in our time in favor of states’ rights, radical decentralization, non-interventionism, radically free markets, private property, anti-taxes, anti-war, anti-tariffs, pro-life, pro-family, pro-militia, pro-gun, pro-nullification, pro-jury nullification, anti-administrative law, anti-Marxism—all backed up from a biblical perspective” – or is that just the coral implants he recently had grafted into his skull talking?

Still, his crystal-clear hypocrisy seems almost refreshing in comparison to the obfuscation of Doug Wilson. He was able to unequivocally declare the Brexit to be ‘some of the best news I have heard in a long time‘. Yet on the subject of the battle flag he hems and haws all over the map, lamenting as it ‘has been used in some awful ways’; still, he can’t be unduly harsh towards it as ‘our treatment of the unborn is far, far worse than slavery was and involves many more millions of people’ and he must hold the Stars and Stripes in equal opprobrium – except he can’t quite do that either as he looks upon that flag ‘with affection, respect and sorrow’ and he does ‘not yet believe the American flag is a lost cause.’ Ai yai yai! Wilson is obviously having a hard time trying to impress the handful of neo-Cuckfederates who have inexplicably made him out to be a pitiful 21^st-century incarnation of Dabney.

While the most glaring oversight, the Confederate hypocrisy is not the only one on display. Take David Bahnsen, for example (please). It boggles the mind how he can laud “the great decision for sovereignty, for freedom, and to reject political elitist crony fraudulent coalitions” when he has smeared Ron Paul supporters in the past as dangerous ignorant naysayers and dreamers. While in no way, shape or form a theonomist, Paul certainly represents more of a move towards sovereignty and a move away from crony capitalism than two of Bahnsen’s more serious political boy crushes: Mitt ‘Corporations are people!’ Romney and Marco ‘I’m going to Chippendale’s with Enrique tonight!’ Rubio. I guess Bahnsen must have shorted the pound the day before the vote.

At this point, some anti-racist will probably say to me “Malsbury, you’re a racist. [It’s their version of ‘How do you do?’] You’re comparing apples and oranges. The Confederacy was a fundamentalist crypto-fascist bastion of white privilege and oppression while Britain is a shining example of post-colonial progressive multiculturalism! It’s all about economics, dude! The only thing that’s been holding British prosperity back is the fact that it has been shackled to Angela Merkel’s Fourth Reich all these years! Race plays no part in this at all! Sheesh! Don’t you, like, watch RT and stuff? And you’re still racist.”

Well, thank you for that. Constructive feedback is always welcome. Oh, by the way, you’re also dead wrong.

It truly boggles the mind to observe the A-Team bend over backwards to avoid the racial components of Brexit when the official statistics tell the story:

Two thirds (67%) of those describing themselves as Asian voted to Remain, as did three quarters (73%) of black voters.

Nearly six in ten (58%) of those describing themselves as Christian voted to Leave; seven in 10 Muslims voted to Remain.¹

How, too, do they overlook the fact that one of the ‘jewels’ in rainbow Britain’s crown – Birmingham – narrowly voted to leave the EU, angry working-class nativist whites providing the margin of victory? What do they think is fueling the unfortunate but understandable wave of violent anti-immigration confrontations that have surfaced post-Brexit?² When the dog that has bit you for so many years has finally been muzzled, you can’t be expected to hug that dog and reminisce with longing about the good times you had in the past with him.

Make no mistake: this effort on the A-Team’s part is very much a concerted one – the fruits of a movement terrified about alienating (how appropriate!) its cuckservative donors with more money and feelz than Christian and historical frames of mind. After all, when your entire organization can collapse into powder as a result of a poison-pen letter writing campaign orchestrated by Bojidar Marinov, you know your rock is not as our Rock.

Thank heavens the sultans of spin in the media have come up with a plausible-sounding rationalization for the vote, though – that the overriding concern among the Leave camp was the high-minded desire to retain ‘national sovereignty’ rather than the base lust of white Britons to preserve what’s left of their own. US News and World Report managed to describe this phenomenon in Treaty of Versailles terms, making it doubly nauseating:

The principle of national self-determination has animated global policy since the Wilsonian era; indeed it is a cornerstone of American foreign policy throughout the post-war period. It’s been seen consistently ever since the end of the Cold War: Czechoslovakia split itself in half, Yugoslavia has broken apart into all its constituent parts and then some and the Soviet Union came apart into constituent republics, some of whom have tried – very much over the objection of Vladimir Putin – to align themselves firmly with the West. It’s a sentiment even present in the U.K., where Scotland voted by the narrowest of margins not to cut itself loose from the rest of Great Britain and may, in light of the Brexit vote, soon try to leave again.³

And for the win: Wilson was a Presbyterian, and hence neo-Calvinists everywhere retain a small but persistent soft spot for him. Take out the too-Arminian-sounding ‘self-determination’ and the sentiment will go over like hotcakes at the next American Vision Forum or ReformCon.

But then we return to that old bugaboo of the A-Team – what, precisely, do they mean by a ‘nation’? Do they mean a political entity bound together by a faulty constitution, held together by arbitrary borders and subject to future UN membership? Or do they mean a scriptural and cultural homogeneity of a people brought together by God to carry out His design? The former is the poorest similitude of the latter conceivable. The longest-lasting and most potent secession movements – the CSA, the Scots and Irish in the UK, the Balkan states from Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia, French Quebec in Canada, the Basques and Catalans from Spain, the Flemish from Belgium – have been based around a united race and the culture resulting therefrom. But the former is what the A-Team has settled for. That being said, maybe they’d be better off seeking a position with the Cato Institute rather than with Chalcedon.

Maybe, just maybe, the A-Team is more Machiavellian than I realize, though. Could it be they sense that this Brexit might not be all it’s cracked up to be? We are already seeing signs of a movement towards a campaign for a second referendum from the Remain side on the one hand, and on the other are seeing the Leave campaign assure non-whites dwelling in Britain that a goodly portion of their immigration rhetoric was mere fiddle-faddle. And with Nigel Farage’s departure as head of UKIP announced, it’s safe to assume that party will opt for a less fire-eating replacement in his place, as has been the practice in electoral politics since time immemorial. Quite frankly, if Britain’s terms of ‘leaving’ the EU have not been watered down significantly by the end of this year, I will be amazed. But the Voices of Moderation within mainstream Calvinism will nod their heads in approval and pat themselves on the back for their sagacity all the same.

But I think I’m giving them too much credit (it’s a failing of mine). Suffice it to ask of them the same question asked by James in chapter 3, verse 11 of his epistle: ‘Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet [water] and bitter?’ The A-Team can only vomit forth bile. Their lukewarm enthusiasm for British independence is more of the same.

I never thought I would find myself commending John Piper for anything, but in June he managed to spend three weeks traipsing through Europe sobbing about the signs of restoration of Christian dominion he could see emanating from every bistro and art gallery, and managed to not mention any anxieties on the Continent regarding a possible Brexit even once.  The rest of the A-Team would have been far better off following his example.

Tweet