Watch his rise into political prominence.

He eviscerates every left wing position consistently. Calls debate 'bloodsport' and has represented the outrage of the right quite well in the last week. He forced Cornel West to getup and quit an interview.

Andrew and his wife, author Rachel Wilson, are especially hated by the left because they are in support of the patriarchal structures God designed. in the Church, home, and society.

https://rumble.com/v6yzuuq-theyll-do-it-again-and-again-charlie-kirk-debate-causes-guest-storm-out.html?e9s=src_v1_s%2Csrc_v1_s_m

An hour and a half video? Got anything else?

the most cool guy said:

---

An hour and a half video? Got anything else?

---

AI summary?

He can be a bit of an unnecessary ******* at times. In the same debate you referenced he laid into Ana Kasparian and I think he crossed the line.

At the same time, when he let's that little Adderall enriched ****** bag Destiny have it I love it.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

He can be a bit of an unnecessary ******* at times. In the same debate you referenced he laid into Ana Kasparian and I think he crossed the line.

At the same time, when he let's that little Adderall enriched ****** bag Destiny have it I love it

---

This is one thing he chastises folks on - "tone policing".

Ana's language has moderated the last 3 years...... but she is still a leftist, despite her claims to the otherwise.

the most cool guy said:

---

An hour and a half video? Got anything else?

---

Not everybody is simple enough to need everything condensed into a 20 second sound bite.

He has no understanding of rights. He thinks they are simply "made" up and imaginary. And because he thinks that, he could just make up something else in their place. And his made up system is based on the Eastern Orthodox church.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

He can be a bit of an unnecessary ******* at times. In the same debate you referenced he laid into Ana Kasparian and I think he crossed the line.

At the same time, when he let's that little Adderall enriched ****** bag Destiny have it I love it.

---

He was right Cenk her boss as made many incendiary comments about Trump on their platform

I should also mention that he gave Charlie Kirk a 5/10 ranking on debate skills.

Which is hilarious. Charlie Kirk has convinced a gazillion more people than Andrew Wilson ever will. If anything, Andrew Wilson is making people who already agree with him simply agree with him more, and turning everybody else away.

Slicer97 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

An hour and a half video? Got anything else?

---

Not everybody is simple enough to need everything condensed into a 20 second sound bite.

---

Lol. I'm not asking for a 20-second clip, you gooner. I'm asking for something that isn't 1.5 hours long. Not everybody has time to watch a 1.5 hour video.

aTmAg said:

---

I should also mention that he gave Charlie Kirk a 5/10 ranking on debate skills.

Which is hilarious. Charlie Kirk has convinced a gazillion more people than Andrew Wilson ever will. If anything, Andrew Wilson is making people who already agree with him simply agree with him more, and turning everybody else away.

---

Charlie wasn't there to win debates. He was there to proselytize his point of view. Which then got disseminated to way way more people.

aTmAg said:

---

He has no understanding of rights. He thinks they are simply "made" up and imaginary. And because he thinks that, he could just make up something else in their place. And his made up system is based on the Eastern Orthodox church.

---

There's very little made up about the Eastern Orthodox Church. What really do you mean by that?

Don't know who are and all that---just that remark is in question)

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

He can be a bit of an unnecessary ******* at times. In the same debate you referenced he laid into Ana Kasparian and I think he crossed the line.

At the same time, when he let's that little Adderall enriched ****** bag Destiny have it I love it

---

This is one thing he chastises folks on - "tone policing".

Ana's language has moderated the last 3 years...... but she is still a leftist, despite her claims to the otherwise.

---

I know that guys like him and Tim Gordon and Jay Dyer call it "tone policing", and maybe to some degree it can be. But generally speaking, when you act like a dick, your message is lost to those in the middle. As another poster said, all you do is further galvanize your base while turning off everyone else. It's not a solid growth strategy, but it is great for balkanization.

Quote:

---

I know that guys like him and Tim Gordon and Jay Dyer call it "tone policing", and maybe to some degree it can be. But generally speaking, when you act like a dick, your message is lost to those in the middle. As another poster said, all you do is further galvanize your base while turning off everyone else. It's not a solid growth strategy, but it is great for balkanization.

---

It is one of Trump's greatest weaknesses. Way overplayed. I know because some pretty rabid supporters I know (I am closer to the Kirk approach anyway) otherwise sometimes just get very fed fed up with his "shoveling ammo to the other side to use".

aezmvp said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I should also mention that he gave Charlie Kirk a 5/10 ranking on debate skills.

Which is hilarious. Charlie Kirk has convinced a gazillion more people than Andrew Wilson ever will. If anything, Andrew Wilson is making people who already agree with him simply agree with him more, and turning everybody else away.

---

Charlie wasn't there to win debates. He was there to proselytize his point of view. Which then got disseminated to way way more people.

---

He debated a ton of people very day.

The entire point of debate is to convince others. Charlie Kirk did that in spades. Much more than Wilson.

Meh. That whole concept of the show is silly. They fully cultivate the topics, research well ahead of time, and beat up on silly uninformed people parroting lefty talking points. Its entertaining for a minute or two in sound bites, but there is no real debate there.

Sometimes they get real guests on there, and the playing field is much more even. His snark comes across as small compared to actually other intelligent people.

titan said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

He has no understanding of rights. He thinks they are simply "made" up and imaginary. And because he thinks that, he could just make up something else in their place. And his made up system is based on the Eastern Orthodox church.

---

There's very little made up about the Eastern Orthodox Church. What really do you mean by that?

Don't know who are and all that---just that remark is in question)

---

Wilson says (incorrectly) that rights are not real and are simply "made up". And that since our government is based on made up stuff, then it's really nothing more than a "preference". And if we are governing based on a preferences, then what makes that "made up" preference special? Why not choose Wilson's preference that government should be based on the principles of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

The whole chain of logic is based on a faulty beginning.

"inalienable" being the core tenet

aTmAg said:

---

titan said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

He has no understanding of rights. He thinks they are simply "made" up and imaginary. And because he thinks that, he could just make up something else in their place. And his made up system is based on the Eastern Orthodox church.

---

There's very little made up about the Eastern Orthodox Church. What really do you mean by that?

Don't know who are and all that---just that remark is in question)

---

Wilson says (incorrectly) that rights are not real and are simply "made up". And that since our government is based on made up stuff, then it's really nothing more than a "preference". And if we are governing based on a preferences, then what makes that "made up" preference special? Why not choose Wilson's preference that government should be based on the principles of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

The whole chain of logic is based on a faulty beginning.

---

You should listen again. He is saying that without God as the giver of truth and morality, we are left with made up rights from the government. Force doctrine, in other words. He's trying to show atheists how screwed we are without God at the center.

He's clearly believes in God and that human rights come from Him.

My point is different. Look at the style. Charlie would approach conversations not as direct debates but in using people's questions and arguments to expound on an issue and lay out a vision. It wasn't to just knock down points of the person at the microphone.

Wilson has a much more classical, but very aggressive, style of debate to undercut and dismantle points. Two very, very different styles and objectives. I really don't disagree with Andrew in what he was trying to say about Charlie there. The difference is Charlie was 1000x more effective at disseminating his message than Andrew. Andrew has his place and isn't as effective as a messenger even if he may be a more aggressive debater.

Now that's not to say Charlie didn't/couldn't/wouldn't implement those strategies but really his intention and goal was different.

his argument is rights exist where the will to use force to keep them exists. In a practical sense I can agree with that. But in a philosophical sense I don't. I believe rights exist outside of government control being that they are instituted by the Creator (God).

Thanks. That answers the question. It need not detain the thread further.

The Banned said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

titan said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

He has no understanding of rights. He thinks they are simply "made" up and imaginary. And because he thinks that, he could just make up something else in their place. And his made up system is based on the Eastern Orthodox church.

---

There's very little made up about the Eastern Orthodox Church. What really do you mean by that?

Don't know who are and all that---just that remark is in question)

---

Wilson says (incorrectly) that rights are not real and are simply "made up". And that since our government is based on made up stuff, then it's really nothing more than a "preference". And if we are governing based on a preferences, then what makes that "made up" preference special? Why not choose Wilson's preference that government should be based on the principles of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

The whole chain of logic is based on a faulty beginning.

---

You should listen again. He is saying that without God as the giver of truth and morality, we are left with made up rights from the government.

---

And he is wrong. Rights are not bestowed or defined by government. Rights are pre-existing things that government *should* protect. If a government unjustly kills somebody, that doesn't mean that the right to life never existed nor ceased to exist, it means that the government INFRINGED on that pre-existing right to life.

Quote:

---

Force doctrine, in other words.

---

You act like he opposed the force doctrine. To the contrary, he thinks it is a fundamental aspect of life. And that rights (if they existed) don't matter because the force doctrine supersedes it anyway. My point is that rights tell us WHAT we should use the force doctrine to protect.

Quote:

---

He's trying to show atheists how screwed we are without God at the center.

---

He doesn't do a good job of this. All he does is piss opponents off.

Quote:

---

He's clearly believes in God and that human rights come from Him.

---

He doesn't believe in rights at all.

aTmAg said:

---

The Banned said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

titan said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

He has no understanding of rights. He thinks they are simply "made" up and imaginary. And because he thinks that, he could just make up something else in their place. And his made up system is based on the Eastern Orthodox church.

---

There's very little made up about the Eastern Orthodox Church. What really do you mean by that?

Don't know who are and all that---just that remark is in question)

---

Wilson says (incorrectly) that rights are not real and are simply "made up". And that since our government is based on made up stuff, then it's really nothing more than a "preference". And if we are governing based on a preferences, then what makes that "made up" preference special? Why not choose Wilson's preference that government should be based on the principles of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

The whole chain of logic is based on a faulty beginning.

---

You should listen again. He is saying that without God as the giver of truth and morality, we are left with made up rights from the government.

---

And he is wrong. Rights are not bestowed or defined by government. Rights are pre-existing things that government *should* protect. If a government unjustly kills somebody, that doesn't mean that the right to life never existed nor ceased to exist, it means that the government INFRINGED on that pre-existing right to life.

Quote:

---

Force doctrine, in other words.

---

You act like he opposed the force doctrine. To the contrary, he thinks it is a fundamental aspect of life. And that rights (if they existed) don't matter because the force doctrine supersedes it anyway. My point is that rights tell us WHAT we should use the force doctrine to protect.

Quote:

---

He's trying to show atheists how screwed we are without God at the center.

---

He doesn't do a good job of this. All he does is piss opponents off.

Quote:

---

He's clearly believes in God and that human rights come from Him.

---

He doesn't believe in rights at all.

---

You are completely missing the point. If I am discoursing with someone who doesn't believe in God, then how am I supposed to appeal to inalienable rights? They don't believe inalienable rights exist. This is who he is debating, so he is using their own rules against them.

He clearly says that inalienable rights are a Christian truth. But if we're tossing Christian truth out (like his opponents do) then we're reduced to force doctrine. I guess he could just keep telling them that God exists over and over and over, but as soon as they say "no He doesn't" the conversation is over.

I'm not an Orthodox and I'm not a fan of Andrew Wilson, but you are misinterpreting what his views are.

aezmvp said:

---

My point is different. Look at the style. Charlie would approach conversations not as direct debates but in using people's questions and arguments to expound on an issue and lay out a vision. It wasn't to just knock down points of the person at the microphone.

Wilson has a much more classical, but very aggressive, style of debate to undercut and dismantle points. Two very, very different styles and objectives. I really don't disagree with Andrew in what he was trying to say about Charlie there. The difference is Charlie was 1000x more effective at disseminating his message than Andrew. Andrew has his place and isn't as effective as a messenger even if he may be a more aggressive debater.

Now that's not to say Charlie didn't/couldn't/wouldn't implement those strategies but really his intention and goal was different.

---

To me, Wilson is much more interested in "winning" than "being right". Because of this, if an argument is not going his way, he just talks over the opponent, laughs, and keeps it stuck on an irrelevant point.

For example, I've heard him a few times accuse the other person of "cheating". That the person was looking at a computer or whatever. I don't care if the person has a team of 100 people behind him. I care about the BEST IDEA winning. Not the loudest debater.

In fact, I wish presidential debates were in writing. A question is asked, and each side has an hour to respond in writing. and people read about it later.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

his argument is rights exist where the will to use force to keep them exists. In a practical sense I can agree with that. But in a philosophical sense I don't. I believe rights exist outside of government control being that they are instituted by the Creator (God).

---

And I'm saying his argument is wrong and I agree with you.

The entire point of rights is to be a guide post on what government SHOULD do. Not simply be what government chooses to do. If we have the right to life, then government should protect the right to life. It's not that if the government decides to protect the right to life, then that bestows us the right to life.

Hell how would the concept of "tyranny" exist at all if Wilson was correct? By definition, whatever government chooses to do would become our rights. There would be no rights violated ever and no tyranny.

And yet our founding fathers separated from England because of tyranny and discussed rights BEFORE establishing our government at all.

The Banned said:

---

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

He can be a bit of an unnecessary ******* at times. In the same debate you referenced he laid into Ana Kasparian and I think he crossed the line.

At the same time, when he let's that little Adderall enriched ****** bag Destiny have it I love it

---

This is one thing he chastises folks on - "tone policing".

Ana's language has moderated the last 3 years...... but she is still a leftist, despite her claims to the otherwise.

---

I know that guys like him and Tim Gordon and Jay Dyer call it "tone policing", and maybe to some degree it can be. But generally speaking, when you act like a dick, your message is lost to those in the middle. As another poster said, all you do is further galvanize your base while turning off everyone else. It's not a solid growth strategy, but it is great for balkanization.

---

Obama left us Balkanized.

Wilson simply arrived on the scene to point it out and galvanize people around the truth.

I don't agree with all points on EO - but Andrew is charitable to conservatives in general. Not the left. At all.

aTmAg said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

his argument is rights exist where the will to use force to keep them exists. In a practical sense I can agree with that. But in a philosophical sense I don't. I believe rights exist outside of government control being that they are instituted by the Creator (God).

---

And I'm saying his argument is wrong and I agree with you.

The entire point of rights is to be a guide post on what government SHOULD do. Not simply be what government chooses to do. If we have the right to life, then government should protect the right to life. It's not that if the government decides to protect the right to life, then that bestows us the right to life.

Hell how would the concept of "tyranny" exist at all if Wilson was correct? By definition, whatever government chooses to do would become our rights. There would be no rights violated ever and no tyranny.

And yet our founding fathers separated from England because of tyranny and discussed rights BEFORE establishing our government at all.

---

When multiple people tell you his arguments are going over your head, take a step back.

What he says is that rights exist opposite duties. For example, a duty for women to have children implies the right of a baby to her uterus for gestation. A duty not to kill innocent people imply a right to life. There are no rights without obligations, and rights and duties come from the Creator God. If they don't, they don't exist at all. That's the premise he will grant his interlocutor. That God doesn't exist. If that is your premise, the only rights that exist are the ones you can secure for yourself.

The Banned said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

The Banned said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

titan said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

He has no understanding of rights. He thinks they are simply "made" up and imaginary. And because he thinks that, he could just make up something else in their place. And his made up system is based on the Eastern Orthodox church.

---

There's very little made up about the Eastern Orthodox Church. What really do you mean by that?

Don't know who are and all that---just that remark is in question)

---

Wilson says (incorrectly) that rights are not real and are simply "made up". And that since our government is based on made up stuff, then it's really nothing more than a "preference". And if we are governing based on a preferences, then what makes that "made up" preference special? Why not choose Wilson's preference that government should be based on the principles of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

The whole chain of logic is based on a faulty beginning.

---

You should listen again. He is saying that without God as the giver of truth and morality, we are left with made up rights from the government.

---

And he is wrong. Rights are not bestowed or defined by government. Rights are pre-existing things that government *should* protect. If a government unjustly kills somebody, that doesn't mean that the right to life never existed nor ceased to exist, it means that the government INFRINGED on that pre-existing right to life.

Quote:

---

Force doctrine, in other words.

---

You act like he opposed the force doctrine. To the contrary, he thinks it is a fundamental aspect of life. And that rights (if they existed) don't matter because the force doctrine supersedes it anyway. My point is that rights tell us WHAT we should use the force doctrine to protect.

Quote:

---

He's trying to show atheists how screwed we are without God at the center.

---

He doesn't do a good job of this. All he does is piss opponents off.

Quote:

---

He's clearly believes in God and that human rights come from Him.

---

He doesn't believe in rights at all.

---

You are completely missing the point. If I am discoursing with someone who doesn't believe in God, then how am I supposed to appeal to inalienable rights? They don't believe inalienable rights exist. This is who he is debating, so he is using their own rules against them.

---

So I have thought about this a long time. When I argue abortion with an atheist, I do not reference God at all. Because that will get nowhere with them. The same is true with rights. I can make an argument for rights that do not mention God at all. And since Jesus never flat out said "here are your rights", we have to deduce them anyway.

Quote:

---

He clearly says that inalienable rights are a Christian truth.

---

I completely disagree, and I think you have not listened to enough of his debates. He dos not say they are a Christian truth, he says they do not exist at ALL. That Christian truth should be the basis of our government, not rights at all.

Quote:

---

But if we're tossing Christian truth out (like his opponents do) then we're reduced to force doctrine. I guess he could just keep telling them that God exists over and over and over, but as soon as they say "no He doesn't" the conversation is over.

---

This is why I don't think his debates on this convince anybody who is not already convinced. Your description is basically what happens in those cases. He is better in other areas like how two parent heterosexual households are better for children and stuff like that. But on this, he doesn't seem to ever get anywhere. And he is only really interested in declaring victory for himself, not actually convincing anybody.

Quote:

---

I'm not an Orthodox and I'm not a fan of Andrew Wilson, but you are misinterpreting what his views are.

---

I don't think so. I've listened to quite a few of his debates while driving in my car.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

his argument is rights exist where the will to use force to keep them exists. In a practical sense I can agree with that. But in a philosophical sense I don't. I believe rights exist outside of government control being that they are instituted by the Creator (God).

---

And I'm saying his argument is wrong and I agree with you.

The entire point of rights is to be a guide post on what government SHOULD do. Not simply be what government chooses to do. If we have the right to life, then government should protect the right to life. It's not that if the government decides to protect the right to life, then that bestows us the right to life.

Hell how would the concept of "tyranny" exist at all if Wilson was correct? By definition, whatever government chooses to do would become our rights. There would be no rights violated ever and no tyranny.

And yet our founding fathers separated from England because of tyranny and discussed rights BEFORE establishing our government at all.

---

When multiple people tell you his arguments are going over your head, take a step back.

---

LOL.. his arguments are not going over my head. His arguments on this are simplistic (and wrong). I am in agreement with the Founding Fathers (and John Locke) which were among the smartest collection of men to be in a room together. And yet, you somehow think that Andrew Wilson is smarter than them? It's clear from his debates that he doesn't even understand the point of rights.

Quote:

---

What he says is that rights exist opposite duties.

---

You don't even quote this correctly. He says (again incorrectly) that "rights are ENTITLEMENTS ABSENT duty". Not "exist opposite duty". You clearly have not listened to him closely.

Quote:

---

For example, a duty for women to have children implies the right of a baby to her uterus for gestation. A duty not to kill innocent people imply a right to life. There are no rights without obligations, and rights and duties come from the Creator God. If they don't, they don't exist at all. That's the premise he will grant his interlocutor. That God doesn't exist. If that is your premise, the only rights that exist are the ones you can secure for yourself.

---

And this too is nonsense. I have a duty to pay my electric bill, does that mean the electric company has the right to my payment? I also have the duty to send my manager a weekly status report, does that mean he has the right to a status report? No. This is not at all what rights are.

"Rights as entitlements absent duty". This conception of rights IS exactly what he's saying do not exist. He believes rights exist, but not absent duty.

And yes, obviously if we have an arrangement where I give you something of value with the understanding that you're going to compensate me for it, it means you have an obligation to pay and I have a right to payment.

Bob Lee said:

---

"Rights as entitlements absent duty". This conception of rights IS exactly what he's saying do not exist. He believes rights exist, but not absent duty.

---

Nope He doesn't say "rights AS entitlements absent duty". He says "rights ARE entitlements absent duty." That's literally his definition of rights. And he is wrong.

Quote:

---

And yes, obviously if we have an arrangement where I give you something of value with the understanding that you're going to compensate me for it, it means you have an obligation to pay and I have a right to payment.

---

Clearly you do not understand rights either. What do you actually think differentiates rights from other entitlements?

the most cool guy said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

An hour and a half video? Got anything else?

---

Not everybody is simple enough to need everything condensed into a 20 second sound bite.

---

Lol. I'm not asking for a 20-second clip, you gooner. I'm asking for something that isn't 1.5 hours long. Not everybody has time to watch a 1.5 hour video.

---

If you look up the "Whatever" podcast you can find a ton of clips out there on X. That's where I mainly saw him as one of the main guys who would berate a lot of women on there who tend to be hardcore lefties, OF models, and feminists mixed in with some more normies. Most of that show is about relationships.

He's ok and has his place but he's not a paragon of wisdom. He does a great job of NGAF about what people think about him and not worrying about trying to be nice but instead keeping arguments to the facts. He is most effective against folks who are just dumb lefties and women who think it shouldn't matter if they have a body count of 200. He has some intellect but he's no Kirk or Peterson or Shapiro that's for sure.

aggie93 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

An hour and a half video? Got anything else?

---

Not everybody is simple enough to need everything condensed into a 20 second sound bite.

---

Lol. I'm not asking for a 20-second clip, you gooner. I'm asking for something that isn't 1.5 hours long. Not everybody has time to watch a 1.5 hour video.

---

If you look up the "Whatever" podcast you can find a ton of clips out there on X. That's where I mainly saw him as one of the main guys who would berate a lot of women on there who tend to be hardcore lefties, OF models, and feminists mixed in with some more normies. Most of that show is about relationships.

He's ok and has his place but he's not a paragon of wisdom. He does a great job of NGAF about what people think about him and not worrying about trying to be nice but instead keeping arguments to the facts. He is most effective against folks who are just dumb lefties and women who think it shouldn't matter if they have a body count of 200. He has some intellect but he's no Kirk or Peterson or Shapiro that's for sure.

---

He's done more than those. That is when he is debating the most stupid of the stupid.

He has some better ones out there. But again, it's all about "winning" the debate rather than being correct or changing minds.

Quote:

---

So I have thought about this a long time. When I argue abortion with an atheist, I do not reference God at all. Because that will get nowhere with them. The same is true with rights. I can make an argument for rights that do not mention God at all. And since Jesus never flat out said "here are your rights", we have to deduce them anyway.

---

You can argue it if you'd like, but reality is that without God, any "right" is just a permission from your government. This is the point Wilson is making. Even if an atheist somehow agrees with you, you've only managed to get them to agree with nonsense. If we are nothing more than molecules that randomly aligned in a way that created consciousness, we have no more rights than the amoeba that failed to evolve. Atheists believing in inalienable rights is illogical in the truest sense of the word. It might work on the street level atheist, but the tested atheist will tell you there are no rights outside of what society allows it's people to have.

Quote:

---

I completely disagree, and I think you have not listened to enough of his debates. He dos not say they are a Christian truth, he says they do not exist at ALL. That Christian truth should be the basis of our government, not rights at all.

---

So you've listened to his debates with atheists, in which he argues with them from their own atheist framework (as I said before) and came to this conclusion? I recommend zooming out a bit. From Wilson's writing, "What Is the West without Christendom?"

Quote:

---

The fundamental equality of human beings, and their endowment with inalienable rights by their Creator, are essentially theological beliefs. They are neither innately obvious axioms nor universally accepted empirical truths nor rational deductions from things that are. There is no logical syllogism that begins with undeniable premises and concludes with 'all people are equal' or 'humans have God-given rights.' The Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov expressed the non sequitur at the heart of Western civilization with a deliciously sarcastic aphorism: 'Man descended from apes, therefore we must love one another

Many of us find this unsettling. We are inclined to see equality and human rights as universal norms, obvious to everyone who can think for themselves. But in reality they are culturally conditioned beliefs that depend on fundamentally Christian assumptions about the world. Friedrich Nietzsche made this point with angry brilliance: the obsession with alleviating the suffering of the weak and marginalized, within an ethical framework that valorizes humility, fairness, charity, equality, and freedom (as opposed to nobility, pride, courage, and power), is the result of the 'slave morality' introduced by Christianity, with its crucified Savior and its claims about weak things being chosen to shame the strong. Coming from a very different angle, Yuval Noah Harari shows how human rights, likewise, have no foundation if they are not rooted in Christian anthropology. 'There are no such things as rights in biology,' he explains. Expressed in biological terms, the Declaration of Independence would read very differently: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.'

---

I'll say that he is wrong in the sense that there are some non-Christian thinkers who have reached fairly similar conclusions on human rights as Christianity has, but they are few and far between, and they appealed to some form of monotheistic higher power

I know he's said things similar to his writing here, but I have no desire to track that down.

ETA: it's a good read if you'd like to https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/politics/human-rights/what-is-the-west-without-christendom