Readers have likely encountered excessively agreeable people in their churches who will defend all sorts of sin within the church from criticism.
“Who are you to judge?”
“You can’t possibly know what’s in their heart!”
“I think we should show love instead of criticizing, it’s more productive.”
“We prefer to keep a line of communication open with our children rather than judge them for their fornication at university. (Which only happens by happy accident to serve our own interest in high-status grandchildren.)”
“There’s no point kicking someone out if they’ll just walk across the street and join a different church.”
This is a predictable aspect of the Pyrrhic cycle, where the environment’s favor for highly agreeable personalities produces favorable social conditions for highly neurotic personalities.
Agreeableness is correlated with Feeling-style decision making in MBTI. It’s also correlated with females, Jews, homos, and homo sapiens in general. And somebody high in openness is going to see a Jew with a 180 IQ and say “why not let this guy into Harvard?” He doesn’t understand that group stereotypes are a primitive form of policy. This sets off an agreeableness spiral, because agreeable people prefer their own.
The institutions quickly fill up with agreeable people enjoying each other’s company. The institutions’ focus ceases to be their original purposes and the scope creeps into care/harm moralizing. This is where people with high Neuroticism start entering the system. They are typically less functional, so the Agreeable sorts feel the need to give them a “leg up”, or you might call it charity. (This genuine do-goodism is the first stage of the sort of virtue signalling where the costs of charity are externalized onto other people. The expression of agreeableness becomes more antisocial and downright malicious as time goes on.)
So you have these broken, neurotic people elevated to positions they can’t handle, which causes more stress, which causes more neuroticism, which causes more failures, and so on. The Agreealluminati will then circle the wagons to protect the broken people from the consequences of their weakness. This insulates the Neurotic from reality, which over many iterations forms a delusion bubble. Over time, neuroticism begins to be associated with an aura of otherworldly holiness, because such a person is free of all blame. By virtue of their weakness, they are assumed to be without sin. (I forget what they call this on the alt-white but it’s something about the worship of brokenness.) Thus, the Neurotic class of the Overwatch system is created—protected by a layer of agreeable enablers, who were invited into working institutions by flexible-minded networkers, who were in turn necessitated by the inability of disagreeable engineers and plumbers (and other such libertarians) to engage in group action.
It will clarify our understanding of these conceits common to highly agreeable wagon-circlers if we can translate them into proper statements of belief.
“Who are you to judge?” = Human judgment is illegitimate.
We can refer this fundamental opposition to human justice as radical nonjudgmentalism, as no civil society can survive it. There is a rich vein of judgmentalism to mine in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 through 8 which may be used as ammunition against these sorts. In particular (and I recommend committing this to memory):
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
In reality, of course, such a belief is never sincere because those professing it will never fail to appeal to human authority in pursuit of their own personal gratifications. They will blame these pursuits on “being called by the spirit” when the truth is that they are following their own hearts without examination. Thus, the truth of their belief, as revealed by their behavior, is that “articulated judgment is illegitimate, but the consequences of judgment by unexamined personal taste may be blamed on God’s divine will.” They are then living out the Satanic conviction that, their unconscious motives being pure, only unexamined actions may be guaranteed of purity.
When an action is not to their taste, they act to disincentivize it through social ostracism. When an action is to their taste, they act to ensure it is tolerated by appealing to “Christian nihilism” when it is challenged (see below). Unfortunately, such a person’s tastes are almost wholly determined by what is considered virtuous by nonChristians. At the present time this could include feminism, sexual promiscuity, antinatalism, and even unitarianism.
“You can’t possibly know what’s in their heart!” = Human judgment is impossible.
We can refer to this fundamental disbelief in human justice as Christian nihilism, as it is merely the broader category of tactical nihilism applied to the deconstruction of mens rea. This conceit leads to these Christians being, paradoxically, the most dogmatic of all men–or rather, as is more typically the case, of all women. That is because, yet again, these women are decoupling accountability from authority, blaming the consequences of their own judgments on the actions of God or Karma. And we know that they make judgments, because this is necessary for human life. Even a woman who refuses to pass judgment on a pedophile will act to keep her own children away from him, so that someone else’s children will be victimized (an eventuality of which she will remain stalwartly ignorant at all costs).
They are thus the most likely to make appeals to power: often calling police, associating with powerful men, and in the most extreme case influencing armies to carry out their wishes, after which they will again blame their “unexpected” fortunes on God or Karma.
If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?
(Bolded portion recommended for memorization.)
Such a person would congratulate Jesus for forgiving sins, but condemn him in their hearts for judging the unrepentant.
“I think we should show love instead of criticizing, it’s more productive.” = Love means always being nice.
It is helpful to know that the original meaning of “nice” was closer to naive, stupid, foolish, and stubbornly ignorant. For this reason, I’ll call this fundamental opposition to direct confrontation “silent pacifism”. Or more rhetorically, “the silent pacifism of the eternally nice”. This is meant to demonstrate the absurdity, as historical pacifists were very clear about the need to be vehement critics of injustice, without which their pacifism would encourage further sins committed against them, rather than discouraging them.
Silent pacifism is, in fact, the least loving disposition of all because the opposite of love is not hate, it’s neglect. A father who neglects the rod does not love his child, a husband who does not hate an adulterous wife did not love her in the first place, and a friend who does not criticize his friend’s drug use is no friend at all. Anyone who has spiralled into addiction can tell you that the worst part is seeing which family members and friends were willing to stand by and watch the addiction destroy their bodies and minds while doing and saying nothing. Addicts wonder, inside, “Do you not love me enough to stop me from doing this to myself?”
In truth, these cowards fear to judge “lest they be judged”. But we are called to hate evil and expel the wicked from our community, and we know that we will be judged as a community for our tolerance of sin among us.
For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.”[a] 8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9 We should not test Christ,[b] as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10 And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.
11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.
“We prefer to keep a line of communication open with our children rather than judge them for their fornication at university.” = We want high-status grandchildren more than we want our children to be in heaven.
This is, in my opinion, the most contemptible of the lot. We shall therefore refer to it as “Pernicious moral transference”. I can personally attest* to the feeling of betrayal when parents cease to live as Christians immediately after discharging their responsibilities to their adult children. By their behavior, which reveals deeply held preferences, this is an admission that they did not truly believe in the religion of my youth (or at least did not believe strongly). This puts these adult children in the position of sorting out how much of their childhood was a lie, with the default position being “all of it”. It is not good for a person to learn that their parents are weak and sinful, but it is worse to learn that their Christianity was a facade. There is no better way to create an atheist, in my opinion, other than Catholic school.
Children are smart, even when they’re adults. They know, deep down, that talk is cheap (I hear “lines of communication” a lot these days). Thus, when their parents send them to college and then nag them for the predictable consequences, but never nag so strongly that they would stop, they understand deep down that the parents are merely transferring the moral responsibility for their enabling behaviors. This type of moral transference scapegoats one’s own children, in the hope of avoiding bad karma for their own concessions to personal gratification.
And that’s why it’s better to abort a child than to send them to university, because “If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” An aborted baby is only murdered. A child sent to institutional bacchanalia is corrupted.
Molech, as described in the Old Testament of the Bible, was an Ammonite god who required propitiatory child sacrifice. A couple sacrificed their firstborn by burning the child on a metal idol of Molech, believing that Molech would ensure financial prosperity for the family and future children.
“There’s no point kicking someone out if they’ll just walk across the street and join a different church.” = We’re in this for headcount.
Why would someone find it preferable for wickedness to flourish in one’s own church rather than someone else’s? If Jesus removes the lampstand from the church of Ephesus, shouldn’t they want to be safely ensconced in the church of Smyrna? Curiously, I first heard this objection from the youth minister of my home church, when describing the one time the church elders had thrown out a troublemaker. He despaired that such a difficult process must be useless, and naturally this church no longer exists in any form. If I were a clever man (and despite my real virtues a quick wit is not among them), then I would have pointed out the absurdity of this secular fatalism. Such a position is irrevocably bound to worldly values, beholden to the laws of economics, and thus a house built on sand. It will either preach the health and wealth gospel or die in the no man’s land between the world and the kingdom of heaven. I will thus refer to this as “the headcount gospel”.
2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a][b] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
*This isn’t to say I’ve given up on my family, not in the least, but understanding this part of the problem was absolutely necessary for troubleshooting our dysfunction. I don’t believe my parents aren’t Christians, but I’ve learned their spirits were broken by financial anxiety and this corrupted their priorities, which gives the appearance that “it was all a lie”. I believe referencing the associated emotions here does more good than harm.