Alex Linder
July 28th, 2008, 04:50 PM
[Jimmy Cantrell doesn't seem to write much these days. Or, not much that appears on the web. An occasional comment at Takimag is all I see of him. The following is a collection of his material, just because he makes a number of good points, and lays out some history WN ought to know.]
JAMES CANTRELL FILE
At least the two articles by Havers and the responses have been about something worth discussing, which increasingly is not the case with articles here, focusing as they do on ephemeral politics rather than the ideas that underlie contemporary issues. Readers of this site should be worrying that it is being steered toward becoming a type of ‘paleo-friendly’ version of National Review Online. After all, that would mean that articles here could become ‘internet hits,’ being linked to many times and sent all around the globe, getting a multitude of hits. Then the Editor could boast of his success – creating yet another boy-band of putative conservative thought.
And finding a way to try to silence, or at least tar with a feather, those who discern in Lincoln perhaps the single most important figure fits perfectly into that pattern because Lincoln is, as many admirers since his death have proclaimed, the martyred messiah of liberal American democracy, at home and abroad. Yes, I see the Lincoln myth, which merely is a handy (thanks to his death) tool of the Puritan/Yankee WASP myth, as being self-righteously imperialistic: ask Plains Indians about Sherman. Before that myth could be taken around the globe, it had to erect an increasingly centralized State from Atlantic to Pacific.
What Havers seems determined to ignore is that while what Lincoln did and said did not absolutely have to lead to the now single USA (as opposed to the pre-Lincoln ‘these United States’) being in Iraq, his legacy, the precedents he set in order to achieve what he willed, cannot be contained in ways desired by anyone; Lincoln’s actions and words have lives of their own, and all ideas have inherent consequences, moving inexorably toward their telos. Yes, the faults were readily present in the very founding – in ways that the Anglophile Protestant Havers likely would refuse to comprehend – but Lincoln’s Presidency was the Crossing of the Rubicon for the American experiment, moving it away from any possibility of remaining a true Republic and making certain it would become the new version of the British Empire.
Whatever Lincoln fancied he was doing is irrelevant, unless somehow good intentions can never pave the road to Hell. What is a given is that had the Confederate states won their independence, their example would have both been precedent scaring the CSA government into line away from becoming oppressive of the states that created it as their agent and the example urging the states remaining in the northern Union to demand that the Federal government serve them, rather than they being forced to serve it.
I think Paul Gottfried’s response is the most interesting. I have said for some time that the primary division is not between putative Right and Left, even when Neocons are rightly recognized as Left. The primary division is between those who accept and endorse the cultures (inherently Liberal I assert) that were forged out of the two English reformations and those who – for specifically theological reasons or for ethno-cultural reasons or for pro-Agrarian reasons – reject what is most easily identified as WASP culture. That WASP culture in America, which specifically was the marriage of New England Puritan becoming-Social-Gospel with anti-Trinitarian Quaker, was bound to reproduce the patterns its father had spawned in the Old World. One of those patterns is examples from conquered peoples becoming major leaders in the spread of that WASP Empire around the globe. Gottfried takes the absurd position that Woodrow Wilson and similar ‘patriotic Americans’ from the South, proves ‘Lincoln-bashing’ false. That is the same pattern of pointing to the hyper-imperialistic Northern Ireland Protestants as proof that they are responsible for the many sins of the English Empire, or that Gauls in the 2nd and 3rd centuries were responsible for the Roman Empire.
Perhaps the quickest way to understand how wrongheaded is Gottfried’s assessment is to ask whether Wilson, who was most certainly a self-righteous imperialist wanting to grace the entire world with American-style WASP culture, idealized and idolized Lincoln or Jefferson Davis. Wilson, raised to be a loyal American, was a devotee of Lincoln, as Jaffa knows. To Wilson, Southern was merely a geography of American. Wilson acted not in the historic Southern tradition but in the New England Puritan tradition, mixing its ‘conservative’ part (imperialistic warring) with its ‘liberal’ part (Social Gospel welfare crowned with Jesus talk and inter-denominational, increasingly a-doctrinal cultural Protestantism) perfectly. Wilson, aping his Ulster kin in their servile place in the British Empire, was very much Lincoln Part II. And while Edward Carson is utterly reprehensible in many ways, it is a denial of reality to blame him rather than Cromwell. The Edward Carsons and Woodrow Wilsons merely accepted the historical and political circumstances and (often violent) prejudices into which they were educated and acted to promote the very philosophies of their heroes, some of which philosophies were stated and others inherent.
Yes, as long as Southerners, with Confederate soldier ancestors, are ‘god Americans’ and thrilled to be under the Federal government Lincoln’s actions made inevitable, they will support various imperial activities. Ditto for Catholics and Orthodox and Jews who likewise get on the Lincoln and/or cultural-WASP roads.
Posted by James Cantrell on Apr 30, 2008.
http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/a_reply_to_thomas_dilorenzo/
I have not been to this site in a couple of weeks, and I am glad that I stumbled in and caught this article. The ‘Spengler’ piece makes a case I have been making for more than a decade: that what the American Left – which is waging a war first and foremost against historic, orthodox Christian morality and identity – hates and fears most out of Southern studies and cultural identity since the time that Agrarianism with its “Classical-Christian context “ (the phrase is Louise Cowan’s in the Intro to Allen Tate’s Essays of Four Decades) was expelled from the Academy is the Celtic-Southern thesis.
This ‘Spengler’ could be Jewish, expressing the inherent Liberalism, religiously and culturally, of the Jewish Neocons, but he also could as pure blood a Yankee WASP as George Will. That is the best way, I think, to begin to see a main point of mine for the past few years: that the Neocon movement while dominated by Jews is NOT a purely Jewish movement in any sense. The specifics of today’s Neocon movement requires Trotskyite Jews become Lincoln-loving Yankees, but those Jews have merely grafted themselves onto a movement that is quintessentially the self-righteously imperialist wing of Anglo-Saxon Puritan culture in America.
The source of Neocon moral and political philosophy is not Jews; it is the Puritan revolution and Oliver Cromwell.
Note how ‘Spengler’ voices things that I have responded to on this site, expressed here by people pretending to be some type of traditional conservative. Does anyone recall my exchange with one of the fake posters who asserted that the dead in the South was the South was guilty of violating Christian Just War?
It may well be that ‘Spengler’ is a poster on this site.
Those who know anything about English (not simply restricted to the Puritan era) activities in Ireland know that there is an old pattern blaming the slaughtered for having deserved it. It runs this way: our nation is godly, and therefore any rebellion against it is virtually Satanic; the fact that you resisted our violence to force you to accept the peace and superior rule we bring you at gunpoint proves that everything we did you – all deaths and all property destruction and all cultural. Genocide – were justified.
That Anglo-Saxon Puritan justification of its own empire-building and maintenance by slaughtering multitudes and accusing them of being guilty of the very things done to them is the Lincoln/Republican/Woodrow Wilson/FDR/American justification. It is quintessentially WASP: it is the ‘conservative’ side of the WASP coin working with the liberal side of the WASP coin (Unitarian-Universalism, Quakerism, Social Gospelism, feminism (the first feminist conference is a pure Yankee WASP event in antebellum America ), multiculturalism, etc.).
Anyone caring to explore some of the implications of the Celtic-Southern thesis should consult my book How Celtic Culture Invented Southern Literature (Pelican Publishers).
Posted by James Cantrell on Apr 10, 2008.
To Mr. Havers:
If you fancy that the actions and words of Lincoln and his associates cannot be seen as inherently producing the later developing truly global American imperialism, then you are as blind as those who deny that Cromwell’s actions and words (restricted as they were to slaughtering Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, and Celts in the British Isles) had inherent consequences that played out in dead bodies all over the globe long after Cromwell was roasting in Hell.
Posted by James Cantrell on Apr 30, 2008.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/spengler_making_the_world_safe_for_triumphalism_and_slaughter/
Buckley seating Taki and his wife in places of honor could not so much as slightly undo any of the incalculable damage he did to real conservatism, beginning at least with his willingness to throw Joe Sobran to the rabid Neocon wolves. If anything, the very Neocons Buckley lifted to such heights would have responded to such a slight not by any penance but by becoming more vicious, with ole Bill turning away and allowing them to run wild once more
Posted by James Cantrell on Feb 27, 2008.
“We would all have statues of V. I. Lenin in our village squares by now if Bill Buckley had stayed in his house and read Latin all this time, and don’t you ever forget it.”
The sad thing is that this proclamation, which is so outrageously stupid as to have been composed by a Neocon hack in conjunction with the SPLC working overtime to make certain that ‘mainstream’ conservatism is pro-Joe Lieberman and pro-John McCain, does reflect the childish worldview of many who fancy Buckley something other than a kingly rich man who chose to try to kill the careers of most prominent real conservatives once they were no longer needed. He never did penance for any of it.
Judas Iscariot, not the beloved Apostle, comes to mind.
Here is the important question that springs from the quote: what could does it do you to prevent statues of Lenin in village squares if you and your magazine ultimately support the vast majority of key components of cultural Marxism being mainstreamed? Isn’t Bill Buckley’s ‘conservatism’ little more than two things: defense of his and his class’s money and power and acceptance of yesterday’s liberalism is a futile attempt to prevent faster liberalization?
Posted by James Cantrell on Feb 27, 2008.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/william_f_buckley_as_i_knew_him/
This is an excellent piece, for a number of reasons. One is that it directs attention to the Francophobia that defines Neocons. Paul Gottfried tends to focus on Neocon bashing of the Nazis and blaming modern Germans as a whole for the Nazi movement. But I have always emphasized that Neocons are more anti-French than anti-German, with the anti-Germna/Nazi being merely the American imperialist version of the English anti-modern German fears of a nation that could defeat it in war. The Francophobia that defines Neocons is, like the anti-modern Germany diatribes, something that is quintessentially English, back to when Normans allowed themselves to lose French as their first language and to embrace Anglo-Saxon Germanic ways of thinking and being.
Most important in the article is the brief discussion of the assimilation of various non-English Catholics to an America defined culturally by the acronym WASP. Whether you were French, Irish, Polish, Bavarian, Italian, Spanish, etc., assimilation to Yankee WASP culture, becoming a good American, cost you most of your invaluable ethno-cultural heritage, which being far more conservative – theologically as well as philosophically - than WASP was necessary to maintaining these United States as a halfway decent place to live in terms other than easy wealth acquisition.
Though it is harder for most to see because of religion and the way we all have been instructed to understand British and American histories, the same basic pattern of assimilation to Yankee-WASPdom and cultural loss defines the primarily culturally Celtic South.
That is a good way to understand that all of us – Scots-Irish Southerners, Irish Catholics, Franco-Americans, Poles, Italians, Russians and Serbs and Greeks (to add the orthodox), etc. – who are not WASP in ethnicity (and/or nor like the Rockefellers: Germanic Protestants who culturally are largely indistinguishable from WASPs) feel deep loss because we are paying the price for a mess of pottage (America’s wealth) that murdered our birthright. We either will recover those heritages and use them to wash ourselves of assimilation to a religiously and philosophically polluted culture (which in its contemporary form has two wings: Neocon and multiculturalist, each of which is decidedly unchristian and self-righteously imperialistic), or we will remain indispensable parts of the problem.
Posted by James Cantrell on Dec 21, 2007.
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/learning_to_love_the_french/
Nergol writes: “I’m sorry - the awful truth is that Wellington managed to smash Napoleon’s army, but in the end, the French Revolution swept the world anyway. Nothing has been able to stop it, merely to slow it down, and it will only die when it collapses under its own weight, as did its bastard offspring, Communism.”
That is true. The reason is that the English themselves were infected en masse before the French with the pollutions and perversions of moral and political philosophy. The Puritan Revolution was very much a Judaizing, Anglo-Saxon Calvinist manifestation of all that was necessary precursor to the French Revolution. In terms of basic philosophy, in 1812, the French and the English were equally far left, equally in opposition to historic orthodox Christendom.
Seeing the English during the French Revolution/Napoleonic era as being the reasonable conservative opposition to murderously insane and culturally suicidal liberalism is as diametrically wrong, and therefore self-defeating, as seeing Rudolph Giulianni, Christopher Hitchens, and the Neocons as the conservative opposition to the Christ-hating left of the Southern Poverty Law Center, ADL, NARAL, and North American Man-Boy Love Association. Far from being opposites, they are two sides of one coin.
Posted by James Cantrell on Oct 28, 2007.
It is amazing, though I would say predictable, to see where this thread has gone since my post asserting that the Anglo-Saxon Puritan Revolution was the necessary precursor to the French Revolution. The eminent historian Eugene Genovese noted in an article published many years ago that to the young Marxists of his college years, the English Puritan revolution was presented by the older Marxists as a great example to emulate. When I read that article, I all but predicted that Genovese was already a fallen away Marxist who was on the fast track to entering the Catholic Church and that his analyses and insights would prove indispensable to the intellectual opposition to the status quo that had given us the post-modern cesspool.
Then as now, the really smart people who run the really smart ‘conservative’ journals (and websites, we must add for our time) failed to see much, if any, merit in anything I write, which means that yet another of my assessments that would be proven correct had no forum from which to reach a public wider than the few with whom I speak personally about such matters.
It is inevitable that anytime anyone mentions what I did that there will be a flurry of response, much of it getting far off track. That is so because the situation is rather like that in Flannery O’Connor’s story ‘A Good Man is Hard to Find.’ In that tale, the Misfit, the man who has chosen to be a violent criminal because he cannot believe in Christ because he was not there to see the resurrection, makes it plain to discerning readers that there is always a choice: God and anti-God. Translated into ethno-cultural terms that fit the ‘Anglosphere,’ that understanding means that whatever church a person proclaims, he either chooses the basic position of historic (which began long before there was anything close to a written English language, much less Henry VIII creating a national church to serve his and the State’s earthly interests) orthodox Christianity (orthodox in terms of morals and political philosophy as well as theological doctrines and dogmas) or the basic position of the English revolutions against historic orthodox Christianity.
In historic Christianity, the Church, which necessarily must be visible, is the ark upon which men must cleave for salvation because Christ founded one Church for that purpose. In the English revolutionary world, the ark is some combination of the English language and Anglo-Saxon culture and Anglo-Saxon law and government (for Henry VIII, that government was royal and his family, while for the Puritans that government was representative not of all people – they kept paring the Parliament and its electors ever smaller to guarantee that they had little or no viable opposition – but to the ‘Saints’).
Anyone who knows the history of French and Marxist and other Modern leftist revolutions (like that of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans) will recognize immediately in the Puritan fine tuning of the revolution that had called for mass voting and popular rule to make certain there could be no opposition to the reigning revolutionary elite the precursor of the later atheist pattern. That is the kind of thing that older mid-20th century Marxists meant when they taught young Marxists to emulate Anglo-Saxon Puritans: use mass violence to destroy an existing order proclaimed to be corrupt and unfair, and then, while using the language of representation and democracy, fine tune a system of increasingly centralized tyranny that allows no viable opposition.
In terms of political philosophy, what Henry VIII declared was that church is ancillary to State, that church serves State, that, therefore, State is supreme. That was a turning back of the clock to the pagan world, to the Roman Empire. Theologically, that position asserts that State creates and/or defines church, and if that is true, then church is anything but divine, anything but the plan of the Incarnated Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
The Puritan revolution worsened that of Henry VIII by shifting the power from the monarchy and a royal family to the elected representatives. In other words, the Puritan revolution took a perverse political philosophy that could not never be anything but an equally perverse theology and democratized it, making the mass will of the people (as understood by the revolutionary elites, of course, such as in later France and Russia) the arbiter of both political and moral philosophy and of church and church doctrines. Ultimately, to foster the various heretics (Quakers, Unitarians, universalists, Deists, resurgent pagans, etc.) living peacefully under one a-doctrinal Protestant banner (English language and Anglo-Saxon ethno-cultural supremacy arming unrelenting contempt for Celtic cultures and Catholicism), tolerance for everything and everyone that assimilated to the basic likes and dislikes of the regnant culture (see parenthetical aside above) was mandated.
Like the Misfit, the Anglo-Saxon Puritan and his followers took to self-serving, will-to-power destruction like ducks to water because they could not believe and so acted, in effect, as if they were beyond good and evil, which is to say, acted to create a world in which their ethnicity (and the Judaizing religion of the Anglo-Saxon Puritans was defined significantly by unrelenting hate for most other European ethnic groups, who were, in varying degrees [most often due to how much Germanic blood they were assumed to have, Germanic blood equaling the good and non-Roman blood] seen as inferior) and its attendant culture would be linked inextricably to the Saved, the Elect.
Thus, whenever anyone notes anything as obvious as the fact that in 1812 the English were, in terms of historic Christendom, as far to the left as the Napoleonic era French, that they were in effect two sides of one coin, there must be smoke blown and the topic altered. The fear for the devotee of the cultural religion of the Anglosphere (and the average Neocon is an ardent Anglophile, just as the average Necocon engages in talk asserting that what is wrong with Islam is that it never had a Reformation, which means the average Neocon sees at least the two phases of the English reformation as necessary to his world view) is that finally people may see it for what it is and simply stop supporting it in any form, including politically and nationally. Its telos is philosophical perversion and spiritual entropy.
The Misfit has made his choice. The question is: will you be like the grandmother and have your epiphany, at gunpoint, too late for you and your family, or will you understand the choice and the stakes in time to make the right decision?
Posted by James Cantrell on Oct 30, 2007.
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_silence_of_father_neuhaus/
‘Adriana’ is proof that the voices of the left are ever present on sites tp attempt to keep steering the right farther to the left.
Posted by James Cantrell on Sep 08, 2007.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/a_sensitive_conservative/
It is amazing how when any major nerve of the anti-Western Christian Civilization left is touched, even cast in anything but a perpetually glowing light, that defenders of the decaying, perverted status quo belch forth from their ivory towers to lecture those of us who, like McCartney’s Fool on the Hill, refuse to pray before yet another false idol. In this case, as has been noted, the American public schools, which are the product primarily of anti-Catholic and largely unTrinitarian Yankee Protestants desiring a compulsory system to force the children of Catholic immigrants to assimilate and become typical Liberal Yankee WASPs in culture and then later of quintessential Yankee WASP become atheist John Dewey devising standards whereby that mandatory system would inculcate children into all forms of socialist and anti-Christ rot, are a primary, indispensable, vehicle for the maintaining the current morass.
One devotee here of the public schools has declared that opposing them is tantamount to opposing fluoride placed secretly in water. Before he/she/it makes another such stupid comment here, a through reading of this list, compiled by a professor of chemistry, to oppose fluoridated water might help: http://www.fluorideaction.org/50-reasons.htm
Another devotee asserts that because the US has, in some system, the best universities in the world, that is proof of the greatness of the public schools. The fact that the vast, vast, vast majority of graduates of public school would never come remotely close to a waiting list for any of those ‘elite’ American universities (without affirmative action; with affirmative action, even IQs of 90 can be deemed worthy of admission to, scholarship money for, and endless school supplied tutors from the Dukes and Vandys and Ivys of the world) is not mentioned. Beyond that mammoth sitting in the living room he has filled with his dung while the home owner sees nothing, there is the glaring problem of rating schools. In our era, PC standards are key to such ratings. The best teaching college in the world would be one that was incessantly anti-PC and focused on all the dead white men, which would get it eliminated from consideration.
To look at the problem from another angle, every one of those elite American universities on that list will have majors and courses in things that make Underwater Basket Weaving – the classic 1970s joke about how low American universities had sunk in academic standards as they rushed toward PC embrace of all things inferior as long as they aided in the culture war against Christendom - seem like sturdy stuff. Now, they have Composition courses for sodomites and mandated student fee payments into all kinds of groups advocating moral and cultural perversion as the Big Brother norm.
In terms of real education (say that which be understood as such by Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.), there is not a single American university on that list worth its exorbitant tuition. Each is like the American public school system: filthy rich and spiritually, and increasingly intellectually, coprophagous.
But that is not my main point. My reason for writing is to state categorically that homeschooling will fail for one reason that should be as obvious as the wasted money perversions of the public school: it is by and large an activity of, by, and for women. Take a look at your local homeschool associations and the various classes and activities they sponsor. What you will see over and over is a Chick Club. Men are absent, and women want it that way. Feminized formal education has driven men away in droves, and so will feminized homeschooling. That the women now utterly feminizing homeschooling often proclaim a love of Jesus, they are (even ignoring the fact that most are wild-eyed heretics), as Paul Gottfried would find expected, nothing more than mild Liberal versions of the Hillary Clintons of America, and they are turning homeschooling into another bleeding-heart, and therefore culturally leftwing, pantywaist enterprise.
Remember, it was women becoming the dominant force in antebellum northern churches, and then replacing the school master with the schoolmarm, that both marked the liberal perversion of the entire culture and propelled that liberalism ever farther and faster. Declaring a love of Jesus then did not prevent those self-righteous bimbos from doing incalculable harm, and neither will the professed love of Jesus today prevent women from ruining homeschooling within a generation.
If you want homeschooling to work, you must get men involved, which will require men to stop wimping-out and instruct women to stand down, to be helpmates rather than usurping leaders (because women invariably lead toward various forms of socialistic thinking and interacting). It will require men to realize that for homeschooling to work most effectively, it must employ many aspects of the old paid tutorial system, hiring men, and a few women who are up to snuff, who have real degrees (not Education or Sociology or Women’s Studies or Missions at some PC-leaning Bible college) to teach small classes here and there.
Posted by James Cantrell on Sep 08, 2007.
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/taking_back_our_children/
This Paul Gottfried article is not merely incisive; it is also courageous. It is the kind of article telling hard, ugly truths that gets you smeared and ostracized in such a fiercely philoSemitic age and nation. Who knows, but this could be the article that makes Gottfried suspect even to the LewRockwell crowd.
What most interests me most about it are not the major points about what Foxman’s successes in fundraising say about Jews and their indispensable role in the cultural Marxist that is simultaneously cancer metastasized and gangrene fast approaching the hip. What interests me most are Gottfried’s comments about American Protestants. For some 4 or 5 years, I have responded periodically to an article or book of his noting that if he would only recognize that sola fide is an inherently liberal theology that births an inherently liberal set of inter-related philosophies, which reproduce increasingly liberal politics, and then also recognize that the Anglo-Saxon Puritans were the most savagely self-righteous Judaizers to emerge from the Protestant Reformation, then he would have the basic answer that makes sense of the various phenomena he observes.
In this article, Foxman notes, “Evangelicals have been moving toward the social left (that is, in Foxman’s direction) on moral issues and is currently fixated on human rights, missionizing for democracy, and the presidential nomination of socially liberal Republican Rudolph Giuliani.” After noting that then Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed had publicly apologized for the Spanish Inquisition, Gottfried admits, “What did not surprise me was that an Evangelical leader did the predictable groveling.”
The only person who should not be surprised by such Anglophonic Evangelical conduct is one who does not know or refuses to accept either of the two premises I make two paragraphs above. First, because sola fide is inherently liberal, it breeds more liberalism: theological, philosophical, cultural, and political liberalism. Second, because the Anglo-Saxon Puritans were imperialistic Judaizers (natural forerunners of Zionists) and they made an indelibly defining mark on all subsequent English culture and defined New England culture, and then through osmosis with Quakers to form a kind of a-doctrinal cultural Protestantism came to define Northern (Yankee) culture, and after that through the War Between the States came to be the mandarin culture of America, the main fruits of their hegemony must necessarily involve forms of philoSemitism benefiting preponderantly from their theological liberalism (become primarily heresy long ago) that breeds never-ending political liberalism and cultural suicide: the Thanatos Syndrome of Walker Percy.
Whether he is willing to acknowledge, Gottfried seems to be coming around to my assessments. Perhaps he was at this point long ago and refused to so acknowledge because my larger case is focused not on theology, but linguistic and folk culture. However sincere Gottfried is in his defense of Anglophonic Protestantism (and the more sincere, the more self-contradictory he is), he is rather openly as anti-Irish as any old fashioned Philadelphia lawyer WASP, and my focus always takes account of the fact that in the Indo-European family, Celtic is the most conservative in everything (linguistics, folklore, material culture, etc.), and it emphasizes the defining Celtic cultural heritage of the South against the theologically heretical and culturally liberal Yankee WASP world.
It aint no mistake that every form of cultural liberal – including the Neocon form that is little more than a Jewish focused grandchild of Lincoln and the original Republican Party advancing liberal WASP culture through sanctimonious gunpoint - hates the Celtic-Southern thesis and acts to stop its transmissions. Those who wish to know more should see my book ‘How Celtic Culture Invented Southern Literature.’
Posted by James Cantrell on Aug 20, 2007.
Paul Gottfried ends his comments with this sentence: “Foxman has a helluva lot of Christian enablers, who may be more important than his Jewish
ones.” I will go him a step more and assert that Foxman’s enablers who are professed Christians (many of them are utterly heretical) are easily more important than his Jewish enablers. Foxman’s heretical Christian enablers are logical and inherent products of the Anglo-Saxon Puritan revolution and the subsequent culture wars to spread that perverted culture world wide by hook and crook.
Posted by James Cantrell on Aug 20, 2007.
Rin Tin Tin wants to know the source of the American Catholic/Protestant rivalry. It is merely a continuation of the same basic cultural conflict from the British Isles. It is a matter of the culture (which most conveniently is labeled WASP in America) birthed by the revolutions of Henry VIII and the Anglo-Saxon Puritans making certain that the one great intellectual and spiritual source of refutation to it (the great ethno-cultural source of refutation to it is Celtic) must be opposed, must be traduced.
Posted by James Cantrell on Aug 20, 2007.
Andrew,
If you believe that the Irish are the most left wing group in American history, then you are remarkably ignorant of the Irish and of Jews, blacks, Quakers and other 100% heretical groups birthed by the English reformation. The alleged Irish liberalism, almost always summed up with pointing Ted Kennedy, began with simply being forced, by the processes of British imperial history, to live in a world in which your culture is derided and you are expected to assimilate in order to live anywhere but the very floor. In such a society, your politics becomes ‘liberal’ in the sense that it is opposed to the status quo, a status quo that is the fruit of people destroying your culture. In British terms, the Irish became anti-imperial, including when living in the Empire (take the Irish out of the equations, and there is not enough sentiment for independence to even ease a type of Home Rule for Canada or Australia).
Is opposing a perverted empire and demanding as much de-centralization as possible conservative or liberal? If you wish, for whatever reason, to conserve that empire and all its ill-gotten gains and its increasingly rotten inherent fruits that poison hordes of people, then you will condemn such stances as the worst of liberalism.
If you refer to the Irish in America, then you had best start studying history. When the Know-Nothings use terror against Irish immigrant neighborhoods, as well as the many legal activities, they NEVER do so because they claim the Irish are too liberal. In fact, the very opposite is asserted. The Irish were recognized as being religiously and culturally conservative in ways that would stand in opposition to the essence of liberal WASP democracy. Condemnations of the Irish and then other Catholic immigrants, especially the Poles, were the same right through the 1920s: they were too conservative, and their conservatism was retrograde and could only be anti-American, which would mean they would be anti-WASP.
If you know anything about the abortion fight in New York state in the early and mid-1960s, you know that the Pro-abortion side was uniformly Jewish and WASP and the anti-abortion side was uniformly Catholic, with the vast majority of leaders being of Irish ancestry.
So then how did we get to Teddy Kennedy and other Irish descended politicians of recent vintage? David Hackett Fischer in Albion’s Seed shows how: assimilation. Fischer uses the Massachusetts Kennedys as Exhibit A of his case that all subsequent groups coming to America ultimately would assimilate to one of 4 16th century local British cultures: two of those together formed Southern culture, and 2 formed Northern culture. Fischer declares that the 1960s and after Kennedys act in cultural terms exactly like the ethnically pure Anglo-Saxon Protestants of Brahmin New England, who hated Irish immigrants even as they welcomed Jews as business partners and partners culturally to oppose Catholics and saw blacks as their permanent toy to uplift, and exactly like the great-grandparents of those quintessential WASPs.
Fischer recognizes the obvious: Teddy Kennedy is exactly like the ultra Liberal New England Brahmins of the antebellum era because of assimilation. Teddy has Irish genes and an Irish surname, and he remains a Catholic by affiliation (though he is about as good a Catholic as Henry VIII), but Teddy is a 100% cultural WASP.
Posted by James Cantrell on Aug 21, 2007.
It is good to see the demarcations that arise ineluctably from WASP culture, and Andrew, who seems to have imbibed every cliché known to the WASP world, shines on them.
Abolitionism tied inextricably to utterly heretical (usually anti-Trinitarian) Protestant groups was birthed exclusively in antebellum New England by ethnically pure Anglo-Saxons, and they were always clear that saw both Irish Catholics and Scots-Irish Southerners as their two main enemies and as inferior peoples to them and to blacks. Feminism was born at the same time and place among the same ethnicity: WASP. The true anti-Semites (who in this are remarkably similar to Abe Foxman and many other Jews), who focus on race exclusively and assume permanent characteristics bound to genes (which means assimilation to other cultural standards and attitudes is never acknowledged in more than lip service), wish to see America’s cultural Marxist slide in matters relating to race and gender as being Jewish in origin, and they hate it when people like me note that the messes are WASP in origin. For Andrew, that means that the very core culture (‘stock’ he calls it) of what he sees as America (it was NOT the core ‘stock’ of the South, nor the core culture, nor even a significant minority culture) was the one and only source of the two most important lurches toward cultural Marxism – and the Yankee WASPs accomplished that before anyone in North America ever heard the name Karl Marx.
That alone makes the Yankee WASP culture utterly indispensable to all subsequent American Leftism. The Irish participated in that as they assimilated to that culture’s hegemony.
But that is the end of the matter. Simply spend time examining what Northern Protestant churches have done since the Gilded Age, and I don’t mean only examine their theological perversions. Examine their roles in all matters relating to the growth of American centralized and socialistic government. E. Michael Jones has written a fine book titled The Slaughter of Cities in which he shows how the WASP Elites (Andrew probably would call them conservatives) allied with Jews began in the 1920s to use big government to destroy Catholic neighborhoods. The purpose, as document after document quoted by Jones shows, was to force these Catholic to assimilate more quickly and fully and become truly liberal Americans.
For me, the most quickly telling detail from history to mark how utterly perverse and liberal is the inherent fruit of New England Anglo-Saxon Puritan culture is the United Church of Christ. It is a fairly recent formation based primarily on the Congregational church, which was the church of Puritan New England. As Thomas Aquinas could have predicted, this church of, for, and by the Anglo-Saxon Puritan people is a cesspool of the extreme left – culturally and morally as well as theologically - that makes the liberal most quarter of the Democrat Party seem normal, even square. Compared to the average UCC leader, Ted Kennedy is prim, however fat and alcoholic.
Ideas have consequences, and cultures are more about ideas than about genes.
Andrew’s many notions are simply too many to undo here, but I have to address one that should demonstrate how ridiculous his positions are. Irish Catholics (which seems to be all that Andrew means by Irish) did not create Tammany Hall. Tammany Hall was a purely Protestant invention and game. The first major player to use it fully was Aaron Burr. It is true that Tammany early on was politically opposed to the New England Elites. Tammany played a key role in keeping John Adams from being re-elected, but that was not about Catholic Irish, because they had zero role in Tammany at the time, and would not for decades. The Irish would not come to control Tammany until 1872, and Boss Tweed was pure Scots-Irish, not Catholic.
Posted by James Cantrell on Aug 21, 2007.
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/firing_foxman/
Agents Provocateurs
Posted by James Cantrell on July 05, 2007
Southerners, like the European Celts who are their primary cultural progenitors, tell stories. Of course, all peoples tell stories, but Southerners tell stories not merely to entertain, certainly not to flatter their vanities and trick the gullible into adoring or fearing them, but to provide lessons or warnings, to make points, to dig at the hard, necessary truths, to jolt people into realizing that indeed there is no new thing under the sun. Such an approach, which is the antithesis of the legalistic approach (points made by quoting Law or the customs and preferences of the Elites, usually with threats), springs from a healthy culture that recognizes, and, more importantly, accepts, the power, the truth, of logos. Though it is aside from the main thrust of this piece, I believe it could be helpful to some readers to state that this deep cultural respect for logos is one of the more salient reasons that all Celtic peoples converted rather easily and quickly to Christianity, while save for the few significantly Romano-Celticized tribes (such as the Franks), Germans remained gleefully murderous pagans for centuries and/or became equally murderous Aryans, the two, pagan and anti-Trinitarian Germans, marauding Europe right into and through the Dark Ages, until they too, finally, became sufficiently converted culturally so that their contributions would be major expressions of Christendom rather than assaults against it.
The path the comments on this excellent article by Scott Richert took made me recall a small, seemingly unimportant, story from Irish history that I learned while reading for a graduate level course in Irish Renaissance Literature. The Gaelic Athletic Association was one of the two major Irish cultural organizations to be founded in the late 19th century (the other was The Gaelic League, focused on language and literature). The story from Irish history that I recalled concerned one local GAA chapter that had moved rather quickly to stepping into realms other than hurling and Gaelic football. Revival of ancient Irish sports was horrific enough to the Elites getting filthy rich from the British Empire, but for dumb Mick jocks and their fans also to express interests in literature and culture was to risk them becoming full-fledged cultural Nationalists, and that could not be tolerated by the Empire that tolerated every religion of every people it conquered, save the Catholicism of Celtic peoples.
What this local GAA soon had on its hands was a member who was a vociferously ultramontane Catholic who fit the stereotype of the Anglo-Saxon puritanical mind: he professed burning desire to exterminate non-Catholics, at least from the GAA. He demanded that Protestants and Dissenters be banned from all GAA activities; he cast aspersions on all members who did not wear surnames that were Gaelic in origin. All expressions of support for even Home Rule (within the UK, in opposition to demands for total national independence) he met with calls for expelling all non-Catholics from any political rights in Ireland .
The local GAA members, being decent, common sense types, ignored the rants at first, assuming that idiocy self-exposed would just go away when others did not clamor to it. But then another member rose in opposition. He declared that the Vatican had betrayed Ireland for a thousand years and would do so endlessly. He emphasized that the majority of leaders of the 1798 rising against British imperial rule were Protestants of strong Deist sensibilities. He said that backward faith in a foreign power like the Vatican had been Ireland ’s greatest weakness. He said that unless Irish culture adopted all people who lived in Ireland and accepted their religious beliefs as equal and allowed them to add to Irish culture, then it would die anyway.
Then the row was on among the members of the local GAA, with lines rather quickly drawn and too few left in the middle trying to show the wrongs, the absurdities, of each side. The result was a local GAA that was totally ineffective.
As we all should have learned at least from watching the Watergate film All the President’s Men, the key questions are always where is the money trail and who profits?
The conclusion to that local GASA story would not be known for decades, until after the Easter Monday rising, after the Black and Tan war, after the British partition of Ireland as the easiest and least expensive way for the Empire to control it, after the Irish Civil War. Each troublemaker in the fracas had been a paid agent for Dublin Castle, for the British Empire, each had been an agent provocateur, playing a role to try to make Irish cultural groups ineffective through endless in-fighting and then to bury them.
Considering that every truly conservative (as opposed to the self-righteous imperialistic liberalism that is neoConism) site that allows comments has repeat problems similar to those that ruined that local GAA, I would suggest that we all make an effort to recognize those whose views can serve only to divide and conquer for those who hold the moneybags of power in the Yankee empire. Who knows how many trouble makers on various sites, in various groups, are agents provocateurs, some for the imperial government, some for groups such as the ADL or SPLC?
What I do know is that when a couple of people ruin commentary on an article as important as Richert’s, they serve, whether they so know or are accidental serfs, powers as insidious, as amorally corrupt, as those that paid to try to destroy the GAA and other Irish cultural groups. I hope that those who take part in our lively discussions on the comment forums here at Takimag.com will remember that incivility and cheap, slanderous assaults on the personal integrity of their interlocutors effectively serve the cause of censorship.
James Cantrell is author of How Celtic Culture Invented Southern Literature.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/agents_provocateur/
This is an excellent overview. Rather than America and the Anglosphere being the ‘good guys’ they have been led by Elites who use their peoples as cannon fodder and tax slaves to wage wars, physical and cultural, first and foremost to weaken and humiliate, if not necessarily destroy, all nations that could, might could we would emphasize in the hill South, revive its part of historic, pre-Modern Christendom.
America, taking over for the British Empire, is serving the role as imperial giant to replace the vestiges of Western Christian Civilization with centralized, multicultural secularism held together by military force and bread and circuses.
Posted by James Cantrell on Jun 12, 2007.
It is true, as Mr. FoSquare says, that America’s entanglement with Israel has constituted a catastrophic foreign policy. But as that did not occur until 1948 and the catastrophies began much earlier, focusing on Israel is to highlight a symptom rather than the cause.
The great cause is that once the Yankees won The War and made Anglo-Saxopn Puritan culture America’s mandarin culture, the reconstituted singular USA was bound to become a self-righteous empire that would promote Jewish interest because ideas have consequences, they move toward inherent and sometimes unavoidable ends. As A-S Puritanism was the quintessential late Reformatiion era hardcore Judaizing heresy, it is a given that any culture it rules, it directs, will become very much like the USA of the past century and more.
Oliver Cromwell and Benjamin Disraeli and Abe Lincoln and British Empire worshiping Woodrow Wilson lead almost ineluctably to today’s Neocons and the final transformation of America into a centralized ‘democratic’ empire mandating worldwide abortion, homosexual promotion, religious syncretism and indifferentism, and philosophical relativism ruled by Anglophonic Elite might makes right judgment.
Posted by James Cantrell on Jun 13, 2007.
JAMES CANTRELL FILE
At least the two articles by Havers and the responses have been about something worth discussing, which increasingly is not the case with articles here, focusing as they do on ephemeral politics rather than the ideas that underlie contemporary issues. Readers of this site should be worrying that it is being steered toward becoming a type of ‘paleo-friendly’ version of National Review Online. After all, that would mean that articles here could become ‘internet hits,’ being linked to many times and sent all around the globe, getting a multitude of hits. Then the Editor could boast of his success – creating yet another boy-band of putative conservative thought.
And finding a way to try to silence, or at least tar with a feather, those who discern in Lincoln perhaps the single most important figure fits perfectly into that pattern because Lincoln is, as many admirers since his death have proclaimed, the martyred messiah of liberal American democracy, at home and abroad. Yes, I see the Lincoln myth, which merely is a handy (thanks to his death) tool of the Puritan/Yankee WASP myth, as being self-righteously imperialistic: ask Plains Indians about Sherman. Before that myth could be taken around the globe, it had to erect an increasingly centralized State from Atlantic to Pacific.
What Havers seems determined to ignore is that while what Lincoln did and said did not absolutely have to lead to the now single USA (as opposed to the pre-Lincoln ‘these United States’) being in Iraq, his legacy, the precedents he set in order to achieve what he willed, cannot be contained in ways desired by anyone; Lincoln’s actions and words have lives of their own, and all ideas have inherent consequences, moving inexorably toward their telos. Yes, the faults were readily present in the very founding – in ways that the Anglophile Protestant Havers likely would refuse to comprehend – but Lincoln’s Presidency was the Crossing of the Rubicon for the American experiment, moving it away from any possibility of remaining a true Republic and making certain it would become the new version of the British Empire.
Whatever Lincoln fancied he was doing is irrelevant, unless somehow good intentions can never pave the road to Hell. What is a given is that had the Confederate states won their independence, their example would have both been precedent scaring the CSA government into line away from becoming oppressive of the states that created it as their agent and the example urging the states remaining in the northern Union to demand that the Federal government serve them, rather than they being forced to serve it.
I think Paul Gottfried’s response is the most interesting. I have said for some time that the primary division is not between putative Right and Left, even when Neocons are rightly recognized as Left. The primary division is between those who accept and endorse the cultures (inherently Liberal I assert) that were forged out of the two English reformations and those who – for specifically theological reasons or for ethno-cultural reasons or for pro-Agrarian reasons – reject what is most easily identified as WASP culture. That WASP culture in America, which specifically was the marriage of New England Puritan becoming-Social-Gospel with anti-Trinitarian Quaker, was bound to reproduce the patterns its father had spawned in the Old World. One of those patterns is examples from conquered peoples becoming major leaders in the spread of that WASP Empire around the globe. Gottfried takes the absurd position that Woodrow Wilson and similar ‘patriotic Americans’ from the South, proves ‘Lincoln-bashing’ false. That is the same pattern of pointing to the hyper-imperialistic Northern Ireland Protestants as proof that they are responsible for the many sins of the English Empire, or that Gauls in the 2nd and 3rd centuries were responsible for the Roman Empire.
Perhaps the quickest way to understand how wrongheaded is Gottfried’s assessment is to ask whether Wilson, who was most certainly a self-righteous imperialist wanting to grace the entire world with American-style WASP culture, idealized and idolized Lincoln or Jefferson Davis. Wilson, raised to be a loyal American, was a devotee of Lincoln, as Jaffa knows. To Wilson, Southern was merely a geography of American. Wilson acted not in the historic Southern tradition but in the New England Puritan tradition, mixing its ‘conservative’ part (imperialistic warring) with its ‘liberal’ part (Social Gospel welfare crowned with Jesus talk and inter-denominational, increasingly a-doctrinal cultural Protestantism) perfectly. Wilson, aping his Ulster kin in their servile place in the British Empire, was very much Lincoln Part II. And while Edward Carson is utterly reprehensible in many ways, it is a denial of reality to blame him rather than Cromwell. The Edward Carsons and Woodrow Wilsons merely accepted the historical and political circumstances and (often violent) prejudices into which they were educated and acted to promote the very philosophies of their heroes, some of which philosophies were stated and others inherent.
Yes, as long as Southerners, with Confederate soldier ancestors, are ‘god Americans’ and thrilled to be under the Federal government Lincoln’s actions made inevitable, they will support various imperial activities. Ditto for Catholics and Orthodox and Jews who likewise get on the Lincoln and/or cultural-WASP roads.
Posted by James Cantrell on Apr 30, 2008.
http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/a_reply_to_thomas_dilorenzo/
I have not been to this site in a couple of weeks, and I am glad that I stumbled in and caught this article. The ‘Spengler’ piece makes a case I have been making for more than a decade: that what the American Left – which is waging a war first and foremost against historic, orthodox Christian morality and identity – hates and fears most out of Southern studies and cultural identity since the time that Agrarianism with its “Classical-Christian context “ (the phrase is Louise Cowan’s in the Intro to Allen Tate’s Essays of Four Decades) was expelled from the Academy is the Celtic-Southern thesis.
This ‘Spengler’ could be Jewish, expressing the inherent Liberalism, religiously and culturally, of the Jewish Neocons, but he also could as pure blood a Yankee WASP as George Will. That is the best way, I think, to begin to see a main point of mine for the past few years: that the Neocon movement while dominated by Jews is NOT a purely Jewish movement in any sense. The specifics of today’s Neocon movement requires Trotskyite Jews become Lincoln-loving Yankees, but those Jews have merely grafted themselves onto a movement that is quintessentially the self-righteously imperialist wing of Anglo-Saxon Puritan culture in America.
The source of Neocon moral and political philosophy is not Jews; it is the Puritan revolution and Oliver Cromwell.
Note how ‘Spengler’ voices things that I have responded to on this site, expressed here by people pretending to be some type of traditional conservative. Does anyone recall my exchange with one of the fake posters who asserted that the dead in the South was the South was guilty of violating Christian Just War?
It may well be that ‘Spengler’ is a poster on this site.
Those who know anything about English (not simply restricted to the Puritan era) activities in Ireland know that there is an old pattern blaming the slaughtered for having deserved it. It runs this way: our nation is godly, and therefore any rebellion against it is virtually Satanic; the fact that you resisted our violence to force you to accept the peace and superior rule we bring you at gunpoint proves that everything we did you – all deaths and all property destruction and all cultural. Genocide – were justified.
That Anglo-Saxon Puritan justification of its own empire-building and maintenance by slaughtering multitudes and accusing them of being guilty of the very things done to them is the Lincoln/Republican/Woodrow Wilson/FDR/American justification. It is quintessentially WASP: it is the ‘conservative’ side of the WASP coin working with the liberal side of the WASP coin (Unitarian-Universalism, Quakerism, Social Gospelism, feminism (the first feminist conference is a pure Yankee WASP event in antebellum America ), multiculturalism, etc.).
Anyone caring to explore some of the implications of the Celtic-Southern thesis should consult my book How Celtic Culture Invented Southern Literature (Pelican Publishers).
Posted by James Cantrell on Apr 10, 2008.
To Mr. Havers:
If you fancy that the actions and words of Lincoln and his associates cannot be seen as inherently producing the later developing truly global American imperialism, then you are as blind as those who deny that Cromwell’s actions and words (restricted as they were to slaughtering Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, and Celts in the British Isles) had inherent consequences that played out in dead bodies all over the globe long after Cromwell was roasting in Hell.
Posted by James Cantrell on Apr 30, 2008.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/spengler_making_the_world_safe_for_triumphalism_and_slaughter/
Buckley seating Taki and his wife in places of honor could not so much as slightly undo any of the incalculable damage he did to real conservatism, beginning at least with his willingness to throw Joe Sobran to the rabid Neocon wolves. If anything, the very Neocons Buckley lifted to such heights would have responded to such a slight not by any penance but by becoming more vicious, with ole Bill turning away and allowing them to run wild once more
Posted by James Cantrell on Feb 27, 2008.
“We would all have statues of V. I. Lenin in our village squares by now if Bill Buckley had stayed in his house and read Latin all this time, and don’t you ever forget it.”
The sad thing is that this proclamation, which is so outrageously stupid as to have been composed by a Neocon hack in conjunction with the SPLC working overtime to make certain that ‘mainstream’ conservatism is pro-Joe Lieberman and pro-John McCain, does reflect the childish worldview of many who fancy Buckley something other than a kingly rich man who chose to try to kill the careers of most prominent real conservatives once they were no longer needed. He never did penance for any of it.
Judas Iscariot, not the beloved Apostle, comes to mind.
Here is the important question that springs from the quote: what could does it do you to prevent statues of Lenin in village squares if you and your magazine ultimately support the vast majority of key components of cultural Marxism being mainstreamed? Isn’t Bill Buckley’s ‘conservatism’ little more than two things: defense of his and his class’s money and power and acceptance of yesterday’s liberalism is a futile attempt to prevent faster liberalization?
Posted by James Cantrell on Feb 27, 2008.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/william_f_buckley_as_i_knew_him/
This is an excellent piece, for a number of reasons. One is that it directs attention to the Francophobia that defines Neocons. Paul Gottfried tends to focus on Neocon bashing of the Nazis and blaming modern Germans as a whole for the Nazi movement. But I have always emphasized that Neocons are more anti-French than anti-German, with the anti-Germna/Nazi being merely the American imperialist version of the English anti-modern German fears of a nation that could defeat it in war. The Francophobia that defines Neocons is, like the anti-modern Germany diatribes, something that is quintessentially English, back to when Normans allowed themselves to lose French as their first language and to embrace Anglo-Saxon Germanic ways of thinking and being.
Most important in the article is the brief discussion of the assimilation of various non-English Catholics to an America defined culturally by the acronym WASP. Whether you were French, Irish, Polish, Bavarian, Italian, Spanish, etc., assimilation to Yankee WASP culture, becoming a good American, cost you most of your invaluable ethno-cultural heritage, which being far more conservative – theologically as well as philosophically - than WASP was necessary to maintaining these United States as a halfway decent place to live in terms other than easy wealth acquisition.
Though it is harder for most to see because of religion and the way we all have been instructed to understand British and American histories, the same basic pattern of assimilation to Yankee-WASPdom and cultural loss defines the primarily culturally Celtic South.
That is a good way to understand that all of us – Scots-Irish Southerners, Irish Catholics, Franco-Americans, Poles, Italians, Russians and Serbs and Greeks (to add the orthodox), etc. – who are not WASP in ethnicity (and/or nor like the Rockefellers: Germanic Protestants who culturally are largely indistinguishable from WASPs) feel deep loss because we are paying the price for a mess of pottage (America’s wealth) that murdered our birthright. We either will recover those heritages and use them to wash ourselves of assimilation to a religiously and philosophically polluted culture (which in its contemporary form has two wings: Neocon and multiculturalist, each of which is decidedly unchristian and self-righteously imperialistic), or we will remain indispensable parts of the problem.
Posted by James Cantrell on Dec 21, 2007.
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/learning_to_love_the_french/
Nergol writes: “I’m sorry - the awful truth is that Wellington managed to smash Napoleon’s army, but in the end, the French Revolution swept the world anyway. Nothing has been able to stop it, merely to slow it down, and it will only die when it collapses under its own weight, as did its bastard offspring, Communism.”
That is true. The reason is that the English themselves were infected en masse before the French with the pollutions and perversions of moral and political philosophy. The Puritan Revolution was very much a Judaizing, Anglo-Saxon Calvinist manifestation of all that was necessary precursor to the French Revolution. In terms of basic philosophy, in 1812, the French and the English were equally far left, equally in opposition to historic orthodox Christendom.
Seeing the English during the French Revolution/Napoleonic era as being the reasonable conservative opposition to murderously insane and culturally suicidal liberalism is as diametrically wrong, and therefore self-defeating, as seeing Rudolph Giulianni, Christopher Hitchens, and the Neocons as the conservative opposition to the Christ-hating left of the Southern Poverty Law Center, ADL, NARAL, and North American Man-Boy Love Association. Far from being opposites, they are two sides of one coin.
Posted by James Cantrell on Oct 28, 2007.
It is amazing, though I would say predictable, to see where this thread has gone since my post asserting that the Anglo-Saxon Puritan Revolution was the necessary precursor to the French Revolution. The eminent historian Eugene Genovese noted in an article published many years ago that to the young Marxists of his college years, the English Puritan revolution was presented by the older Marxists as a great example to emulate. When I read that article, I all but predicted that Genovese was already a fallen away Marxist who was on the fast track to entering the Catholic Church and that his analyses and insights would prove indispensable to the intellectual opposition to the status quo that had given us the post-modern cesspool.
Then as now, the really smart people who run the really smart ‘conservative’ journals (and websites, we must add for our time) failed to see much, if any, merit in anything I write, which means that yet another of my assessments that would be proven correct had no forum from which to reach a public wider than the few with whom I speak personally about such matters.
It is inevitable that anytime anyone mentions what I did that there will be a flurry of response, much of it getting far off track. That is so because the situation is rather like that in Flannery O’Connor’s story ‘A Good Man is Hard to Find.’ In that tale, the Misfit, the man who has chosen to be a violent criminal because he cannot believe in Christ because he was not there to see the resurrection, makes it plain to discerning readers that there is always a choice: God and anti-God. Translated into ethno-cultural terms that fit the ‘Anglosphere,’ that understanding means that whatever church a person proclaims, he either chooses the basic position of historic (which began long before there was anything close to a written English language, much less Henry VIII creating a national church to serve his and the State’s earthly interests) orthodox Christianity (orthodox in terms of morals and political philosophy as well as theological doctrines and dogmas) or the basic position of the English revolutions against historic orthodox Christianity.
In historic Christianity, the Church, which necessarily must be visible, is the ark upon which men must cleave for salvation because Christ founded one Church for that purpose. In the English revolutionary world, the ark is some combination of the English language and Anglo-Saxon culture and Anglo-Saxon law and government (for Henry VIII, that government was royal and his family, while for the Puritans that government was representative not of all people – they kept paring the Parliament and its electors ever smaller to guarantee that they had little or no viable opposition – but to the ‘Saints’).
Anyone who knows the history of French and Marxist and other Modern leftist revolutions (like that of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans) will recognize immediately in the Puritan fine tuning of the revolution that had called for mass voting and popular rule to make certain there could be no opposition to the reigning revolutionary elite the precursor of the later atheist pattern. That is the kind of thing that older mid-20th century Marxists meant when they taught young Marxists to emulate Anglo-Saxon Puritans: use mass violence to destroy an existing order proclaimed to be corrupt and unfair, and then, while using the language of representation and democracy, fine tune a system of increasingly centralized tyranny that allows no viable opposition.
In terms of political philosophy, what Henry VIII declared was that church is ancillary to State, that church serves State, that, therefore, State is supreme. That was a turning back of the clock to the pagan world, to the Roman Empire. Theologically, that position asserts that State creates and/or defines church, and if that is true, then church is anything but divine, anything but the plan of the Incarnated Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
The Puritan revolution worsened that of Henry VIII by shifting the power from the monarchy and a royal family to the elected representatives. In other words, the Puritan revolution took a perverse political philosophy that could not never be anything but an equally perverse theology and democratized it, making the mass will of the people (as understood by the revolutionary elites, of course, such as in later France and Russia) the arbiter of both political and moral philosophy and of church and church doctrines. Ultimately, to foster the various heretics (Quakers, Unitarians, universalists, Deists, resurgent pagans, etc.) living peacefully under one a-doctrinal Protestant banner (English language and Anglo-Saxon ethno-cultural supremacy arming unrelenting contempt for Celtic cultures and Catholicism), tolerance for everything and everyone that assimilated to the basic likes and dislikes of the regnant culture (see parenthetical aside above) was mandated.
Like the Misfit, the Anglo-Saxon Puritan and his followers took to self-serving, will-to-power destruction like ducks to water because they could not believe and so acted, in effect, as if they were beyond good and evil, which is to say, acted to create a world in which their ethnicity (and the Judaizing religion of the Anglo-Saxon Puritans was defined significantly by unrelenting hate for most other European ethnic groups, who were, in varying degrees [most often due to how much Germanic blood they were assumed to have, Germanic blood equaling the good and non-Roman blood] seen as inferior) and its attendant culture would be linked inextricably to the Saved, the Elect.
Thus, whenever anyone notes anything as obvious as the fact that in 1812 the English were, in terms of historic Christendom, as far to the left as the Napoleonic era French, that they were in effect two sides of one coin, there must be smoke blown and the topic altered. The fear for the devotee of the cultural religion of the Anglosphere (and the average Neocon is an ardent Anglophile, just as the average Necocon engages in talk asserting that what is wrong with Islam is that it never had a Reformation, which means the average Neocon sees at least the two phases of the English reformation as necessary to his world view) is that finally people may see it for what it is and simply stop supporting it in any form, including politically and nationally. Its telos is philosophical perversion and spiritual entropy.
The Misfit has made his choice. The question is: will you be like the grandmother and have your epiphany, at gunpoint, too late for you and your family, or will you understand the choice and the stakes in time to make the right decision?
Posted by James Cantrell on Oct 30, 2007.
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_silence_of_father_neuhaus/
‘Adriana’ is proof that the voices of the left are ever present on sites tp attempt to keep steering the right farther to the left.
Posted by James Cantrell on Sep 08, 2007.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/a_sensitive_conservative/
It is amazing how when any major nerve of the anti-Western Christian Civilization left is touched, even cast in anything but a perpetually glowing light, that defenders of the decaying, perverted status quo belch forth from their ivory towers to lecture those of us who, like McCartney’s Fool on the Hill, refuse to pray before yet another false idol. In this case, as has been noted, the American public schools, which are the product primarily of anti-Catholic and largely unTrinitarian Yankee Protestants desiring a compulsory system to force the children of Catholic immigrants to assimilate and become typical Liberal Yankee WASPs in culture and then later of quintessential Yankee WASP become atheist John Dewey devising standards whereby that mandatory system would inculcate children into all forms of socialist and anti-Christ rot, are a primary, indispensable, vehicle for the maintaining the current morass.
One devotee here of the public schools has declared that opposing them is tantamount to opposing fluoride placed secretly in water. Before he/she/it makes another such stupid comment here, a through reading of this list, compiled by a professor of chemistry, to oppose fluoridated water might help: http://www.fluorideaction.org/50-reasons.htm
Another devotee asserts that because the US has, in some system, the best universities in the world, that is proof of the greatness of the public schools. The fact that the vast, vast, vast majority of graduates of public school would never come remotely close to a waiting list for any of those ‘elite’ American universities (without affirmative action; with affirmative action, even IQs of 90 can be deemed worthy of admission to, scholarship money for, and endless school supplied tutors from the Dukes and Vandys and Ivys of the world) is not mentioned. Beyond that mammoth sitting in the living room he has filled with his dung while the home owner sees nothing, there is the glaring problem of rating schools. In our era, PC standards are key to such ratings. The best teaching college in the world would be one that was incessantly anti-PC and focused on all the dead white men, which would get it eliminated from consideration.
To look at the problem from another angle, every one of those elite American universities on that list will have majors and courses in things that make Underwater Basket Weaving – the classic 1970s joke about how low American universities had sunk in academic standards as they rushed toward PC embrace of all things inferior as long as they aided in the culture war against Christendom - seem like sturdy stuff. Now, they have Composition courses for sodomites and mandated student fee payments into all kinds of groups advocating moral and cultural perversion as the Big Brother norm.
In terms of real education (say that which be understood as such by Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.), there is not a single American university on that list worth its exorbitant tuition. Each is like the American public school system: filthy rich and spiritually, and increasingly intellectually, coprophagous.
But that is not my main point. My reason for writing is to state categorically that homeschooling will fail for one reason that should be as obvious as the wasted money perversions of the public school: it is by and large an activity of, by, and for women. Take a look at your local homeschool associations and the various classes and activities they sponsor. What you will see over and over is a Chick Club. Men are absent, and women want it that way. Feminized formal education has driven men away in droves, and so will feminized homeschooling. That the women now utterly feminizing homeschooling often proclaim a love of Jesus, they are (even ignoring the fact that most are wild-eyed heretics), as Paul Gottfried would find expected, nothing more than mild Liberal versions of the Hillary Clintons of America, and they are turning homeschooling into another bleeding-heart, and therefore culturally leftwing, pantywaist enterprise.
Remember, it was women becoming the dominant force in antebellum northern churches, and then replacing the school master with the schoolmarm, that both marked the liberal perversion of the entire culture and propelled that liberalism ever farther and faster. Declaring a love of Jesus then did not prevent those self-righteous bimbos from doing incalculable harm, and neither will the professed love of Jesus today prevent women from ruining homeschooling within a generation.
If you want homeschooling to work, you must get men involved, which will require men to stop wimping-out and instruct women to stand down, to be helpmates rather than usurping leaders (because women invariably lead toward various forms of socialistic thinking and interacting). It will require men to realize that for homeschooling to work most effectively, it must employ many aspects of the old paid tutorial system, hiring men, and a few women who are up to snuff, who have real degrees (not Education or Sociology or Women’s Studies or Missions at some PC-leaning Bible college) to teach small classes here and there.
Posted by James Cantrell on Sep 08, 2007.
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/taking_back_our_children/
This Paul Gottfried article is not merely incisive; it is also courageous. It is the kind of article telling hard, ugly truths that gets you smeared and ostracized in such a fiercely philoSemitic age and nation. Who knows, but this could be the article that makes Gottfried suspect even to the LewRockwell crowd.
What most interests me most about it are not the major points about what Foxman’s successes in fundraising say about Jews and their indispensable role in the cultural Marxist that is simultaneously cancer metastasized and gangrene fast approaching the hip. What interests me most are Gottfried’s comments about American Protestants. For some 4 or 5 years, I have responded periodically to an article or book of his noting that if he would only recognize that sola fide is an inherently liberal theology that births an inherently liberal set of inter-related philosophies, which reproduce increasingly liberal politics, and then also recognize that the Anglo-Saxon Puritans were the most savagely self-righteous Judaizers to emerge from the Protestant Reformation, then he would have the basic answer that makes sense of the various phenomena he observes.
In this article, Foxman notes, “Evangelicals have been moving toward the social left (that is, in Foxman’s direction) on moral issues and is currently fixated on human rights, missionizing for democracy, and the presidential nomination of socially liberal Republican Rudolph Giuliani.” After noting that then Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed had publicly apologized for the Spanish Inquisition, Gottfried admits, “What did not surprise me was that an Evangelical leader did the predictable groveling.”
The only person who should not be surprised by such Anglophonic Evangelical conduct is one who does not know or refuses to accept either of the two premises I make two paragraphs above. First, because sola fide is inherently liberal, it breeds more liberalism: theological, philosophical, cultural, and political liberalism. Second, because the Anglo-Saxon Puritans were imperialistic Judaizers (natural forerunners of Zionists) and they made an indelibly defining mark on all subsequent English culture and defined New England culture, and then through osmosis with Quakers to form a kind of a-doctrinal cultural Protestantism came to define Northern (Yankee) culture, and after that through the War Between the States came to be the mandarin culture of America, the main fruits of their hegemony must necessarily involve forms of philoSemitism benefiting preponderantly from their theological liberalism (become primarily heresy long ago) that breeds never-ending political liberalism and cultural suicide: the Thanatos Syndrome of Walker Percy.
Whether he is willing to acknowledge, Gottfried seems to be coming around to my assessments. Perhaps he was at this point long ago and refused to so acknowledge because my larger case is focused not on theology, but linguistic and folk culture. However sincere Gottfried is in his defense of Anglophonic Protestantism (and the more sincere, the more self-contradictory he is), he is rather openly as anti-Irish as any old fashioned Philadelphia lawyer WASP, and my focus always takes account of the fact that in the Indo-European family, Celtic is the most conservative in everything (linguistics, folklore, material culture, etc.), and it emphasizes the defining Celtic cultural heritage of the South against the theologically heretical and culturally liberal Yankee WASP world.
It aint no mistake that every form of cultural liberal – including the Neocon form that is little more than a Jewish focused grandchild of Lincoln and the original Republican Party advancing liberal WASP culture through sanctimonious gunpoint - hates the Celtic-Southern thesis and acts to stop its transmissions. Those who wish to know more should see my book ‘How Celtic Culture Invented Southern Literature.’
Posted by James Cantrell on Aug 20, 2007.
Paul Gottfried ends his comments with this sentence: “Foxman has a helluva lot of Christian enablers, who may be more important than his Jewish
ones.” I will go him a step more and assert that Foxman’s enablers who are professed Christians (many of them are utterly heretical) are easily more important than his Jewish enablers. Foxman’s heretical Christian enablers are logical and inherent products of the Anglo-Saxon Puritan revolution and the subsequent culture wars to spread that perverted culture world wide by hook and crook.
Posted by James Cantrell on Aug 20, 2007.
Rin Tin Tin wants to know the source of the American Catholic/Protestant rivalry. It is merely a continuation of the same basic cultural conflict from the British Isles. It is a matter of the culture (which most conveniently is labeled WASP in America) birthed by the revolutions of Henry VIII and the Anglo-Saxon Puritans making certain that the one great intellectual and spiritual source of refutation to it (the great ethno-cultural source of refutation to it is Celtic) must be opposed, must be traduced.
Posted by James Cantrell on Aug 20, 2007.
Andrew,
If you believe that the Irish are the most left wing group in American history, then you are remarkably ignorant of the Irish and of Jews, blacks, Quakers and other 100% heretical groups birthed by the English reformation. The alleged Irish liberalism, almost always summed up with pointing Ted Kennedy, began with simply being forced, by the processes of British imperial history, to live in a world in which your culture is derided and you are expected to assimilate in order to live anywhere but the very floor. In such a society, your politics becomes ‘liberal’ in the sense that it is opposed to the status quo, a status quo that is the fruit of people destroying your culture. In British terms, the Irish became anti-imperial, including when living in the Empire (take the Irish out of the equations, and there is not enough sentiment for independence to even ease a type of Home Rule for Canada or Australia).
Is opposing a perverted empire and demanding as much de-centralization as possible conservative or liberal? If you wish, for whatever reason, to conserve that empire and all its ill-gotten gains and its increasingly rotten inherent fruits that poison hordes of people, then you will condemn such stances as the worst of liberalism.
If you refer to the Irish in America, then you had best start studying history. When the Know-Nothings use terror against Irish immigrant neighborhoods, as well as the many legal activities, they NEVER do so because they claim the Irish are too liberal. In fact, the very opposite is asserted. The Irish were recognized as being religiously and culturally conservative in ways that would stand in opposition to the essence of liberal WASP democracy. Condemnations of the Irish and then other Catholic immigrants, especially the Poles, were the same right through the 1920s: they were too conservative, and their conservatism was retrograde and could only be anti-American, which would mean they would be anti-WASP.
If you know anything about the abortion fight in New York state in the early and mid-1960s, you know that the Pro-abortion side was uniformly Jewish and WASP and the anti-abortion side was uniformly Catholic, with the vast majority of leaders being of Irish ancestry.
So then how did we get to Teddy Kennedy and other Irish descended politicians of recent vintage? David Hackett Fischer in Albion’s Seed shows how: assimilation. Fischer uses the Massachusetts Kennedys as Exhibit A of his case that all subsequent groups coming to America ultimately would assimilate to one of 4 16th century local British cultures: two of those together formed Southern culture, and 2 formed Northern culture. Fischer declares that the 1960s and after Kennedys act in cultural terms exactly like the ethnically pure Anglo-Saxon Protestants of Brahmin New England, who hated Irish immigrants even as they welcomed Jews as business partners and partners culturally to oppose Catholics and saw blacks as their permanent toy to uplift, and exactly like the great-grandparents of those quintessential WASPs.
Fischer recognizes the obvious: Teddy Kennedy is exactly like the ultra Liberal New England Brahmins of the antebellum era because of assimilation. Teddy has Irish genes and an Irish surname, and he remains a Catholic by affiliation (though he is about as good a Catholic as Henry VIII), but Teddy is a 100% cultural WASP.
Posted by James Cantrell on Aug 21, 2007.
It is good to see the demarcations that arise ineluctably from WASP culture, and Andrew, who seems to have imbibed every cliché known to the WASP world, shines on them.
Abolitionism tied inextricably to utterly heretical (usually anti-Trinitarian) Protestant groups was birthed exclusively in antebellum New England by ethnically pure Anglo-Saxons, and they were always clear that saw both Irish Catholics and Scots-Irish Southerners as their two main enemies and as inferior peoples to them and to blacks. Feminism was born at the same time and place among the same ethnicity: WASP. The true anti-Semites (who in this are remarkably similar to Abe Foxman and many other Jews), who focus on race exclusively and assume permanent characteristics bound to genes (which means assimilation to other cultural standards and attitudes is never acknowledged in more than lip service), wish to see America’s cultural Marxist slide in matters relating to race and gender as being Jewish in origin, and they hate it when people like me note that the messes are WASP in origin. For Andrew, that means that the very core culture (‘stock’ he calls it) of what he sees as America (it was NOT the core ‘stock’ of the South, nor the core culture, nor even a significant minority culture) was the one and only source of the two most important lurches toward cultural Marxism – and the Yankee WASPs accomplished that before anyone in North America ever heard the name Karl Marx.
That alone makes the Yankee WASP culture utterly indispensable to all subsequent American Leftism. The Irish participated in that as they assimilated to that culture’s hegemony.
But that is the end of the matter. Simply spend time examining what Northern Protestant churches have done since the Gilded Age, and I don’t mean only examine their theological perversions. Examine their roles in all matters relating to the growth of American centralized and socialistic government. E. Michael Jones has written a fine book titled The Slaughter of Cities in which he shows how the WASP Elites (Andrew probably would call them conservatives) allied with Jews began in the 1920s to use big government to destroy Catholic neighborhoods. The purpose, as document after document quoted by Jones shows, was to force these Catholic to assimilate more quickly and fully and become truly liberal Americans.
For me, the most quickly telling detail from history to mark how utterly perverse and liberal is the inherent fruit of New England Anglo-Saxon Puritan culture is the United Church of Christ. It is a fairly recent formation based primarily on the Congregational church, which was the church of Puritan New England. As Thomas Aquinas could have predicted, this church of, for, and by the Anglo-Saxon Puritan people is a cesspool of the extreme left – culturally and morally as well as theologically - that makes the liberal most quarter of the Democrat Party seem normal, even square. Compared to the average UCC leader, Ted Kennedy is prim, however fat and alcoholic.
Ideas have consequences, and cultures are more about ideas than about genes.
Andrew’s many notions are simply too many to undo here, but I have to address one that should demonstrate how ridiculous his positions are. Irish Catholics (which seems to be all that Andrew means by Irish) did not create Tammany Hall. Tammany Hall was a purely Protestant invention and game. The first major player to use it fully was Aaron Burr. It is true that Tammany early on was politically opposed to the New England Elites. Tammany played a key role in keeping John Adams from being re-elected, but that was not about Catholic Irish, because they had zero role in Tammany at the time, and would not for decades. The Irish would not come to control Tammany until 1872, and Boss Tweed was pure Scots-Irish, not Catholic.
Posted by James Cantrell on Aug 21, 2007.
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/firing_foxman/
Agents Provocateurs
Posted by James Cantrell on July 05, 2007
Southerners, like the European Celts who are their primary cultural progenitors, tell stories. Of course, all peoples tell stories, but Southerners tell stories not merely to entertain, certainly not to flatter their vanities and trick the gullible into adoring or fearing them, but to provide lessons or warnings, to make points, to dig at the hard, necessary truths, to jolt people into realizing that indeed there is no new thing under the sun. Such an approach, which is the antithesis of the legalistic approach (points made by quoting Law or the customs and preferences of the Elites, usually with threats), springs from a healthy culture that recognizes, and, more importantly, accepts, the power, the truth, of logos. Though it is aside from the main thrust of this piece, I believe it could be helpful to some readers to state that this deep cultural respect for logos is one of the more salient reasons that all Celtic peoples converted rather easily and quickly to Christianity, while save for the few significantly Romano-Celticized tribes (such as the Franks), Germans remained gleefully murderous pagans for centuries and/or became equally murderous Aryans, the two, pagan and anti-Trinitarian Germans, marauding Europe right into and through the Dark Ages, until they too, finally, became sufficiently converted culturally so that their contributions would be major expressions of Christendom rather than assaults against it.
The path the comments on this excellent article by Scott Richert took made me recall a small, seemingly unimportant, story from Irish history that I learned while reading for a graduate level course in Irish Renaissance Literature. The Gaelic Athletic Association was one of the two major Irish cultural organizations to be founded in the late 19th century (the other was The Gaelic League, focused on language and literature). The story from Irish history that I recalled concerned one local GAA chapter that had moved rather quickly to stepping into realms other than hurling and Gaelic football. Revival of ancient Irish sports was horrific enough to the Elites getting filthy rich from the British Empire, but for dumb Mick jocks and their fans also to express interests in literature and culture was to risk them becoming full-fledged cultural Nationalists, and that could not be tolerated by the Empire that tolerated every religion of every people it conquered, save the Catholicism of Celtic peoples.
What this local GAA soon had on its hands was a member who was a vociferously ultramontane Catholic who fit the stereotype of the Anglo-Saxon puritanical mind: he professed burning desire to exterminate non-Catholics, at least from the GAA. He demanded that Protestants and Dissenters be banned from all GAA activities; he cast aspersions on all members who did not wear surnames that were Gaelic in origin. All expressions of support for even Home Rule (within the UK, in opposition to demands for total national independence) he met with calls for expelling all non-Catholics from any political rights in Ireland .
The local GAA members, being decent, common sense types, ignored the rants at first, assuming that idiocy self-exposed would just go away when others did not clamor to it. But then another member rose in opposition. He declared that the Vatican had betrayed Ireland for a thousand years and would do so endlessly. He emphasized that the majority of leaders of the 1798 rising against British imperial rule were Protestants of strong Deist sensibilities. He said that backward faith in a foreign power like the Vatican had been Ireland ’s greatest weakness. He said that unless Irish culture adopted all people who lived in Ireland and accepted their religious beliefs as equal and allowed them to add to Irish culture, then it would die anyway.
Then the row was on among the members of the local GAA, with lines rather quickly drawn and too few left in the middle trying to show the wrongs, the absurdities, of each side. The result was a local GAA that was totally ineffective.
As we all should have learned at least from watching the Watergate film All the President’s Men, the key questions are always where is the money trail and who profits?
The conclusion to that local GASA story would not be known for decades, until after the Easter Monday rising, after the Black and Tan war, after the British partition of Ireland as the easiest and least expensive way for the Empire to control it, after the Irish Civil War. Each troublemaker in the fracas had been a paid agent for Dublin Castle, for the British Empire, each had been an agent provocateur, playing a role to try to make Irish cultural groups ineffective through endless in-fighting and then to bury them.
Considering that every truly conservative (as opposed to the self-righteous imperialistic liberalism that is neoConism) site that allows comments has repeat problems similar to those that ruined that local GAA, I would suggest that we all make an effort to recognize those whose views can serve only to divide and conquer for those who hold the moneybags of power in the Yankee empire. Who knows how many trouble makers on various sites, in various groups, are agents provocateurs, some for the imperial government, some for groups such as the ADL or SPLC?
What I do know is that when a couple of people ruin commentary on an article as important as Richert’s, they serve, whether they so know or are accidental serfs, powers as insidious, as amorally corrupt, as those that paid to try to destroy the GAA and other Irish cultural groups. I hope that those who take part in our lively discussions on the comment forums here at Takimag.com will remember that incivility and cheap, slanderous assaults on the personal integrity of their interlocutors effectively serve the cause of censorship.
James Cantrell is author of How Celtic Culture Invented Southern Literature.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/agents_provocateur/
This is an excellent overview. Rather than America and the Anglosphere being the ‘good guys’ they have been led by Elites who use their peoples as cannon fodder and tax slaves to wage wars, physical and cultural, first and foremost to weaken and humiliate, if not necessarily destroy, all nations that could, might could we would emphasize in the hill South, revive its part of historic, pre-Modern Christendom.
America, taking over for the British Empire, is serving the role as imperial giant to replace the vestiges of Western Christian Civilization with centralized, multicultural secularism held together by military force and bread and circuses.
Posted by James Cantrell on Jun 12, 2007.
It is true, as Mr. FoSquare says, that America’s entanglement with Israel has constituted a catastrophic foreign policy. But as that did not occur until 1948 and the catastrophies began much earlier, focusing on Israel is to highlight a symptom rather than the cause.
The great cause is that once the Yankees won The War and made Anglo-Saxopn Puritan culture America’s mandarin culture, the reconstituted singular USA was bound to become a self-righteous empire that would promote Jewish interest because ideas have consequences, they move toward inherent and sometimes unavoidable ends. As A-S Puritanism was the quintessential late Reformatiion era hardcore Judaizing heresy, it is a given that any culture it rules, it directs, will become very much like the USA of the past century and more.
Oliver Cromwell and Benjamin Disraeli and Abe Lincoln and British Empire worshiping Woodrow Wilson lead almost ineluctably to today’s Neocons and the final transformation of America into a centralized ‘democratic’ empire mandating worldwide abortion, homosexual promotion, religious syncretism and indifferentism, and philosophical relativism ruled by Anglophonic Elite might makes right judgment.
Posted by James Cantrell on Jun 13, 2007.