Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 28th, 2008 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default Jimmy Cantrell

[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/...mas_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...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...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/...ve_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/...ather_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..._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/..._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...s_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.
 
Old July 28th, 2008 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Jimmy Cantrell : The Orange Problem by Jimmy Cantrell
on 2006/5/9 7:20:55 (796 reads) News by the same author

[I have received a response to my article on James Kibler's Child to the Waters that is important to note because it is common and it is one that highlights the refraction of English imperial views. Below I post the note, after which I append my response.]

While I enjoyed your book review and agreed with most of it, I take exception to your "Irish" theme. The heritage of the Southern uplands is "Scots-Irish" which is a very different thing than "Irish." In other words, our history is Ulster Orange and not Emerald Green. Not Roman Catholic but originally Presbyterian [although they were long ago superseded by Southern Baptists, Methodists, and others.] My Scots-Irish forebears wandered from Virginia to N.C to Ga. and finally to East Texas prior to the WBTS. [The McGills, McKinnons, Lindseys and Johnsons.] Along the way they intermarried with several English families including the Sheffields. The point is, that they never considered themselves Irish but Scots-Irish or Scots.


Before getting to what I deem the most important response to your note, I must draw attention to your suggestion that I inserted an 'Irish theme.' I did no such thing. What I did was catch what was there, and what was there was Irish. Even if Kibler were wrong to ascribe such to the South [and he is not,] I would not be wrong in saying what he did as writer.

You are repeating the views that have become hardened over the past two centuries that the two groups [Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants generally - Calvinists more specifically] are somehow almost opposites culturally and ethnically. Those views are born of the British Empire's use of Protestantism as shibboleth coupled with giving special status and privilege to even Presbyterians in Ireland - which the English did only at the end of the 18th century, after realizing that the very group they had used as the great divide and conquer group to maintain the stranglehold on all Celtic peoples was on the verge of rebelling and most of its best had already emigrated, most of those to America from Philadelphia and southwards. That alone marks a huge difference between basic worldviews and sense of nation held by the average Presbyterian from Ulster in 1760, on the one hand, and the average Ulster Protestant in 1890 and 1990. The latter two groupings-by-time featured almost all Ulster Protestants of any variety being militantly pro-British Empire and simultaneously being militantly anti-Irish in every sense politically and culturally - save all that they themselves lived and transmitted and usually refused to see as Irish.

While people were beginning to use the term 'Scotch-Irish' by the early 19th century, it was done in very much the same way that we today would say 'Irish Protestant' or, more specific to British usage, 'Irish Dissenter.' Of course, that latter meaning raises problems, because we now know that even in the late 18th century there were more 'Protestants' [Episcopalian Church of Ireland members] than Dissenters [members of Presbyterian and other non-Episcopalian churches] in Ulster. While a much higher percentage of Presbyterians than Episcopalians emigrated because they were poorer and because, as Swift notes in A Modest Proposal, British laws discriminated against them almost as much as they did against Catholics [for example, marriages performed by Presbyterian Pastors were not legal, making the children of such unions illegitimate in British law,] the fact remains that more Irish Episcopalians emigrated to North America than did Irish Dissenters. Conservative Southern sociologist at the University of North Carolina John Shelton Reed is unique among Southerners first in that he knows his Irish ancestry and second in that he knows his Episcopal Church of Ireland ancestry. Add the huge numbers of those Irishmen who remained Episcopalians in the South to the huge number of Episcopalians from Scotland [Richard Beale Davis, who specialized in Southern history and culture from the colonial beginnings through the early Antebellum era, was rather shocked to find that the Episcopal hierarchy for church and education in Virginia on the outbreak of the Revolution was dominated by Scots,] and you should understand how Episcopalians in the South were always much more socially and culturally conservative than were Episcopalians in the north, who came almost totally from English stock. Celtic heritage is the key.

Once in America, a large number of colonial era Church of Ireland members, just like almost as high a number of Catholics, became Presbyterians or Baptists. The same dynamic worked with Scots and between Scots and Irish: there was much changing of specific denomination with the maintaining of a basic Celtic culture. In fact, it was recognition of that common culture that facilitated the denominational shifts. Failure to understand that cultural background makes it easy to see a world in which 'Ulster Scots' [which is a term of pure pro-British Empire origin and usage] were somehow magically not Irish culturally. Of course, then you also have to find a way to magically make the Scots not Celtic culturally, because the issue is not any one nation but the general culture. The only reason the English hate the Irish most is because they have rebelled for freedom from the Empire the most. In shifting Irish Dissenters to thinking of themselves exclusively as not Irish, the Anglophilic Empire folks got Ulster Protestants to do their bidding by reforming their sense of who they were. No longer were they themselves and their ancestors; they then were the people chosen to save the Empire by making certain there could be no independent Ireland.

If you had told Andrew Jackson that his kin in Ulster would ever get to the point of loving the Empire and of serving it with a vengeance because they had adopted the Empire's definition of who they were and what they should be and do, he might have challenged you to a duel. Jackson was a quintessential Antebellum Southerner born to native Irish Protestant/Dissenter parents: he hated the British Empire, he saw the English as the most duplicitous and least honorable and most viciously and self-righteously self-serving national/ethnic group on earth [which the next generation of Southerners would be forced to see in the Yankee WASPs and their ethnic cousins and closest allies the Germans,] and he saw in the newly arriving Irish Catholics natural cultural and political allies. And contrary to your assertion that no Southerners of Scots-Irish ancestry ever referred to themselves as 'Irish,' Jackson did just that a number of times. Nor was he alone. In fact, it seems that in America, the widespread acceptance of the term occurred first in Philadelphia, where the Irish Protestants had been most thoroughly Anglicized [what I call culturally WASPed] and by the War of 1812 all but totally cut off from Southerners of Scots-Irish heritage. The northern Scots-Irish adopted the term wholesale in order to endear themselves to Yankee WASPs as their different from and opponents of Irish Catholics, which proved their loyalty to the Yankee WASP worldview.

Perhaps a quick way to get you see how wrong - perhaps 180 degrees wrong - you are about core cultural matters is to draw attention to your assertion that the upland South's heritage is "Ulster Orange." You use a phrase referring to the Orange Order, a fraternal organization to maintain Protestant power and privilege in Ireland, one that from its inception was tied directly to a religious supporting of the British Empire. What you fail to grasp is that your label is an anachronism. The Orange Order was founded in 1795, well after the end of the large migration of Irish Protestants to the American colonies, and it did not have significant effect on Ulster Protestants until after the Napoleonic era. The many Irish Protestants who came to Philadelphia or Baltimore and headed south and west or to Charleston or Savannah and headed north and west came before the Orange Order played the major role in redefining and reshaping Ulster Irish Protestant culture and identity. That explains the reason that Protestant emigrants from Ulster to Canada in the mid and late 19th century always took staunchly anti-Catholic and pro-Empire views while their great-grandfathers and uncles who went to the South in the mid-18th century were staunchly anti-English and anti-Empire and were rarely anti-Catholic in any real sense.

Another way to see how questionable that view is is to recognize that the preponderance of Irish nationalist heroes in the 18th century were Protestant. It was that fact which led to the founding of the Orange Order: to teach Ulster Protestants to hate the Catholic Church, to see Catholics as inherently evil and oppressive, to see the British Empire as inherently good, and to be willing to do anything to save that Empire and thus maintain their tenuous position in it that was far above that of Irish Catholics.

It is imperative that you grasp that difference between political and cultural/national views of Ulster Protestants across that dividing line, which can be easily summed: the work of Anglophilic Empire. Because of their history [Ulster Protestants are descendants of primarily Scots Lowlanders who were planted on lands stolen from Catholics to serve as a Protestant strike force to help the British rule Ireland,] Ulster Protestants in the early 19th century allowed themselves to be removed back to early and mid 17th century views: to save themselves from the Pope they must serve the English government and its empire religiously. That difference explains, I believe, why Southerners of Scots-Irish heritage have made so many cultural contributions while both Ulster Protestants and descendants of mid and late-19th century Ulster Protestant emigrants throughout the Empire and to upstate New York made so few: the former retained their Celtic cultural ways and were not serving a foreign empire, while the latter came to hate their Celtic cultural heritage and were serving an Empire that hated them almost as much as it hated Irish Catholics though it needed them. Southerners of Scots-Irish heritage lived their ethnic ancestry and created wonderful culture from it, but later Ulster Protestants denied who they were and served that which wished to destroy their actual cultural heritage, leaving them to produce doggerel and to die around the globe to make Englishmen rich.

If you do not know who you are, you are maimed. If you hate who you are, you are culturally and spiritually paraplegic and perhaps quadriplegic, which left untreated will regress into brain death.

The problem with the above analogy is that it suggests inability to act. That is not the case. Though peoples of Celtic ancestry and cultural heritage who deny and/or hate that heritage are rightly so described culturally and spiritually, they are far from inactive; they serve to war against that which is their own. Thus the Anglophilic Empire wins doubly: it gets knowing Celtic peoples terrorized and impoverished and its gets Celts who are ignorant of their heritage and/or who hate it to serve as the chief attackers, which drives a wedge between the two. And that wedge is necessary to Anglophilic Empire. And as I have shown repeatedly [such as in my articles America - the Whore of Babylon and Ornamentalism, parts I and II,] Anglophilic Empire is inherently liberal and rabid to promote non-white peoples and non-Christian religions.

That is the reason that the Orange problem must be overcome.


* * *


Jimmy Cantrell : The Orange Problem - Part II by Jimmy Cantrell
on 2006/3/29 9:28:08 (552 reads) News by the same author

One of the things I learned is that most of what I write takes time to sink in with people. I have had a number of people over the past few years tell me that they originally disagreed with some position I took only to read more and rethink and then move toward my position. I certainly hope that is the case with my article "The Orange Problem." I have no doubt that as long as the what I label the Orange Problem remains, the cultural, moral, and theological Leftism that has dominated the English speaking world [at an alarmingly increasing rate over the past half century] for some two hundred years will remain regnant.

I wrote rather lengthy response to two who wrote me regarding the article, and in case any others are still mulling what I said, I present those notes to me, with my responses in [ed. - reader letters are in italics, Cantrell's response in regular].


Regarding your article on Orange, from my studies on Presbyterianism [after all, I am one] I don't think anyone had to teach Scots Presbyterians to hate the Catholic Church or the Pope.

Yes, but that is due to theology and not to wallowing in a semi-Masonic organization unofficially sponsored by the British Empire to have Ulster Protestants do the bidding of the English. The issue is one that can be seen in Scotland in another way. Scottish Presbyterians trusted Anglo-Saxon Puritans, assuming that because each was Calvinist, the Anglo-Saxon Puritans would treat them as full equals. What the Puritans did is exactly what the English have always done with any group of culturally/ethnically Celtic people: use them while they need them [the Puritans needed Scottish and Irish Calvinists in order to destroy all those who opposed them] and then turn their English guns on their recent allies, for whatever his actual religion at the moment, the Anglo-Saxon cannot rest until he has all but enslaved whatever is Celtic. My point is that the religious tribe - if you will - of Celtic Calvinists most especially and Protestants generally - has been played like a finely tuned fiddle by the English for four straight centuries. And what has it gotten them? The very opposite what they all swore it would get them: it got them religious and cultural and moral liberalism of the worst kind defining the English-speaking world.

Make a cultural/political deal with Anglo-Saxons [whether from East Anglia or New England, whether they are Catholic, Church of England, Calvinist, Quaker, Methodist, Baptist, Social Gospel, Millerite/7th Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, or John Dewey atheist,] and you will get a cesspool at best and yourself and your kin murdered and enslaved at worst. That is the reason the Orange problem is serious, in fact is necessary for the continuance of the mess.

The problem can also be seen in Parson Brownlow, the Tennessee anti-Confederate. Brownlow saw the War as very much about saving the Anglophonic Protestant Reformation and thus he supported the Union and Lincoln. He noted rightly that while the north was peopled with those who openly hated Catholics, the South was remarkably tolerant of Catholics [allowing them to build churches and worship and such,] which Brownlow interpreted as a loss of true Protestant religion. He was certain that serving the Union and being an ally of the descendants of Anglo-Saxon Puritans would make America much better in every way. Parson Brownlow got it backwards, and he did so because he was driven by the same faulty cultural views as those that are the Orange problem. All of American Protestantism, and ultimately Catholicism as well, suffered because the Yankees, the side of the Anglo-Saxon descendants of Puritans, won the War.

Bad culture will ruin conservative theology, and bad culture will arise from making the wrong alliances.

A final way to think about it is this: Andrew Jackson was thoroughly opposed religiously to the Catholic church hierarchy and many of its doctrines, but he recognized that Irish Catholics were his natural political and cultural allies while Yankee New England Protestants were his natural political and cultural enemies.

***

A friend of mine in the North Carolina League of the South forwarded to me today your very fine article that states correctly that Irish Orange has little to do with the Scots-Irish who settled the backcountry of the South. As fate would have it, just on Monday I gave a lecture to our local League Chapter on David Hackett Fischer's book Albion's Seed. Your article greatly adds what Fischer has to say about the "borderer" going first to Ulster, then to America.

Glad you liked it. I think it is absolutely essential. Yes, there were bouts of Irish Presbyterian insanity before 1795 [always at the bidding of the imperial UK government,] but Ulster Protestants as a group began changing as a result of the English realization that if they did not make Dissenters in Ireland part of the inner circle and thus pay them to hate Catholics directly and to begin cutting the roots of their own culture, then those Irish Dissenters would soon ally with Catholics culturally. It is that alliance of Catholics and moderate and conservative Celtic Protestants against WASP empire that is required to get us out of this mess, and thus it is the Celtic-Southern thesis that both Leftists and Anglophilic Imperial Conservatives fear most.

As you might guess, my presentations of these cultural views have aroused some denial of its possibility and some enmity [the latter primarily from Protestants - also three cases of absolute rancor from Protestants of Ulster heritage, all of whom equate Celtic with Catholic and Catholic with Anti-Christ] from both Catholics and Protestants of Celtic ancestry. I tell each the same thing: I am not demanding that you alter your theology to either pro- or anti-sola fide, because in this I am not preaching theology. What I am saying is that as long as you are cultural antagonists, the cause of culturally liberal, that becomes theologically and morally liberal, Anglophilic Imperial Conservatism wins, and its winning destroys almost all of what each of you hold most dear. Therefore, you must ally culturally to save your conservative cultural values.

The League of the South can and should lead that effort in America. It must stand upon the fact that the Celtic tribe of Irish Protestants was the most important single contributor to Southern culture. It must also lead outreach to conservative non-Southern Catholics who have no Southern ties. The League can do that by emphasizing the personally woven crown of thorns sent to the captive Jefferson Davis by Pope Pius IX. One of the most brilliant and well studied opponents of Modern Liberalism in the 19th century was Pope Pius IX, and he sent the crown of thorns because he understood what the War meant culturally: the Yankee WASP Union for Modern secularist Leftism and the South for an acceptance of the preeminence of the City of God and culturally conservative values and identity based on pre-Modern Christian orthodoxy. All conservative American Catholics need to know that, as do all Protestants who have recognized that support for conservative Southern culture is utterly central to and necessary for any stopping of the cultural and moral rot that wields absolute power in the world under the thumb of Yankee WASP culture.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 28th, 2008 at 05:25 PM.
 
Old July 28th, 2008 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Jimmy Cantrell : Culture Wars - the Magazine by Jimmy Cantrell
on 2006/4/13 5:01:07 (593 reads) News by the same author

Years ago I decided to subscribe to no publications unless I had been presented with compelling evidence that a journal had been publishing Politically Incorrect truth that was hard to find elsewhere and was highly unlikely to be merged into the mainstream of Modern/Postmodern philosophical, and then moral, decadence. A magazine that I do recommend is E. Michael Jones' Culture Wars.

Just looking at the titles of the few articles at the magazine's online site should signal any reader that Jones is an editor highly unlikely to be fazed when the PC thought police complain or even when he loses subscribers whose partial PC sensibilities are offended. Perhaps my favorite title listed online is "The Unanswered Question Behind the Rembert Weakland Scandal: Was Vatican II a Homosexual Fantasy?" Now that's an article sure to horrify and outrage all Liberals, especially the Queer Theory inspired, as well as the insipid, jingoist half of the remaining self-identified Catholic 'conservatives.'


But that is far from the only article online that should be read. "Education as Magic: Harry Potter and the Culture of Narcissism," "V-Day at St. Mary's College" [about the perverse Vagina Monologues being staged again for Valentine's Day by lesbians and other Feminists, often at tax-payer expense, and increasingly at high schools,] "Pedophilia and Sex Education," and "Rabbi Dresner's Dilemma: Torah v. Ethnos" are all nearly indispensable to grasping the sources and extent of the cultural perversion that reigns in contemporary diverse, 'tolerant,' multicultural America.

And since subscribing, I have found that each monthly issue has at least two premier articles. The title of the July 2003 issue is "Trotskyites, Neoconservatives, and Other Messianic Cults from New York City," which comes from two articles that examine the secularist Big Government Cold War 'conservatism' that scared the masses of true conservative values Americans into supporting that which was culturally almost as rotten as the overt Leftism they knew to oppose and the rise of Libertarianism from Jewish atheist and agnostic leaders who opposed Marxism but often created movements as insane and anti-Christ: Ayn Rand's cult is the perfect example.

The title article of the October 2003 is "On Being Jerzy Kosinski." The article is a thorough expose of one of the most important of the many Jews involved in literary hoaxes, of passing off anti-Christian and philo-Semitic fiction as fact in order to get rich and wallow in sympathy while whining and demanding that the evil, intolerant Christians remove all trace of Jesus from society in order to prove that they are not anti-Semites. Kosinki, like Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, was saved from the Nazis during World War II by Polish Catholics only to spend his life denouncing as monsters who must change, who must be ashamed of their belief in Christ, the very people who risked their lives to save his.

No good deed goes unpunished when the good deed is done for those who hate Christ and His disciples.

The title article of the January 2004 issue is "Mock Messiah: Jewish Humor and Cultural Subversion." The focus is novelist Philip Roth, with important nods toward Woody Allen [the most famous pedophile in America,] and the article opens with two memorable sentences: "The Jews never stopped looking for the Messiah. They also never stopped looking in all the wrong places." The article moves to its conclusion with a discussion of the article "Hate is a Virtue" by Rabbi Meir Y. Soloveichik. The article includes a perfect sentence as a summation of Rabbi Soloveichik's view that hate is indeed a Jewish virtue: "With Jewish wisdom like this, it's easy to prefer the foolishness of the gospels."

Amen!

Culture Wars is a magazine that deserves to be supported by anyone who knows that a return to the values and identities of Western Christian Civilization is necessary if we wish to save our children and grandchildren from living through the absolute Hellhole that is inevitable if secularist anti-Christ politics and popular culture [which are as central to the Neocon vision as to the openly Leftist vision] are not rejected.
 
Old July 28th, 2008 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Jimmy Cantrell : Dubya's Answered Prayer - Our Nightmare by Jimmy Cantrell
on 2006/3/21 8:29:06 (594 reads) News by the same author

I rarely comment much on contemporary politics because I see the entire system as utterly contaminated and all but impervious to even the best-studied and rightly-intended reforms. When the system gets this bad, you need to start preparing for the rebuilding after the corrupt house of cards falls in upon itself [which is another way to understand why I keep harping on the Great Books of Western Civilization.] But today I tackle contemporary politics.

If my title were a riddle, could you answer it? It seems to me that the answer is much easier to light upon than was that to Sampson's riddle. John Kerry is the answer to Dubya's prayer and is thus our nightmare. Dubya is at heart what he is genetically: just another pure blooded Yankee WASP liberal desperate to use government to aid as many non-white and non-Christian peoples as he can while somehow managing to get white Christians to support their own dispossession. George W. Bush is not close to being conservative: he is, rather, the 'conservative' half of the contemporary version of the Leftist coin that emerged among the Anglo-Saxons Puritans by the War of 1812.


As that may confuse people, and it is a trick that the Left uses to keep spreading its agenda ever farther to the Left, I suggest everyone recall the French Revolution. We sometimes hear the Girondins called 'conservative,' but they were not conservative in any sense save that Girondins were not as bloodthirsty as were the Jacobins. True French conservatives opposed the Revolution because it was anti-Christ and anti-Christian. Girondins were the conservative half of the vicious Leftwing that attempted to eradicate Christ from the French nation. Jacobins wanted all traces of Christ removed, all priests murdered; Girondins were mild revolutionaries. They wanted almost the exact same ends as did the Jacobins, but they wanted them with less obvious bloodshed.

Dubya and other mainstream, 'respectable' Republicans [and that includes the philo-Semitic Neocons] are merely the conservative half of the Leftwing Revolution to utterly secularize America and maintain power using socialism to empower non-whites and non-Christians at the expense of white Christians. The NAACP, NOW, ADL, SPLC, GLAAD, etc. are Jacobins; Dubya is a Girondin. A Girondin is temporarily preferable to a Jacobin, but the Girondin will also craft an anti-Christ, anti-Western Christian Civilization, society and call it peace and justice and equality and correcting the wrongs of the past.

So why is John Kerry Dubya's answered prayer? Simple: because Kerry is so far Left on most issues, Dubya can all but ignore the culturally and religiously conservative half of Republican voters [for they have no place to go, the Karl Roves believe] and try to shore up Liberal Republicans [those who support abortion on demand, 'gay rights,' Affirmative Action that discriminates against white males and for all non-whites, and amnesty for illegals] and draw in the undecideds: the suburban soccer moms and dads who get their senses of history and culture from Hollywood. Republican fiscal conservatives [who often are neutral or lukewarm on cultural and moral issues] are furious with Dubya's administration for its runaway, LBJ-level spending, but most will be so terrified of John Kerry that they will work arduously for Dubya's re-election.

So Dubya will get a pass. And his campaign will shore up the leftmost half of the Republican Party [which today is much farther to the left that it was in even 1988,] which will guarantee that the next round of Republicans will promote a cultural liberalism at which even the Jimmy Carter of 1980 would have balked.

The process is triangulation in a modern democracy. It promotes a continual leftward lurching, and the losers at all stages are conservative Christians [and fiscal conservatives,] especially those who are white and therefore non-talismanic.

If you want a society that is ideal to Afrocentrists and Queer Theorists and Christ-hating Jews who find 'anti-Semites' in every Christian who does not deny Christ or who prefers not to slaughter Arabs for Israel, as well as to run-of-the-mill socialists, but you want that society to come slowly and with minimal bloodshed, then vote for mainstream Republicans. They'll get you there. They're quintessential Girondins. After all, the Republicans were America's original Jacobins: see the War Between the States and Reconstruction.

The other option is to just scream NO to the Republicans. Refuse to vote for them at all and let them lose the White House and both Houses of Congress. They have done nothing for us [and have done much for liberal Republicans and 'moderate' Democrats] over the past three years; thus, having Republicans in office does nothing for true conservatives.

Until Dubya comes out public and hard against abortion on demand, Affirmative Action, amnesty for illegals, current immigration quotas and numbers, all parts of the 'gay rights' movement, runaway social spending, and the warmongering philo-Semitic Neocon cabal, then a vote for him is roughly a vote for a slow version of Michael Dukakis's vision for America.
 
Old July 28th, 2008 #5
Stronza
Senior Member
 
Stronza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,498
Default

Re: From Plato to Nato - The Idea of the West and Its Opponents by David Gress.

The author of the above book says, "A multicultural West is a contradiction in terms; the only West that can be accommodating to other cultures is a West that knows itself...An empty vessel, a historically illiterate people, cannot give to others the respect it does not give to itself."
 
Old November 26th, 2008 #6
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Cantrell responds to jew Gottfried's post on Northern Michigan Christian suicideology

http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=886263#post886263
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:45 PM.
Page generated in 1.89580 seconds.