ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, May 29, 2017

Alt-Right antecedents

As we're preparing for the release of The Collected Columns, Vol. 2, it's interesting to see that an observer, who commented on the conceptual development of the Alt-Right, was correct to note that the ideas were often there prior to the label being applied. Consider this 2006 column, entitled The Vanishing Conservative, which, prior to both the coining of the term and the publication of Cuckservative 10 years later, anticipates the decline of the conservative movement.
I am not a conservative. While I respect genuine conservatives and appreciate the value of conserving cultural traditions, the Christian faith, and the foundations of Western civilization, conservatives have always struck me as the political equivalent of catenaccio.

Invented by the Austrian coach of the Swiss national team, the defense-oriented system was embraced by the Italians and used in Italy for over three decades, hence the name. But over time, attack-minded strategies were developed in response, most notably Holland’s famous Total Football System, which broke down the bolted door. No manager actually implements catenaccio today and references to it are mostly ironic and situational, made, for example, when a team is protecting a lead or is overmatched and playing for a tie.

The problem with both catenaccio and conservatism is that any positive movement is largely the result of luck, not purpose. They are defensive strategies, and as any military historian will tell you; defense never beats offense, it only staves off defeat for a time. In the end, even the most intrepid defenders will weary and the gates will finally fall to the barbarians.

Although it sounds ludicrous in a time when conservatives nominally rule the airwaves, the legislative, judicial and executive branches; 2006 may well be one day viewed as a low point for the American conservative. For politics is not mathematics and it knows no transitive law. It is true that many institutions and individuals are Republican, and certainly the Republican Party is supposed to be America’s conservative party, but this does not equal conservative dominance of the political scene.

For neither the institutions nor the individuals can be relied upon to work toward conservative goals. Most of the conservative actions taken in the last 20 years can be best described as holding actions, not actions intended to lower the rising tide of central government influence or combat societal devolution.

The malaise is movement-wide. Indeed, it is debatable as to which group is in worse shape, the “conservative” politicians or the “conservative” commentariat. While the leftward drift of the administration and the Congress have not escaped notice despite the best efforts of its cheerleaders to play it down; the abandonment of principle in favor of pragmatism has caused many in the so-called conservative media to do the likewise.

Just this week, one could listen to Michael Medved playing the left’s favorite game of denouncing another commentator—me, actually—as a Nazi while watching nominal conservatives falling all over each other in the competition to be the most outraged by Ann Coulter’s precision-guided comments about the ever-grieving “Witches of East Brunswick.”

(Given that there are thousands of people who lost loved ones in the September 11 attacks who Coulter did not criticize, it is more than a little disingenuous to pretend that her criticism is somehow inappropriate or misplaced. And just what is the statute of limitations on celebrity-victim status anyhow?)

Indeed, what with Michelle Malkin pushing FDR’s internment program, Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity and numerous others pushing Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy, Larry Kudlow pushing Richard Nixon’s monetary policies and the editors of National Review harboring a Harry Truman-style crush on the United Nations, one has to wonder if a liberal media is redundant these days.

The word “liberal” once meant something very different than it does today. It rather looks as if the concept of a “conservative” is in the process of undergoing similar etymological evolution. Regardless, it appears the bolted door has been unlocked and is hanging open on loose hinges.
Of course, my understanding then was not what it is now. In the original column, I referred to the nonexistent "Judeo-Christian ethic" rather than "Christian faith" and to "civilizations" rather than "Western civilization".

Ironically, conservatives left behind by the Alt-Right now often defend Judeo-Christian churchianity in the place of genuine Christian values.

Labels: , ,

127 Comments:

Blogger Shane Sullivan May 29, 2017 6:07 AM  

Is there an expected date for a hardcover edition like volume 1?

Also, Vox, I was curious if I could get your opinion on Styxhexenhammer666's latest video regarding Paganism/Christianity; even with my limited knowledge of history, many of his arguments against the latter came across as disingenuous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOLtfQ9vo9U

Blogger JACIII May 29, 2017 6:16 AM  

Noble defeat after noble defeat after noble defeat. What a con.
It has been an effective method for the (((elite))) to shape the political landscape of a nominal democracy.

There is a documentary out on Roger Stone (another kingmaker they are giving credit for Trump to) in which they decry the no holds barred campaign, but they exclusively decry the right's methods. The (alt-)right played to win for a change and that has them in a tizzy.

Anonymous Nick May 29, 2017 6:20 AM  

I'm reminded of "Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism" by Dr. Sam Francis published back in 1993, which included essays and articles from the 1980s. Its taken three decades, but the ideas developed by Francis and others (Paleoconservatives is one label, but not a popular one) have been taken up by the Alt-Right, expanded upon and are entering into the mainstream. Vox 's writings on SJW's, American identity and political philosophy will be widely accepted in time on the right (though probably much sooner than 30 years given the rapid rate of online information dissemination and the rapidly deteriorating demographic situation).

It's amazing that people like Francis, Buchanan and Huntington could see the writing on the wall a quarter-century ago (or James Burnham decades earlier), and it also must have been immensely frustrating to see things play out as you anticipated while the powers that be did everything they could to shun and marginalize you and no one, especially not Conservatism Inc., would yell STOP!

Blogger Katabasis May 29, 2017 6:20 AM  

I'm starting to understand what you meant now, Vox, by arguing that the Alt Right was inevitable.

After going for 8 years, my twitter account was finally binned by Twitter last week. I don't know specifically why, or who sought grievance against my posts, all I know is that it occurred whilst I was in the midst of expressing white-hot rage over the Manchester attack and everyone who enabled these jihadis and ran interference as apologists over the years.

My second account, created just two days ago has been locked after I called a Labour councillor a Dhimmi for turning up in a hijab to give "comfort" and "reassurance" at the local Mosque.

I'm becoming more militant and obstinate by the day....

Blogger VD May 29, 2017 6:20 AM  

Is there an expected date for a hardcover edition like volume 1?

4-6 weeks. Ebook within 2 weeks. I don't watch videos, for the most part. They take too long and you have to take notes if you want to respond accurately.

Anonymous Steve May 29, 2017 6:22 AM  

Re: catenaccio.

This is a sublime simile.

Another problem with catenaccio - in football or in politics - is that it's soul-suckingly cynical and boring. Men - the kind of men who are worth a damn - prefer taking the initiative. And women prefer dashing, devil-may-care laughing cavaliers over purse-lipped roundheads every day of the week.

When catenaccio-champs Internazionale were defeated by a riotously, joyfully, artistically attacking Celtic in the 1967 European Cup, it fired the imagination of neutrals across the continent and was widely hailed as a victory for football itself.

Nobody likes stodgy, stuffy defensive plays, even when they're successful.

So always be attacking. It's not just a more effective strategy, it's a funner strategy (which produces produces a positive feedback loop of success).

See: Trump v Jeb! Pepe v Clinton. Brexit v The entire combined British, European and American establishments.

And about Pepe: anonymous kids on the internet have done more to wound the Left than decades of pompous, po-faced Peter Hitchens style conservatism.

It's not just fun to mock your enemies till they literally can't even, it's also productive.

De l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l' audace et la Patrie sera sauvée!

Blogger Shane Sullivan May 29, 2017 6:24 AM  

@5 Thanks for the prompt response; I'll definitely be picking up the physical release.

Blogger Katabasis May 29, 2017 6:27 AM  

More directly on topic here, it's worth noting the response of the UK's "Conservative" party to the Manchester attack.

Despite it being yet another utter failure across the board of our establishment, of a terrorist (and even his whole family) being 'known' by authorities, the knee-jerk reaction is to look after Muslims' feelings and "reassure" the "Muslim community".

British "intelligence" apparently has between 23-24,000 such individuals 'on the radar' and is monitoring over 3000 of those 24/7. And despite being aware of all these walking timebombs, the response of the state is to crack down on "hate speech" and want even more control over what is said online.

The "Conservative" manifesto for the forthcoming election, in its appallingly authoritarian Section 5 effectively calls for making the entire internet a "safe space". I've never read something so utterly stupid and simultaneously equally disturbing in a mainstream political manifesto before.

Blogger VD May 29, 2017 6:30 AM  

It's amazing that people like Francis, Buchanan and Huntington could see the writing on the wall a quarter-century ago (or James Burnham decades earlier)

I have so much more respect for those men now than I did then. Not that I dismissed them, but I didn't realize they were onto the core of the matter.

it also must have been immensely frustrating to see things play out as you anticipated

That's why I retired my column and why I referred to 12 years of failure in the final one.

I'm starting to understand what you meant now, Vox, by arguing that the Alt Right was inevitable.

We aren't radicalizing anyone. They are. We're just making it clear that there is an alternative to constant defeat and eventual submission.

Anonymous Steve May 29, 2017 6:44 AM  

Katabasis - Theresa May thinks the internet is basically a fancy Word document.

The Tories' proposals are stupid and unlikely to work. Given how rapidly they fold to opposition, I don't expect them to get very far with this, and whatever token efforts they do undertake because think of the chiiiillllldreeeen! will be easily circumvented.

The real danger to internet freedom in the UK is already here: from fat-arsed policegirls browsing Twitter and Facebook all day, looking for people to arrest if they criticise our Mahoundan pets.

Godfrey Elfwick has shown the way though.

Blogger Katabasis May 29, 2017 6:46 AM  

Steve - did you by any chance catch this story?

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/bin-laden-song-police-party-13097525

Anonymous Eduardo May 29, 2017 6:53 AM  

I remember when you posted that your column would be over. I remember what a troll said in the combox too.

Blogger VD May 29, 2017 6:58 AM  

I remember what a troll said in the combox too.

I don't. What was that?

Anonymous grey enlightenment May 29, 2017 7:05 AM  

The decline deems to be when the 'right' began to embark on 'nation building'

Anonymous Steve May 29, 2017 7:24 AM  

Katabasis - the officer “took offence” at a song mocking dead terrorist Osama Bin Laden being played and called in reinforcements after pressing her ‘panic button’.

Clarence Boddicker was right.

Anonymous Fred May 29, 2017 7:32 AM  

Jeremy Joseph Christian: one of yours ?

I dont know if things played out as you predicted or if you only see reality through that perspective.. and perhaps it doesnt matter.

I would recommend you turn your focus on what happens when you achieve your goal.. where does all this natioanalistic rhetoric lead to ? What does history tell you about that ? 1000 hiroshima's ?

At times you seem so happy to be right I think you forget where this all leads. Mr Hi IQ ...give use your predictions 25, 100 years out.

Blogger VD May 29, 2017 7:39 AM  

Jeremy Joseph Christian: one of yours?

No, one of yours. He was Antifa and a Bernie supporter.

History shows that nationalism is the cure to the problems of both imperialism and multiculturalism.

Blogger Bastion Harm May 29, 2017 7:44 AM  

Another writer worth mentioning is Paul Gottfried. In 2006 he wrote Conservatism in America, and the conclusion has some interesting observations, including:

• An “alternative Right might have crystallized if one or more of several fairly modest turns had transpired, for example, if the movement that Buckley and his companions had forged had been more open to dissent, if in the 70s and 80s it had been less bureaucratized and less dependent on big government, or if it had kept a respectable distance from the Republican Party” (144-45).

He then states that an alternative right could rise again that would be “decentralist, restrained about the use of military force, suspicious of social engineering, and wary of ethnic heterogeneity” (145), and adds that it would adopt populist rhetoric, oppose third world immigration, and would very much resemble the European Populist Right. However, he was very skeptical (and, again, he wrote this in 2006) that this “alternative Right” could supplant the American conservative movement.

Blogger Elocutioner May 29, 2017 7:48 AM  

"where does all this natioanalistic rhetoric lead to?"

Being left the hell alone in our own country to pursue our own dreams without being raped financially by the (((global elite))) or embroiled in useless wars for Israel. Lack of 'diversity' is a price we're happy to pay. But we'll be nice and sell you all of the inventions and science and shit that we come up with.

Blogger Elocutioner May 29, 2017 7:51 AM  

@18 "if the movement that Buckley and his companions had forged had been more open to dissent"

That was by design. We deliberately didn't repeat it.

Blogger ZhukovG May 29, 2017 8:00 AM  

Predicting the future is always dicey. But a few, like VD, recognized early that the Conservative Movement was little more than Novocaine for the victim of an Aztec priest.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 29, 2017 8:03 AM  

where does all this natioanalistic rhetoric lead to ?

Does Macy's tell Gimbel's?

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable May 29, 2017 8:05 AM  

I would recommend you turn your focus on what happens when you achieve your goal

Sounds like a good recipe for never getting there. Conservatives have been think-tanking society to death for generations.

Blogger ZhukovG May 29, 2017 8:13 AM  

@Fred: It is good that you have accepted the inevitability of our victory.

As for the future, hard to say. We are currently busy taking over the train(which is fine), though there was quite a bump when we ran over that idiot standing athwart the tracks yelling, "stop".

Anonymous DirkH May 29, 2017 8:16 AM  

"where does all this natioanalistic rhetoric lead to ? What does history tell you about that ? 1000 hiroshima's ?"

First of all, there were 66 Hiroshimas; 64 were ordinary firestorms and 2 were nuclear bombs. Talking only about Japan here.

Second, the USA-USSR alliance was not nationalistic. The plan at the time, or at least til the death of FDR, was to merge USA and USSR into one big happy communist empire, as the Reese commission found out while scouring the archives of the foundations.

The full name of the Axis was the Anti KomIntern Alliance. It comprised 18 nations. WW2 was a battle of the pro-KomIntern UN (an alliance of 5 nations founded in El Presidio Military Base, today called "the Allies", but it was really the UN, see the "united nations honour flag" which was really their battle flag) against the anti-KomIntern Axis.

Blogger Johnny May 29, 2017 8:18 AM  

My preference is to think of conservatives as being in two groups. One group is the political class that has sold out its base to varying degrees, and that would be all but completely in Washington.

The inherent conservative group, the base, consists of people who are mostly satisfied with the way things are and have a significant degree of approval of their own society. This is an attitude that can easily arise from disinterest, and thus conservatives will always have a group that are really just disinterested in politics.

Liberals tend to be either people who have complaints or people who have been subject to indoctrination in an ideology that is alleged to be superior to the currently prevailing one. Whether the product of conversion or dissatisfaction, they are always more driven then conservatives, thus in numbers more influential. It has ever been thus.

For myself, I believe I am conservative by inherent tendency. And as is common with this personality type, when change is deemed necessary the preference it to return to an idealized past, something called with disparage here, the "magic dirt" theory. The inherent liberal tends to favor an idealized future based on something thought to be new, which is the more prevailing attitude on this board.

Anonymous Rocklea May 29, 2017 8:19 AM  

Fred wrote:
"Jeremy Joseph Christian: one of yours ?

I dont know if things played out as you predicted or if you only see reality through that perspective.. and perhaps it doesnt matter.

I would recommend you turn your focus on what happens when you achieve your goal.. where does all this natioanalistic rhetoric lead to ? What does history tell you about that ? 1000 hiroshima's ?

At times you seem so happy to be right I think you forget where this all leads. Mr Hi IQ ...give use your predictions 25, 100 years out."

It's good, Fred, that you recognize that our host is indeed the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil. We (you too Fred), are mere pawns on his grand chessboard.

What say you are correct, and Jeremy Christian is "one of ours" (you are not correct). I would call it poor target selection and ineffective. Do you not like the world we create together Fred? If not, then go home.

Anonymous DirkH May 29, 2017 8:19 AM  

Also see The Icebreaker by Suvorov, in which he details Stalin's invasion plans. Operation barbarossa was a preemptive strike and wiped out the army of light, fast, roadworthy tanks that the Red Army had amassed - they were unsuited for defense, only for a quick offense via the road networks of Western Europe. These tanks were designed by an American, could travel fast on roads with the tracks removed, and were utterly useless when the Wehrmacht ambushed them in the swampy lands of Poland and White Russia.

Blogger VD May 29, 2017 8:28 AM  

change is deemed necessary the preference it to return to an idealized past, something called with disparage here, the "magic dirt" theory.

That's not Magic Dirt theory.

Blogger VD May 29, 2017 8:35 AM  

From Infogalactic: Summarising the western scholars' opinion on Icebreaker Hugh Ragsdale concludes that the book is "generally considered discredited" by now, whereas Jonathan Haslam notes that Suvorov's claims "would be comical were it not taken so seriously"

I have no doubt warplans were made, just as the US prepared War Plan Red for a naval war with Great Britain. Perhaps the tanks were even built for that purpose. But it is obvious that the Red Army was neither prepared nor planning to invade German-controlled territory in 1941.

Blogger Phillip George May 29, 2017 8:41 AM  

it seems that words don't so much evolve as get stolen by people disingenuous in their use.
The Flinstones had a "gay" old time. The word was stolen.
"Conservative" was culturally appropriated by histories enemies.
Judeo Christian could theoretically mean someone committed to believing the entire Bible but we know it now does not mean that.
Conservative is a dirty word because it means betrayal now. Julius Caesar was taken out by conservatives. Because words are always an nth degree of fuzzy one has to be parabolic to be exhaustive and definitive. The circumlocutory is a substrate of articulate.
You mentioned success a couple of days ago. But maybe having a goal is more difficult.
What do we want?
If Alt could say what they want success would be like picking apples in Eden.
Unless the lord builds the house.... you know the story.

Blogger Johnny May 29, 2017 8:45 AM  

DirkH wrote:Also see The Icebreaker by Suvorov, in which he details Stalin's invasion plans. Operation barbarossa was a preemptive strike and wiped out the army of light, fast, roadworthy tanks that the Red Army had amassed - they were unsuited for defense, only for a quick offense via the road networks of Western Europe. These tanks were designed by an American, could travel fast on roads with the tracks removed, and were utterly useless when the Wehrmacht ambushed them in the swampy lands of Poland and White Russia.

Owing to glasnost it is now a settled matter that Stalin had the Russian army laid out for offense. Hitler started it because he moved ahead of Stalin, but by the clues WWII would have happened eventually regardless

Blogger Matthew May 29, 2017 8:48 AM  

VD wrote:change is deemed necessary the preference it to return to an idealized past, something called with disparage here, the "magic dirt" theory.

That's not Magic Dirt theory.


MPAI, but this is special.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy May 29, 2017 8:56 AM  

VD wrote:change is deemed necessary the preference it to return to an idealized past, something called with disparage here, the "magic dirt" theory.

That's not Magic Dirt theory.

I'm pretty sure he means that the idealized past those people want to return to is Magic Dirt theory, not that returning to an idealized past is called Magic Dirt theory.

Blogger SteelPalm May 29, 2017 9:08 AM  

@28 DirkH

Also see The Icebreaker by Suvorov, in which he details Stalin's invasion plans.

This is ludicrously stupid, ahistorical revisionism if taken any further than what Vox mentioned above.

Stalin was utterly blindsided by the attack. He had been certain that Germany wouldn't strike, to the point of ignoring Richard Sorge's intelligence on the matter.

When Germany DID attack, Stalin feared that he would be arrested for gross incompetence by other high-ranking communists, and literally hid in his dacha for days. When they came, he was certain it was the end. He was shocked when they instead begged him to lead the nation during wartime.

Do these sound like the actions of a man preparing for a major, imminent invasion of Germany?

I'm sure there was a build-up and a concept of something in the future, but the claim by Suvorov (a disgrace to the surname, as it belongs to arguably the greatest general and military theorist in Russian history) is retarded.

Blogger szopen May 29, 2017 9:14 AM  

In the meantime: the progressive professor says he refuses to dividing people's right to speak based on their skin color. An angry mob circles him, demands him to apologise and resign.

http://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/05/27/this-weeks-witch-hunt/

Blogger Johnny May 29, 2017 9:14 AM  

"I'm pretty sure he means that the idealized past those people want to return to is Magic Dirt theory, not that returning to an idealized past is called Magic Dirt theory."

As the "he," I have been taking the Magic Dirt theory as either a return to the theoretical basis of American society, or the idea that being on American soil somehow changes people. One or the other, I am not really sure which.

Either way I don't believe our current situation allows for a return to the past even if it is deemed desirable. Too many changes owing in part to changes brought about by our post WWII global role, and in part to the new population demographics.

Anonymous WND reader since 2003 May 29, 2017 9:14 AM  

I'm afraid I don't understand the "Judaeo-Christ" bit. I emailed John Wright about it, and he is equally puzzled.

Jesus was a Jew. Jesus has the exact Jewish values as Jews today. Jesus followed Judaism.

As a Christian, I proudly follow a Jew. I stand with Israel. So how is that wrong?

Blogger Sam Spade May 29, 2017 9:20 AM  

The first time I heard about alt-right was in your conversation with Stefan.

I remember I was on vacation in Menorca in September, on the night, after dinner watching the video in the garden of the house I was staying.

It was mind blowing to hear finally a political vision that makes sense. Just deep common sense, and so pleasant to hear it in such a peaceful moment and enviroment.

Blogger VD May 29, 2017 9:26 AM  

Jesus was a Jew. Jesus has the exact Jewish values as Jews today. Jesus followed Judaism.

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No.

Judaism today is not even remotely close to Temple-era Judaism. Most religious Jews would consider your statement that Jesus has the exact values that they do to be both anti-semitic and blasphemous.

As a Christian, I proudly follow a Jew. I stand with Israel. So how is that wrong?

There is nothing wrong if you are an Israeli. If you are an American, you are committing treason. The US and Israel have some common interests. They also have some competing interests.

In the case of the latter, do you stand with Israel against America? Or do you stand with America against Israel?

You may recall that it is said a man cannot serve two masters.

Blogger tuberman May 29, 2017 9:31 AM  

I'll have to pick up your book (2006-2009 blog posts), when it comes out.

Blogger VD May 29, 2017 9:32 AM  

“The Christian peoples, in all of their varied sects, are worshipping idols and their holidays are forbidden to us.”
- Maimonides

“Almost 900 years later with Christianity and its concepts one should share nothing, not even what seems good or beneficial… It is only by distancing oneself from Christian concepts, and by implementing the absolute refusal to gain any benefit from that world of ideas, that our own intellects and sense of self will become purer and stronger.”
- Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook

Although the phrase originated in late 19th-century England, it was liberals in the 1930s who popularized the term in the United States to counter what Goldman called “the rise of American nativism and xenophobia during the Depression.”

"Judeo-Christian" is a proto-SJW, openly anti-American concept. Like all such terms, it is based in deceit and lies.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 29, 2017 9:35 AM  

Conservatives never ever ask questions, their intellectuals are there to prevent anyone from doing just that.

The men of the alt-right could not play that game, it had simply become too ridiculous.

But truth be told many of the principles of the alt-right did try to play the harder than hard corps conservative intellectual, but that fell flat with their audiences, been there done that wasted my money.

The Left is a joke, thank you Pepe for saving me from dying by essay, oh so many essays.

Blogger VD May 29, 2017 9:36 AM  

The Religious Right's use of the term comes directly from the ADL:

The Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman, for example, tells of a mid-’90s encounter with Jerry Falwell after the ADL had criticized Falwell for referring to the U.S. as a “Christian nation.” At first reluctant to consider the criticism, Falwell told Foxman that he could see how “Christian nation” could be misunderstood. “From now on,” said Falwell, “I intend to refer to America as a Judeo-Christian nation, which describes our heritage accurately.” In his account of this conversation, Foxman was mollified by Falwell’s response. Evangelicals and Jews could now serve as partners.

When Jerry Falwell died in 2007 Foxman eulogized him as “a great friend of Israel,” indicating that he, along with the leaders of other major Jewish organizations, seemed to have taken the implications of this ‘Judeo-Christian agreement’ to heart.

Blogger Duke Norfolk May 29, 2017 9:38 AM  

Vox, have you only made the replacements in this post, or in the book? Surely not the latter. Or am I missing something?

This isn't a hostile question, btw. Just trying to understand. Especially if you've chosen to alter the original articles (which I doubt is the case, but I really am not sure).

Blogger Shimshon May 29, 2017 9:40 AM  

Vox, where is the Rabbi Kook quote from?

Anonymous Truth May 29, 2017 9:42 AM  

"That Jesus was not a Jew – and it is blasphemy, religiously, but also scientifically, to consider Him as such.
That the Christian faith is not part of Judaism – from which it does not develop, but, from the beginning, being against and disbanding it.

Firstly, the origin of Jesus may be considered from two points of view: the metaphysical, religious one and the physical, profane one.

From a metaphysical point of view, for all of those who believe – and he who does not believe, who does not have faith, is not a true Christian – Jesus is the “son of God,” the incarnation of the divine, from the Galilean Virgin Mary:

“And having come in, the angel said to her, ‘Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed you are among women.’” (Luke 1:28)

The mystery of divine incarnation – a mystery only in the narrow understanding of humans – the Evangelist tried to bring closer to our understanding through philosophical interpretation: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

The divinity of Jesus, once admitted, excludes any form of nationality. In this domain, spiritually, the affirmation that “Jesus was a Jew” – being empirical – is either ignorance or blasphemy.

From a physical point of view, judging Him as human – as all of those who do not believe do – we know one thing for certain: that Jesus was a “Galilean.”

(From A. C. Cuza, Naționalitatea în artă [Nationality in the Arts], second edition with appendices [Bucharest: Minerva, 1915], pp. 286-289.) https://www.counter-currents.com/2017/04/excerpt-from-a-c-cuzas-nationality-in-the-arts/

Blogger Duke Norfolk May 29, 2017 9:44 AM  

I too am amazed at the vision and wisdom of men who were bravely pointing out the folly of the direction of our nation decades ago.

To do so in such isolation and against such harsh social disapproval is truly tough work; and requires a uniquely thick skin, to say the least.

And to be red pilled in those times, when almost nobody else was there to support you, without losing your mind and being utterly and hopelessly dispirited requires heroic strength of mind and courage of conviction. Statues are merited; someday.

Blogger VD May 29, 2017 9:47 AM  

Vox, have you only made the replacements in this post, or in the book? Surely not the latter. Or am I missing something?

Both. We've fixed numerous errata in both volumes. I know what my original intention was, and it was in reference to Christianity, nothing else. "Christian faith" reflects that. "Judeo-Christian heritage" does not.

Elsewhere in the book, when I am quoting someone, the phrase remains.

Blogger Servant May 29, 2017 9:47 AM  

@WND Reader

Following Christ and following what people call judeochristian values are two different things. If you can't see that, you are no better than Lewis's dwarves in the barn.

I will pray for you.

Blogger VD May 29, 2017 9:48 AM  

The article What Do We Mean By 'Judeo-Christian'? in Religion Dispatches

Blogger Elizabeth May 29, 2017 9:48 AM  

VD wrote:The Religious Right's use of the term comes directly from the ADL:

The Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman, for example, tells of a mid-’90s encounter with Jerry Falwell after the ADL had criticized Falwell for referring to the U.S. as a “Christian nation.” At first reluctant to consider the criticism, Falwell told Foxman that he could see how “Christian nation” could be misunderstood. “From now on,” said Falwell, “I intend to refer to America as a Judeo-Christian nation, which describes our heritage accurately.” In his account of this conversation, Foxman was mollified by Falwell’s response. Evangelicals and Jews could now serve as partners.

When Jerry Falwell died in 2007 Foxman eulogized him as “a great friend of Israel,” indicating that he, along with the leaders of other major Jewish organizations, seemed to have taken the implications of this ‘Judeo-Christian agreement’ to heart.


In 1979, the Israeli government gifted Jerry Falwell with a Lear jet. I wonder how many other Christian Zionist preachers were paid off to shill for Israel.

Blogger VD May 29, 2017 9:51 AM  

The thing is, we already have a term for what Judaism and Christianity have in common. That word is "Abrahamic faiths". Of course, that also includes Islam....

The correct term for that would be Judeo-Islamo-Christian, but for some reason, no one embraces that.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 29, 2017 9:52 AM  

I'm afraid I don't understand the "Judaeo-Christ" bit.

One problem is what someone mentioned upthread: it suggests that a "Judeo-Christian" is someone who accepts all of scripture, both Old and New Testaments. But then, what does that say about Christians who don't prepend the "Judeo-" (as none did before very recently)? It implies that Christians only follow the New Testament, and that Christianity and Christian culture are therefore lacking critical elements, and become something greater by being combined with Judaism -- which however would be Talmudic Judaism, because we already do have the Old Testament.

This lie is propagated for two purposes: to bring Christianity down to the level of just another religion, not the One True Faith perfect in itself (this is the purpose of the Modernists); and to make Christians think that today's Judaism (and the modern nation of Israel) is something they need to make their religion and culture complete, so therefore they must protect and promote it (this is the purpose of the Jews who push the idea).

Assuming that the modern nation of Israel is the same thing as the tribes of Israel in the Old Testament because we refer to them by the same six letters is....kinda ridiculous, really. It's like thinking feather-Indians must be descended from dot-Indians (or vice versa). A little study will show otherwise, and the same is true of Israel/Israel.

Blogger Elizabeth May 29, 2017 9:56 AM  

VD wrote:The thing is, we already have a term for what Judaism and Christianity have in common. That word is "Abrahamic faiths". Of course, that also includes Islam....

The correct term for that would be Judeo-Islamo-Christian, but for some reason, no one embraces that.


I've heard the term "Judeo-Christian-Islamic" used by Moslems in order to promote their inclusion (ugh) into the mainstream of American society.

Anonymous crushlimbraw May 29, 2017 10:01 AM  

To @38: John 8:44New International Version (NIV)

"44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
Who were the targets of this quote from Jesus?
Furthermore, when Jesus said repeatedly that "You killed the prophets......" who was he addressing?
As a former premillennialist (for 20+ years) I understand the problem well - I also included Israel in my 'last days' scenario.
Here is what I have learned - Jesus was addressing an apostasy and the 'future last days' put an end to it physically in the 70 AD destruction of the temple.
Long story which you can follow up at my website and more specifically at the blog archive - CAP Lessons.

Blogger Ransom Smith May 29, 2017 10:04 AM  

Didn't Rick Warren and some other big name people push the whole "it's all Abrahamic" thing a while back ?

Chrislam is what I think it was being called

Blogger Bill Halsey May 29, 2017 10:05 AM  

"I'm afraid I don't understand the "Judaeo-Christ" bit. I emailed John Wright about it, and he is equally puzzled.

Jesus was a Jew."

Buddha was raised as a vedantist.

We don't refer to Buddhism as Vedo-Buddhism

Anonymous Jeff May 29, 2017 10:32 AM  

"When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

Who were the targets of this quote from Jesus?


SJWs

Blogger Wanda Sherratt May 29, 2017 10:35 AM  

Steve @6 - "Another problem with catenaccio - in football or in politics - is that it's soul-suckingly cynical and boring. Men - the kind of men who are worth a damn - prefer taking the initiative. And women prefer dashing, devil-may-care laughing cavaliers over purse-lipped roundheads every day of the week."

That joyous attitude is what makes losing tolerable. Everyone knows that someone's got to lose in any contest, and men and women will respect a warrior who goes down fighting to the last. Conservatives have completely lost sight of this. They seem to think that the mere act of losing is itself meritorious, and should be festooned with ornate and decorous compliments.

I put this down to the continuous decay of true Christian understanding in the West. Churchians take a seeming paradox like "The meek will inherit the earth" or "For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it" and elevate it to the central position. To them, losing IS winning, and they're scandalized by the impiety of the Alt-Right, which aims at nothing less than victory. Of course, this is a perversion of Christianity, and the people who advocate it pretend not to notice that if Christians for 2000 years had done this, there wouldn't be any Christianity around today.

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 29, 2017 10:39 AM  

Concern Troll is Concerned.

We are not surprised.

But perhaps Concern Troll should ask himself where his own ideas logicall end? Over a dozen once-Christian or once-Buddhist nations are now enslaved under Shariah law. In every case Muslims came in two guises:

1. The "peaceful" majority
2. The violent minority

But in every case once they outnumbered and/or overpowered their hosts, they supported the imposition of Shariah by force.

Question: would you change your beliefs if you went to live in the Middle East?

SJW/Cuck: No

Question: Then why do you think they will when they come here?

SJW/Cuck: [Silence]

Anonymous Rfvujm May 29, 2017 10:49 AM  

The Google ngram search for Judeo-Christian is also extremely telling. It shows a visualization of how frequently the phrase shows up in books over time.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Judeo-Christian+&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CJudeo%20-%20Christian%3B%2Cc0

Blogger Lawrence Larson May 29, 2017 10:50 AM  

The funny thing is that I haven’t known what to call myself politically for decades. I guess I owe a debt of gratitude to whomever coined the term “Alt-Right.” Back in the late 1990s I remember the shock on the face of an old lefty friend of mine—somebody who I’d grown up with and had known for 40 years—when over a dinner conversation he said, “Lawrence: you’re a CONSERVATIVE!” We had both grown up in the 1950-60’s SF Bay Area and had both gone to Berkeley, participating in all the de rigueur anti-Nixon riots. I voted for McGovern in 1972 and then never voted for another Democrat. I (futilely) voted Libertarian for several cycles and then voted for Bush in 2004 despite having long since re-registered as an Independent. Reading Joe Sobran and other authors fearless of being stigmatized (like Buchanan, Derbyshire, Steyn, Wilders) made me realize that I had no political home.

The left is insane-suicidal, while the right is complacent-suicidal. I want this enterprise called America to survive—or to go down fighting, not swinging by its neck from its knotted underwear in some cell. I guess that makes me Alt-Right.

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 29, 2017 10:56 AM  

I don't see how Stalin's naive faith that he'd get first shot at Germany automatically means he wasn't preparing for it. There is documentation to the effect fhat the USSR was producing heavy weapons and armor from 1933 onwards; effectively on a war footing.

Whether that was preparing, paranoia, or prudence, is a question none of us can answer by presuming to know the contents of Stalin's head.

What we do know is fhat Operation Barbarossa was planned on the basis of 180 armoured divisions on Russia's western front, when in fact there were over 300.

Make of it what you will.

Blogger VD May 29, 2017 10:58 AM  

I don't see how Stalin's naive faith that he'd get first shot at Germany automatically means he wasn't preparing for it. There is documentation to the effect fhat the USSR was producing heavy weapons and armor from 1933 onwards; effectively on a war footing.

I can believe he was preparing for it. But he was quite clearly not prepared. And the date for the prospective invasion doesn't line up with the state of Russian preparations at the time.

Blogger Resident Moron™ May 29, 2017 11:05 AM  

That makes sense. The vehemence with which certain others claimed to know, did not make sense to me.

Anonymous W. Lindsay Wheeler May 29, 2017 11:05 AM  

The problem with "conservatives" is that the word underwent a change in the Anglo-sphere. Furthermore, America is a Masonic Republic and a new government and ideology of Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism. American "conservatives" have been trying to preserve an Enlightenment project, NOT Western Civilization.

The term "conservative" was coined in France for the traditionalists conserving Throne and Altar. That is NOT what American "conservatives" were doing.

Benjamin Disraeli changed the definition of conservative to mean being progressive and for democracy. Nowhere does true conservativism favor democracy. Most words of importance, such as "republic", "conservative", "philosophy" has been redefined. A Novus Ordo, like Machiavelli stated, needs new definitions for old words. A Novus Ordo requires a new lingo to match. A Novus Ordo requires a Novus Moralia, such as "That shalt not discriminate" and a Novus Linquistica.

There is the confusion most people have.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd May 29, 2017 11:24 AM  

WND reader since 2003 wrote:Jesus was a Jew. Jesus has the exact Jewish values as Jews today. Jesus followed Judaism.

Judaism centers around denying that Jesus was God's Messiah. Do you really imagine that Jesus was an adherent of a religion which centers around denying His divinity?

The faithful Hebrews 2,000 years ago knew from Daniel that their Messiah was due. The faithful Hebrews who accepted Him became Christians. The faithless Hebrews who rejected Jesus became what we now call Jews, after 70AD.

Jesus was not a Jew. He called proto-Jews ``whited sepulchers'' and children of Satan. Christians follow a Hebrew, the only begotten Son of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the very God that Jews rejected when they rejected His messiah.

Blogger Aeoli Pera May 29, 2017 11:30 AM  

The correct spelling is Jooooodeo-kkkrischun.

Otherwise, great article :-).

Blogger Aeoli Pera May 29, 2017 11:30 AM  

Also acceptable, Joooooodeo-Xian.

Blogger Johnny May 29, 2017 11:30 AM  

>>I can believe he was preparing for it. But he was quite clearly not prepared. And the date for the prospective invasion doesn't line up with the state of Russian preparations at the time.

The usual line is that Stalin was anticipated invading Germany, but later. What is certain is that the Russians were unprepared for what happened. Their armed forces were too far forward to defend against an aggressive attack, and thus unduly vulnerable to being captured in large numbers, which is what happened. Plus Stalin had murdered off a large portion of the officer corps for what were apparently internal political reasons. Plus Stalin went into a week long funk when the attack started, leading to even more weakness and causing huge numbers of Russian troops to be captured in the first few weeks of the war.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable May 29, 2017 11:39 AM  

VD wrote:We aren't radicalizing anyone. They are. We're just making it clear that there is an alternative to constant defeat and eventual submission.

I have a Beer & Bible Study with a friend every Sunday, at a local brewpub. They're making even guys that don't go to church find a way to explore the Scriptures.

We're currently on Isaiah. Good times!

Anonymous BBGKB May 29, 2017 11:56 AM  

More directly on topic here, it's worth noting the response of the UK's "Conservative" party to the Manchester attack.

You would think they would at least ask the sand naggers to take a shower first.

"where does all this natioanalistic rhetoric lead to?"

To less of my money going to Latrina's 21 crackbabies, and less Latrina's being imported to the US at taxpayer expense.

Jesus was a Jew. Jesus has the exact Jewish values as Jews today.

Yea when Comet Pizza overcharges Barney Frank for "hot dogs" he starts flipping over tables and chasing them around with a whip.

OT: Cannes winning film about blond Aryan "terrorists" shows St. Breivik has them scared.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/may/26/in-the-fade-review-diane-kruger-fatih-akin-cannes-2017

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable May 29, 2017 11:59 AM  

Fred wrote:where does all this natioanalistic rhetoric lead to ? What does history tell you about that ?

Peace and that you're dumb, respectively.

Anonymous Semper Me May 29, 2017 12:20 PM  

"Ironically, conservatives left behind by the Alt-Right ..."

Here's where I think you've got it wrong. There is no evidence at all that, in the U.S., the Conservatives have been left behind by the Alt Right. There is no Alt Right anywhere in the U.S. government. Certainly Trump isn't even close to being a member, yet he's the closest you've got. There is nothing of the sort in the Judiciary, nor for that matter in Legislature.

So, someone explain to me exactly how the Alt Right has "left behind" the conservatives in this country?

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable May 29, 2017 12:29 PM  

Johnny wrote:The inherent conservative group, the base, consists of people who are mostly satisfied with the way things are and have a significant degree of approval of their own society.

... And as is common with this personality type, when change is deemed necessary the preference it to return to an idealized past...


You are both contradicting yourself and making the Manichean error. That is probably because you're American, and absent the parliamentary system ours lends itself (contrary to the Founders' vision) to a two-party system and thence to binary thinking. (Europeans have no excuse.)

How would you explain the swing voters that went Bush-Obama-Trump? Did they not want change? Were they not conservatives?

Politics is multidimensional because humans are, and human society can only have more dimensions than its components. 2016 saw us go from a kayfabe of socialist cronyist elitist globalism vs. capitalist cronyist elitist globalism to a real contest of socialist cronyist elitist globalism vs. capitalist meritocratic populist nationalism.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Give us this day our daily bait, that we may crush our enemies, see their weaksauce driven before us and hear the lamentations of their women, thank you Baby Jesus, Amen ) May 29, 2017 12:34 PM  

26. Johnny May 29, 2017 8:18 AM
The inherent liberal tends to favor an idealized future based on something thought to be new, which is the more prevailing attitude on this board.


y'all hear that? the Dread Ilk, the Evil Legion of Evil, the Vile Faceless Minions, Kekistan, groups which are all CHOCK FULL of "Literally Hitlers" ...

we're the new Liberals now.



37. Johnny May 29, 2017 9:14 AM
I have been taking the Magic Dirt theory as either a return to the theoretical basis of American society


as the 1790 Naturalization Act conclusively demonstrates, 'Magic Dirt Theory' has NOTHING to do with the Founding principles of the nation and is, itself, a recent innovation.

yes, we know that you were taught the Melting Pot in school.

yes, we know that you think that Americans have always believed in Magic Dirt Theory ( why then, were orientals excluded from citizenship by law? why was ALL immigration halted for most of the first half of the 20th century? ).

here's a novel idea; go back a look at the original documents. read them, consider them, LOOK AT HOW THEY WERE IMPLEMENTED.

practically *everything* that you think of as the 'principles of the Founders' ... are things you were LIED to about.

Anonymous Arie May 29, 2017 12:34 PM  

Lol, we conservatives will squash you Alt-Right Nazis like the bugs you are. We squashed Pat Buchanan into a hollow shell of a man. We tamed Trump into our puppet. (If Trump fails us, we have President Pence as back-up.) As Kevin Williamson proved with data, your white trash base is literally dying off...

America hit peak Alt-Right a year ago. Already your "movement" is as dead as Huey Long and Father Coughlin. Populism and anti-Semitism does not a lasting movement make. Your 15-minutes are up; take your white sheets and crawl back under your racist rocks....

Blogger flyingtiger May 29, 2017 12:42 PM  

There is an old saying: When you are on the defensive, always have an attack going somewhere. This unsettles the enemy, who then thinks you are more powerful than you are. If done right, your enemy will feel defeated and leave.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable May 29, 2017 12:47 PM  

Semper Me wrote:So, someone explain to me exactly how the Alt Right has "left behind" the conservatives in this country?

They have no argument. They have no passion. They have no identity. They have only a position that they can't even agree on a definition of and wouldn't be willing to fight for anyway, because they're weak supplicants.

The future is ours.

Blogger Joseph Gore Jr. May 29, 2017 12:48 PM  

Johnny wrote:>>I can believe he was preparing for it. But he was quite clearly not prepared. And the date for the prospective invasion doesn't line up with the state of Russian preparations at the time.

The usual line is that Stalin was anticipated invading Germany, but later. What is certain is that the Russians were unprepared for what happened. Their armed forces were too far forward to defend against an aggressive attack, and thus unduly vulnerable to being captured in large numbers, which is what happened. Plus Stalin had murdered off a large portion of the officer corps for what were apparently internal political reasons.


You seem to be contradicting yourself or you don't understand the implications of what you're saying. You posit that Stalin's Red Army was too far forward for defense and was unduly vulnerable. The obvious conclusion is that it was prepared for an attack, not defense. The positioning of Red Army forces, especially mobile units, was exclusively massed for offensive action.

Blogger wreckage May 29, 2017 12:51 PM  

"Lol, we conservatives will squash you Alt-Right Nazis like the bugs you are. We squashed Pat Buchanan into a hollow shell of a man. We tamed Trump into our puppet."

Perhaps the most interesting mutation of the Concern Troll yet; a leftie pretending to be a rightie pretending to be confident.

"Populism.... does not a lasting movement make."

Haha fools! Being popular doesn't mean you're popular, it just.... uh... look at my fancy sentence structure, now back at me, I'm on a horse!"

Blogger Ransom Smith May 29, 2017 1:03 PM  

Lol, we conservatives will squash you Alt-Right Nazis like the bugs you are.

Said the increasingly nervous man for the twentieth time

Anonymous Arie May 29, 2017 1:04 PM  

Perhaps the most interesting mutation of the Concern Troll yet; a leftie pretending to be a rightie pretending to be confident.

Ok, sport. There you go again with memes and rhetoric and whatnot. I get it. Meanwhile I'm here to speak facts and data, and drive some sense thru your thick skulls.

I live in Grand Rapids, MI and have very close contacts with Rep. Justin Amash and the Michigan GOP power apparatus:

1) The people in West Michigan (the very people who put Trump into power on election night) have NEVER embraced the so-called Alt-Right and reject it still. They are good Christian folk and do not trust racists. I know because I go to their churches and ask them. (Full disclosure: I am a secular Jew conservative.)

2) Trump is hanging by a thread and HE knows it. That is why he is submitting to the conservative agenda and playing ball ("the art of the deal")... because if not, he knows the Russian connection is enough to sink him and the GOP already has a solid back-up plan with President Pence.

Those are facts. Not "alternative facts" or meme but the truth.

Blogger Sheila4g May 29, 2017 1:04 PM  

@40 VD: "Judaism today is not even remotely close to Temple-era Judaism. Most religious Jews would consider your statement that Jesus has the exact values that they do to be both anti-semitic and blasphemous."

Given this, Vox, why not refer to today's Judaism as Talmudism? Is the word too awkward or obscure to be good rhetoric?

@62 Rfvujm: "The Google ngram search for Judeo-Christian is also extremely telling. It shows a visualization of how frequently the phrase shows up in books over time."

Very useful graph.

Blogger VD May 29, 2017 1:10 PM  

Given this, Vox, why not refer to today's Judaism as Talmudism? Is the word too awkward or obscure to be good rhetoric?

No, it probably would make for reasonable rhetoric in adversarial communication. But for everyday purposes, I prefer to simply describe people how they describe themselves.

So, I have no problem labeling people who say they believe in "Judeo-Christian values" as Judeo-Christians. But most Jews are not very familiar with the Talmud, even if their values derive from it.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable May 29, 2017 1:14 PM  

Arie wrote:Those are facts. Not "alternative facts" or meme but the truth.

That is a manic delusion. (Seriously? You're hawking the Russian paranoia *here*?) Unfortunately for you, it is probably a personality disorder and talk therapy requires rapport to work.

Anonymous Semper Me May 29, 2017 1:26 PM  

"They have no argument. They have no passion. They have no identity. They have only a position that they can't even agree on a definition of and wouldn't be willing to fight for anyway, because they're weak supplicants."

Well, they do have an argument. They just don't have an argument you agree with. But Vox said that the Alt Right has left conservatives behind. Does he mean left them behind intellectually? Hmmm. I can see that argument. But I don't see the Alt Right challenging conservatives for practical power or support.

Anonymous BBGKB May 29, 2017 1:43 PM  

So, someone explain to me exactly how the Alt Right has "left behind" the conservatives in this country?

Not only can conservatives not conserve little girls bathrooms from men wearing wigs, they get offended when TRUMP tweets about illegal aliens raping a 14yo girl in a HS bathroom.

That is a manic delusion. (Seriously? You're hawking the Russian paranoia *here*?) Unfortunately

BGS's Big Gay Russians Under The Bed Removal Services is having a special. Use promo code StBreivikBlessedBeHisAim

Anonymous Philalethes May 29, 2017 1:47 PM  

#84: I am a secular Jew conservative.

(So I was guessing from the name, which is Hebrew for "Lion" I believe?)

Which is exactly why the term "conservative" no longer has any usable meaning; thus more awkward terms like "Alt-Right" must be used to denote those who are actually interested in conserving what is of value in Western Civilization.

Go home. You now have the "homeland" you insisted be bought with rivers of American money and blood. Go there. You and your insidious, lying kind have done enough – more than enough – damage to the nation my ancestors founded.

Full disclosure: I am an Anglo-American (paternal lineage Anglo-Norman, maternal British Celtic) whose ancestors have been in America since the 17th and 18th centuries. My 4x great-grandfather suffered through the winter at Valley Forge, etc. etc.

I was brought up to believe the whole "melting pot" mythology (which, as VD has demonstrated, was created by a Jew), and 50 years ago was so entranced by the whole Exodus / Last of the Just meme that I actually married a Jewish girl. Like many of my generation, I saw all that was wrong with my own culture, and searching for a home, even considered converting to be one of the Chosen (I'd already been circumcised, after all). Fortunately, the marriage didn't last, and there were no children (she actually worked for Planned Parenthood, in 1965).

"Anti-Semitism is a disease. You catch it from Jews." Though I wouldn't agree to be called an "anti-Semite" (I don't hate anybody), I am nevertheless the perfect example of the truth of this aphorism.

Go home. I am happy to see the American people beginning to wake up; I hope this process will continue. Whether in the end we will succeed in gaining our country back is still very uncertain; but the situation is more hopeful now than it has been for as long as I can remember.

Go home.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable May 29, 2017 1:53 PM  

Semper Me -- and thank you for making your solipsism explicit -- leaving someone behind is literally a movement. The Alt-Right will take over by individuals changing their minds and joining it, as I did, because I was raised by hippies to question everything.

The truth will out. Always. And in an age of radical mass delusion, it exists in potentia as an imminent phase change.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 29, 2017 2:04 PM  


@81. Joseph Gore Jr. May 29, 2017 12:48 PM

"You seem to be contradicting yourself or you don't understand the implications of what you're saying. You posit that Stalin's Red Army was too far forward for defense and was unduly vulnerable. The obvious conclusion is that it was prepared for an attack, not defense. The positioning of Red Army forces, especially mobile units, was exclusively massed for offensive action."

Exactly. The strongest part of Suvorov's argument rests, not on some kind of declarations of intent now revealed by previously-secret documents, but on Stalin's actions. His revealed preferences, one might say. It's possible, though rather unlikely, that Stalin had all of the minefields and fixed border defences taken down simply because he loved and trusted Hitler, and that the Soviets had no defence in depth for the same reason.

But the Soviets had troops, armor, and supplies stacked up near the border in huge numbers. There's only one reason to do that. It ain't because the guys on the other side of the border are trusted allies, and it ain't for defense.

The reason that the Soviets were so vulnerable to blitzkrieg/ encirclement tactics was not just good planning and execution by the Germans-- it was that the Soviets were stacked up at the border, so that all it took was to break through at a few points, and the Germans were behind them.

Just a couple of more points. Throughout the 1930s, the USSR spent a larger percentage of its GDP on the military than any other major country. Look at what they spent the money on. What did they plan to do with those forces and weapons? What were they best suited for? And of course, its interesting to note that, for a country with no intention of invading Europe, they ended up invading and subjugation a pretty good chunk of it a couple of years later.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 29, 2017 2:14 PM  

@92. Also, aren't Stalin's reactions in the early stages of Barbarossa, which most here seem to be attempting to adduce as evidence that he was NOT planning an invasion of Europe in the near future, even more consistent with a man who was anticipating a great victory against an unsuspecting foe, only to be faced with a massive defeat instead? You can easily use that one for either side. It doesn't really count for much.

Anonymous BBGKB May 29, 2017 2:26 PM  

Though I wouldn't agree to be called an "anti-Semite"

I am the biggest Zionist out there. Make Alayah Bibi is making space for you. Gay jews fear Bibi more than they do moslem beheaders.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 29, 2017 2:29 PM  

@3 Nick May

"I'm reminded of "Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism" by Dr. Sam Francis"
"Its taken three decades, but the ideas developed by Francis and others (Paleoconservatives is one label, but not a popular one) have been taken up by the Alt-Right, expanded upon and are entering into the mainstream."

"It's amazing that people like Francis, Buchanan and Huntington could see the writing on the wall a quarter-century ago (or James Burnham decades earlier), and it also must have been immensely frustrating to see things play out as you anticipated while the powers that be did everything they could to shun and marginalize you and no one, especially not Conservatism Inc., would yell STOP!"

Yup. "Anarcho-tyranny" is a great insight into the strategy of the progressive establishment. Joe Sobran.would be another one. James Burnham was a far more interesting writer (and thinker) than his National Review partner Cuckley, that's for sure. MPC'S Pleasureman and his constant harping on SCALE! owes a lot to the paleocon critique of the managerial state.

But we'll really know we're getting somewhere when people start to realize that Revilo Oliver was a great paleocon writer.


@10 Steve

"Godfrey Elfwick has shown the way though"

You know what they say:
Normies are the cancer. Irony is the answer.

Anonymous Philalethes May 29, 2017 2:44 PM  

@87, 84: You're hawking the Russian paranoia *here*?

Why not? After all, it's a proven fact. (Well, except for the minor detail that, so far as I'm aware, not a single substantive fact has been presented in support of it. Arie and his friends must be having a really good laugh at the stupidity of the Saxon. I know they're smarter than us, but overreach is still not a smart strategy.)

Anonymous LurkingPuppy May 29, 2017 2:51 PM  

(sigh) ‘Arie’ is a parody. His name links to National Review.

Blogger Natalie May 29, 2017 2:54 PM  

Someone here linked to Gary North's book on Judeo Christianity - I highly recommend looking it up. Thus far it's been a fast and insightful read. http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/the_judeo_christian_tradition.pdf

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable May 29, 2017 2:56 PM  

Oh shoot, I just remembered that you really need this one:

Grad Student Deconstructs Take-Out Menu

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable May 29, 2017 3:00 PM  

...and my epic comment full of essential links appears to have disappeared. I am not going to reconstruct it. Sorry.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 29, 2017 3:29 PM  

@25. DirkH

"Second, the USA-USSR alliance was not nationalistic. The plan at the time, or at least til the death of FDR, was to merge USA and USSR into one big happy communist empire, as the Reese commission found out while scouring the archives of the foundations"

This is something that is often obscured by the meme of "there were a few Soviet agents/ spies, but the problem was vastly overstated by muh evil McCarthy." It's not so much that they were Soviet agents in particular; that was just a means to achieve the end of Communist one-world government. FDR's fair-haired boy, Soviet spy Alger Hiss, set up the UN. He was a member of the CFR (of course), clerked for Oliver Wendell Holmes, worked for the State Dept., the Carnegie Endowment, the Justice Department, Oppenheimer ran the Manhattan Project, of course. Owen Lattimore, (((Sidney Rittenberg))), etc.

(((Samuel Dickstein))), who founded the House Committee that later became HUAC, was a Soviet agent on the NKVD payroll throughout the 1930s. These people were traitors to the country, but not to the establishment. They were the establishment. Why does treason never prosper again?

Ironically, it was Stalin, for the most part, who put paid to the "one big happy communist empire" plan. Partly due to nationalism on his part, but part of it may have been due to his distrust of Zionism, which he seems to have viewed as competing with Communism for the loyalty of the Tribe. And after they got the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, too.

Though they never really gave up on the plan, of course.

Blogger Were-Puppy May 29, 2017 3:43 PM  

@26 Johnny

something called with disparage here, the "magic dirt" theory.
---

Sadly, "magic dirt" does not work. It's an illusion.

Blogger Were-Puppy May 29, 2017 3:50 PM  

@34 LurkingPuppy

I'm pretty sure he means that the idealized past those people want to return to is Magic Dirt theory, not that returning to an idealized past is called Magic Dirt theory.
----

That's the way I took it also. The way things are now, it seems we are going back through phases. Back into civic nationalism from the max leftwingery and globalism of Obola.

That doesn't mean we have to stop there. We have to keep going back further, to a time before blank slate and magic dirt theory.

Blogger Were-Puppy May 29, 2017 3:54 PM  

@38 WND reader since 2003
Jesus was a Jew. Jesus has the exact Jewish values as Jews today. Jesus followed Judaism.
---

Please think about what you are saying logically. If it is true, then there is/was no need for Christianity. But Jesus Himself is the reason for Christianity.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy May 29, 2017 4:06 PM  

Francis Parker Yockey wrote:This is something that is often obscured by the meme of "there were a few Soviet agents/ spies, but the problem was vastly overstated by muh evil McCarthy."
In short, McCarthy was a Pollyanna.

Anonymous Icicle May 29, 2017 4:29 PM  

I feel a little bad for McCarthy. That piece of sh*t Roy Cohn is who burned him.

Blogger tublecane May 29, 2017 4:47 PM  

How far back does the "Judeo-Christian" thing go? I recently stumbled across a book from 1971 called The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition. I didn't read it. I assume it was a debunking written by a Jew, because the author's name is Cohen.

My assumption had been that the term popped up after the eclipse of WASP power and in conjunction with Jewish intellectuals dropping outright hostility (as expressed through communism and so forth) in favor of accommodationism (if that's a word). Which would put it at the Cold War. A time known for hasty Westernization.

In that case, my guess is this Cohen was arguing against accommodation. I say we encourage more of that.

Blogger tublecane May 29, 2017 4:54 PM  

@101-I found the Moldbugian perspective interesting. Not that I like his false rhetorical device of saying America is a communist country. But we must bear in mind communism wasn't some foreign Russian idea smuggled into our land. Nor was the threat of communist infiltration just about garden-variety spying and national self-interest. They were in it together, commies across the globe. Alger Hiss didn't look at the world and ask "What's in it for the U.S.?" More like, "What's in it for Our Gang?"

On the other side, Stalin admittedly didn't think only in terms of the international communist conspiracy. He was looking out for his empire. But he was also a true Marxist-Leninist revolutionary, and he was into promoting not just Russia's interests but the interests of the Left Gang inside the West.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Give us this day our daily bait, that we may crush our enemies, see their weaksauce driven before us and hear the lamentations of their women, thank you Baby Jesus, Amen ) May 29, 2017 4:55 PM  

95. Francis Parker Yockey May 29, 2017 2:29 PM
Normies are the cancer. Irony is the answer.



Irony is the "cure". it flows better both logically and phonetically.



103. Were-Puppy May 29, 2017 3:50 PM
We have to keep going back further, to a time before blank slate and magic dirt theory.



amusingly, it's only White people who have to "go back in time".

here's a hispanic jail nurse refusing to do a normal pre-internment physical exam on a cop going to jail ... for killing a hispanic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz2UBLSbG8

White people need to go back ... to the Founding Principles, when only White people of good standing could be naturalized.

Blogger Were-Puppy May 29, 2017 5:04 PM  

I'd settle for going back to the Wild West days.

Blogger tublecane May 29, 2017 5:04 PM  

@78-Huey Long and Father Coughlin, eh? Why is it we must always run for moral illustration back to the FDR administration? Because Holocaust, partly. But also, I guess, because everyone knows that's the real Founding now, the other being dead.

That's not true, though. There's quite a lot of moral weight surrounding the Civil War era. But you have to be thinking specifically of race, states' rights, or "all men created equal," usually. The default mindset is to go back to the mid-20th century Brown Scare. Which the left fears most, because it's the only thing to temporarily steal its thunder in a long, long time.

Blogger tublecane May 29, 2017 5:16 PM  

@92-"They ended up invading and subjugation a pretty good chunk of it a couple of years later"

You're not supposed to notice that. Nor the fact that they teamed up with Germany to invade Poland and God knows what they were up to over Japan way (we don't know, because history isn't interested in telling us). Because then you might wonder why the Western allies went to war with Germany and not Russia.*

Holocaust is the answer you'll commonly get now, but of course that only happened because the war was already ongoing, and it wasn't of great importance to us at the time. The Germans conquered a good part of Europe, and that was bad and worthy of going to war to correct. The Soviets did the sane thing, but that was okay because...what are you gonna do? Go to war? Who does that over a little territory?

*Well, in the case of the U.S., Germany actually declared war on us. But I don't count it, because I'm sure we would've gone to war with them anyway. We also would've gone to war with Russia, too, if we felt like it. Because that's how we do.

Blogger tublecane May 29, 2017 5:23 PM  

@96-The Russian interference Narrative has been interesting for me to watch. After I got over my initial annoyance, that is. Because I don't think I've seen a story so big pushed with such assurance based on so little. It's just bald assertion, and vague assertion at that.

It'll be a good test case for how effectively the MSM can force a Narrative down the public's throat by sheer repetition. Do people generally believe it? At least in a "no smoke without a fire" manner? I'm not sure, because I'm out if touch.

Anonymous Simplytimothy May 29, 2017 5:46 PM  

Did it damage the track?

Anonymous Philalethes May 29, 2017 6:30 PM  

@97: (sigh) ‘Arie’ is a parody. His name links to National Review.

Well, fooled me. Maybe they really are smarter?

Anonymous Fred May 29, 2017 6:33 PM  

@17

"No, one of yours. He was Antifa and a Bernie supporter.

History shows that nationalism is the cure to the problems of both imperialism and multiculturalism."

It seems he is white supremist, anti muslim, anti-immigrant so much closer to alt right than antifata.. sorry.

This binary thought process needs to be expanded to understand that there are those of use who do not stand with you or with the anifata blm bernie .. well actually i kind of liked Bernie, althought i ended up voting for Trump. I am somewhat dissapointed in my choice but theres time yet to fix it. Stop trying to either drag us into your campmor push us into the other because both extremes are wrong to some degree. We are the sane :)..

I would ask what history you are pointing to .. because it seems unsupported.

The point is that IF you and yours suceed in nationalism, you doom yourselves to war until there is only one natioanlist country left...and in this day age, that leads to potential extinction.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable May 29, 2017 6:38 PM  

Fred wrote:The point is that IF you and yours suceed in nationalism, you doom yourselves to war until there is only one natioanlist country left...and in this day age, that leads to potential extinction.

That is retarded. Respect is the only path to peace, and you need self-respect before you can respect anyone else.

Omni-nationalism is the watchword.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable May 29, 2017 6:46 PM  

tublecane wrote:It'll be a good test case for how effectively the MSM can force a Narrative down the public's throat by sheer repetition. Do people generally believe it? At least in a "no smoke without a fire" manner? I'm not sure, because I'm out if touch.

I'm gonna go with "dog that didn't bark" and say that people don't believe it even if they think they do, because if they really did I wouldn't hear about anything else in the break room and I don't hear anything about it at all.

Blogger SteelPalm May 29, 2017 6:58 PM  

@68 Resident Moron

That makes sense. The vehemence with which certain others claimed to know, did not make sense to me.

The vehemence is because of how basic this WW2 history is.

That Stalin was generally building up the military and had some general future plans of extending his dominion is basic common sense and knowledge.

That he had specific, immediate plans to invade Germany in 1941 is laughable idiocy contradicted by every historical fact.

Before you start reading and believing revisionist nonsense, read a basic, older textbook (modern ones lie more and have fewer facts) on the conflict first. Then you can at least more accurately judge whether the revisionism makes sense or not.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 29, 2017 7:36 PM  

The point is that IF you and yours suceed in nationalism, you doom yourselves to war until there is only one natioanlist country left...and in this day age, that leads to potential extinction.


1) learn to proofread. your posts are almost unintelligible.
2) Every nation was either nationalist or imperialist from the mid-17th century until the post-WWII period. In that period, essentially every war was either nations fighting for their nation against empires, or empires fighting each other.

Nationalism doesn't cause war. Imperialism does.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable May 29, 2017 7:44 PM  

...and my attempted re-post of essential links, recovered with the Lazarus plugin that I just remembered I had... failed.

However! By some bizarre coincidence, a complete stranger has just posted the exact same thing in the comment section on Robert Stacy McCain's latest article, New Name, Same Game: ACORN Revived as Soros-Funded ‘Democracy’ Network.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 29, 2017 10:01 PM  

@108 tublecane
"I found the Moldbugian perspective interesting. Not that I like his false rhetorical device of saying America is a communist country. But we must bear in mind communism wasn't some foreign Russian idea smuggled into our land. Nor was the threat of communist infiltration just about garden-variety spying and national self-interest. They were in it together, commies across the globe. Alger Hiss didn't look at the world and ask "What's in it for the U.S.?" More like, "What's in it for Our Gang?"

Yeah, in the narrow economic sense, it's clearly false to say that America is a Communist country. Support for Communism was more of a means to an end. But you could certainly make a could case that the world center for Communism in the first half of the 20th century was NYC. The USSR was just one of many internationally-supported Communist revolutions, but it was the one that managed to gain and hold power, and then the Comintern started to act as an alternative base for the export of Communism.

If you take the concept of "communism" in a broader sense that includes Cultural Marxism/ the poz, globalism, the centralization of power and the breakdown of non-governmental social institutions... One way of looking at the origins of the Cold War is as a schism between Trotskyites/ Frankfurt School/ Cultural Marxists/ globalists and Stalinist "socialism in one country" heretics. I'm not saying this captures a complete picture. But it's a useful alternate frame to adopt at times.

"On the other side, Stalin admittedly didn't think only in terms of the international communist conspiracy. He was looking out for his empire. But he was also a true Marxist-Leninist revolutionary, and he was into promoting not just Russia's interests but the interests of the Left Gang inside the West"

Yeah, the internationalist thing was a difference of degree, not kind. And likely had as much (or more) to do with Stalin's desire for his own empire (as you said), than ideological differences. It is interesting to note that (((Armand Hammer))) was close to every Soviet premier from Lenin to Gorbachev-- except Stalin. Could have just been a personal thing, though.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit May 30, 2017 3:31 AM  

The thing is, we already have a term for what Judaism and Christianity have in common. That word is "Abrahamic faiths". Of course, that also includes Islam.... The correct term for that would be Judeo-Islamo-Christian, but for some reason, no one embraces that.

True. But may I suggest an alternative. Consider "Old Testament believers." It has the advantage of accurately describing the one thing Christians and Jews having common.

And while it could, technically include Moslems, practically speaking it will require them to accept the Law, such as: "thou shalt not kill" or " thou shalt not bear false witness, etc." Which would be an improvement.

And viz the main topic: https://tempestinateardrop.com/2016/05/20/hunted/

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 30, 2017 3:50 AM  

@109

"Normies are the cancer. Irony is the answer.

Irony is the "cure". it flows better both logically and phonetically"

Yeah, except that it's a meme. Have you ever seen the photo of the crazy-looking haji at some demonstration waving a sign that says "Europe is the cancer. Islam is the answer?" Someone shooped that to read "Normies are the cancer. Irony is the answer," and the sign-holder's face to Pepe. Can't seem to find it now, of course.

Blogger wreckage May 30, 2017 9:05 AM  

@116 seems to have real trouble knowing the difference between nationalism and expansionism.

It's really very simple. One respects national borders, and the other does not.

Blogger Ingot9455 May 30, 2017 11:52 AM  

On the difference between Judaism and Christianity and how Jews see it:

At the Passover Seder recently, when Jews get together and ritually go through the Passover story, we stopped at several points to discuss our theology and history and what we knew of it, as one does.

And one of the places we stopped was specifically the part about God 'hardening Pharaoh's heart' because God wasn't done teaching the lesson. That supposedly Pharaoh was ready to let the Jews go after the blood, the frogs, the flies, the sickness, but no, God wasn't done. He actually reached in and changed Pharaoh's mind so the God could continue demonstrating his superiority and teaching the Jews the lesson they were supposed to learn; even though in the short term many people would suffer and die, some Jews, and a lot more Egyptians.

And it was asked; "Doesn't this tromp on free will? Worse, isn't this actively cruel?"

To which the family patriarch (and also the most learned) responded amusedly, "If you don't like it, you should look into the New Testament. It's much nicer."

Blogger RCE Roorkee June 02, 2017 3:20 AM  

Thank you for sharing information with us.It will be helpful for every one

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts