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

Old July 28th, 2008 #1
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
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.]


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

‘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.

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:

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.

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.


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.

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 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.

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
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

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
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

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."


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
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

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
Senior Member
Stronza's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,421

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
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Cantrell responds to jew Gottfried's post on Northern Michigan Christian suicideology
Old March 3rd, 2010 #7
Junior Member
Orazio's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 152

Where can I find more about/by this Cantrell fellow?
Old March 3rd, 2010 #8
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Originally Posted by Orazio View Post
Where can I find more about/by this Cantrell fellow?
He's written at least one book, which you can get at amazon. He seems not to have written on the internet the last few years, apart from a few blog responses like those above. Google him.
Old February 12th, 2011 #9
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

[cantrell has seemingly disappeared, and the sites that used to post his work are defunct; so i'm going to copy in this thread all his essays i can find (feb 2011)]

Last edited by Alex Linder; February 12th, 2011 at 01:02 AM.
Old February 12th, 2011 #10
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Conversations with Biff, Part 7:

Public Education

Jimmy Cantrell

Note to Readers: This is the seventh Biff piece. The first six were all posted at Anyone who has not read them might prefer to read at least the first one ( ). The four middle pieces are no longer available there, and anyone who wishes to read them to know about poor Biff’s adventures with Diversity-Sensitivity Training or a 23-year-old wife now starting graduate school may contact me. For this new Biff piece, I am using quotation marks to make it easier to follow.

The most wonderful thing about the Government School Year is that it means I get to hear extra traffic whenever I’m at home and awake and not brain-dead 30 minutes before 8:00 AM and 30 minutes after 3:00 PM. My street is a cut-through for soccer moms dropping the children off at the nearby Government grade school so they (the soccer moms) can be free to further empower themselves, whether that be through earning bucks for that special ski vacation or getting those buns and thighs just right at the health club (for you never know when you’ll need your assets to snare that next executive husband) or, most important to those who love freedom, volunteering at Planned Parenthood to help ensure that teenage girls everywhere will have the Right to abort without so much as a word to their potentially reactionary and intolerant parents.

Last spring, there was a wreck around the corner in the morning. Drawn by the crash, I walked over to see if my help was needed. It was, but not as would be expected. The Chevy Suburban, which appeared to have rammed the Ford Explorer in front of it because the Ford had stopped fully at the Stop sign, featured bumper stickers that read: Gore-Lieberman and Goddess Bless and Hate is Not a Family Value. The driver, wearing a tube top and short-shorts, was slobbering on her cell phone, canceling her appointment for a facial while yelling at her daughters to be calm. A Madonna CD provided background music.

So I go out this morning to round up Fergus before he knocks over someone’s trash can, and Biff is standing in his driveway, watching the road, shaking his head.

‘Morning, Biff,’ I say.

‘I don’t see you much in the morning,’ he answers. ‘The early bird catches the worm.’

‘Well,’ I reply, ‘that depends on the worm. Some worms likely are out only at night.’

‘Can’t deny the wisdom of the ages,’ he advises. ‘It’ll get you sooner or later. If you want that worm, it’s early to bed and early to rise. That’s what makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.’

‘Wisdom from the past that is essentially materialistic aphorism,’ I suggest, ‘may not be the best to adopt as personal or national moral philosophy. Anyway, you stay up as late as I do, and I’ve got a baby in the house for excuse.’

‘That’s true,’ he acknowledges, ‘but if I’m going to have my fun time with Baby, I’ve got to do it when she’s in the mood. Plus, there’s the work I have to do at night to be ready to get back at the old salt mines in the morning.’

‘The investment rat race,’ I state.

‘Yep, but not as bad as that rat race,’ he declares while pointing to the road.

‘School traffic,’ I observe.

‘I tell you,’ he says leaning close to me, ‘I have no doubt that women driving with phones to their ears are at least as dangerous as teenage boys.’

‘Better not let Baby hear you say that,’ I suggest, ‘or your late nights will get you nothing. And she could report you to Joan Elyutt, who’d drag you back to Diversity-Sensitivity Training and make you a permanent blue eyes.’

He shudders. ‘That’s enough to make you go gay. Even if they have blue eyes, they are victims in need of Government protection and free from Joan Elyutt’s focus.’

‘That’s our world,’ I say. ‘Ain’t it brave and new?’

‘Hey,’ Biff almost shouts. ‘Have you been watching that Weakest Link show?’

‘I’ve seen it a couple of times,’ I answer.

‘Boy,’ he gushes, ‘I just love it. It makes Regis look like Howdy-Doody.’

‘I find it a little irritating after a while,’ I say. ‘Plus, I think it sets a terrible example.’

‘What do you mean?’ Biff asks. ‘They have lots of contestants of color.’

‘The postmodernist nihil obstat,’ I declare. ‘What I’ve seen is that by midway through, the middle range players start to vote off those who have shown they know more. And many of them are proud to admit what they’ve done. It’s a revelation of the dumbing into the middle that Postmodernist Welfare State Democracy all but requires.’

‘I never looked at it but as fun,’ Biff swears, ‘what with all the insults.’

‘You could call it,’ I suggest, ‘the revolt of the middling masses against the more intelligent. They use majority voting to get the best and brightest out of commission so they can use the system for themselves. A Swiftian nightmare.’

‘I for one,’ Biff asserts, ‘like that. Just because you know all the answers doesn’t mean you should win a game or make the important decisions. The people’s will is Supreme. If they vote you out, you’re gone.’

‘Kind of like what’s happened to education,’ I offer, ‘with much of the best tossed aside and the average and worse elevated in the name of democratic education.’

‘That’s right,’ Biff agrees. ‘In democracy, education is supposed to be about making good citizens who love their Government and will work to make the country more tolerant, and for that to happen it has to be equally available and understandable to all.’

‘And to think,’ I state, ‘that I was under the delusion that education should be about educating toward the best possible accomplishment by teaching the best works and demanding high standards. Excellence from a few benefits all, as history shows repeatedly in technological innovation as well as in theology and literature.’

‘Sounds old fashioned to me,’ Biff confesses. ‘Today, you have to uplift the self-esteem.’

‘Oh, yeah,’ I moan. ‘College students who can’t even comprehend Tom Sawyer without Cliff’s Notes are in dire need of greater self-esteem as they traipse off to Cancun for Spring Break debaucheries.’

‘You said it,’ Biff says. ‘If they don’t have that self-esteem, they’ll feel like they can’t do the work, so to help them get the self-esteem you make the work easy enough for them to do. Then they feel good.’

Even though I know Biff was a Business major, I am tempted to ask about his Education degree. Instead I acknowledge, ‘that’s the plan we’ve been on for three or four decades, and look where it’s gotten us.’

‘Much more diversity,’ Biff chirps. ‘As Baby wrote in one of her A English papers, why waste time on dead white men, anti-Semites like Dante and Dostoevsky, when you can read Gertrude Stein and Alice Walker and strike blows against injustice and intolerance?’

‘That’s a principle reason for both the dearth of thinking skills among the recent college educated and the huge growth in homeschooling,’ I declare.

‘Whatever. I say that’s just plain un-American,’ Biff asserts.

‘Fawningly teaching the likes of Gertrude Stein and Alice Walker while the Classics of Western Civilization, not to mention virtually all white Southern men —or to be more precise in a time of Truman Capote adulation, heterosexual white Southern men— are either ignored or denigrated,’ I query.

‘You are one big kidder,’ Biff laughs. ‘Homeschooling is what’s un-American.’

‘Refresh me on that,’ I plead.

He grins, as if certain I’m funning him. ‘Well,’ he starts, ‘the public schools are there to promote good citizenship. To make new citizens who will support the Government and be loyal. So anything that takes away from that is un-American. Take the kids out of public schools, and the schools lose some money and the kids might not be molded to be good citizens for our multicultural society.’

‘Interesting emphases,’ I say.

‘Homeschooling contributes to social turmoil,’ Biff avers.

‘I’ve heard that expressed before,’ I acknowledge, ‘but no one has ever explained it to me.’

‘Simple,’ Biff says. ‘I betcha most Home School parents in the South don’t teach their children how evil the South has been, especially that what’s-his-name’s cross racist flag, and that is not good for the indivisible America I love that takes democracy and freedom around the world at great cost.’

‘You may be right about that,’ I admit.

‘And then consider Choice,’ Biff continues. ‘We can’t have peace in our nation if we don’t accept diversity, and most homeschooling parents are opposed to abortion on demand. That means they misuse education to advance a social agenda. If those kids went to public schools, they would learn to be tolerant of diversity, which includes accepting that abortion is legal and has to be kept that way. And that the public schools are the safeguard of Liberal Democracy.’

‘Now I get it,’ I say. ‘It is intolerant to be opposed to those things that have been set aside as untouchable by the public school muckety-mucks, and homeschool parents tend to be opposed to most or all of that list. So they are not only keeping their children from the Government schools that would shepherd those children into compliance, but they are working to show up the public schools as intellectual failures and thus draw more parents into homeschooling.’

‘I’ll give you an example of how it works,’ Biff says. ‘Arkansas.’

The smirk on Biff’s face speaks volumes. ‘What about Arkansas?’ I prod.

‘You know how it is,’ he answers. ‘Bunch of Hillbillies. That Hog call for football, it’s nothing but the racist Rebel Yell, stirring up prejudices. The Ozarks Hillbillies who aren’t indulging in incest are Christian fanatics. Just the types to homeschool. The PBS station in Arkansas, AETN, had a contest for school kids on writing their own story and illustrating it. And do you know that some homeschool parents had the gall to demand that their children be allowed to enter.’

‘Amazing,’ I gasp.

‘I’m not kidding,’ Biff assures me. ‘AETN is public TV, not private, and its services are for those in the public, and for schools that means for public schools.’

‘That’s some take,’ I state.

‘It gets worse,’ Biff warns. ‘The contest was blind, to try to make the judging fair, and a homeschooled boy won. For the whole state.’

‘Tsk, tsk,’ I mouth.

‘I’m not through,’ Biff continues. ‘The winner was to have his teacher honored and his classroom to receive a TV, to use it to help educate the children.’

‘More TV,’ I note. ‘A tried and true Leftist solution.’

‘That mother,’ Biff informs me, ‘actually believed that she should receive the honor as teacher and that either she or the area home school association should get that TV.’

‘Neither could they blush, old Jeremiah wrote,’ I say. ‘And he wasn’t much on propping up decadent Government either.’

‘It’s a mess,’ Biff declares with his eyes squinted, probably because the only Jeremiah he knows about is the bullfrog in the Hoyt Axton song made famous by Three Dog Night. ‘At least AETN refused to let homeschoolers get the TV. They didn’t cave in to extremists like so many people today do. And you know most of those homeschool parents are pushy! Christians,’ Biff adds with a wink. ‘The ones of that boy that won the Arkansas contest, they go to church all the time. I don’t mean like normal people do: at Christmas and Easter and for weddings and funerals and maybe a few other times each year. I mean they go a couple times a week. Whew,’ Biff virtually spits. ‘I had a couple of aunts that did that. Praying and crossing themselves and talking about Jesus, as if what some man did and said two thousand years ago matters today.’

‘Can’t have that backward wisdom of the ages running people’s lives in our advanced times,’ I intone.

‘What a waste of time,’ Biff continues as if I had said nothing, ‘and a way to get convinced that the out of time belongs today. And they clearly don’t care about their country. Those homeschool parents.’

‘How’s that,’ I wonder.

‘Well,’ Biff answers, ‘the public schools are the frontline in the War for multicultural diversity to make America a better, more inclusive, nation, the permanently indivisible kind Gertrude Stein and Alice Walker and Baby’s professors would say is justice. And these Home School parents are failing to give their children to aid that cause.’

‘That’s something to think about,’ I admit.

‘And it gets worse,’ Biff says. ‘Those homeschooled kids who win those contests, like that one in Arkansas and those Spelling and Geography Bees, they may convince people that kids get better educations at home than in today’s public schools. And people who believe that and are ready to make a sacrifice for their children will take their kids out of Government schools. Especially those that are old-fashioned intolerant Christians will jump ship; then the schools will get less money. And where does that leave us as we try to mold the next generation to embrace Multiculturalism and Choice?’

‘Well—’ I start.

‘And,’ Biff jumps back in, ‘just think about this war on terrorism. The public schools teach patriotism: to love the flag and follow our Government leaders. When I was younger, I didn’t understand the need of that, but I do now. Without that, we might not have enough young men to serve, and then how would we bomb and enforce no-fly zones over those places like Iraq and Serbia that are so violent and threatening to peace? How would we wage wars against terrorism, fundamentalism, and intolerance to make the world safe for our Multicultural, Pro-Choice way of life?’

‘I hazard to say that the fact that so few parents consider these questions is of great comfort to Baby and her professors,’ I asserted.

Jimmy Cantrell
Old February 12th, 2011 #11
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Eudora Welty: A Good Writer,

But Not a Great One.

Jimmy Cantrell

If the information given me in about 1992 is correct, columnist Paul Greenberg was the second person to label Bill Clinton ‘Slick Willy’ in print. That alone should guarantee that anyone with basic sense in both politics and personal morals should find a good deal to admire in Greenberg’s work. Over the years, I have read hundreds of his columns and found few to disparage outright. Many of his articles are worthy of the highest praise. Like the best syndicated columnists, Greenberg is much more than a mere political pundit: he is something of the nearly extinct Renaissance man, one who works to know in depth as many areas as possible so that his insights typically rise above the obvious, the short-sighted, or the mandarin. For example, in an era of mad rushes into the trendy, he penned the best journalistic praise of the Authorized (King James) Version of Scripture that I have read. And obviously it was not due to nostalgia for his childhood Sunday School days among the type of cultural-illiterates who had faith that Scripture was written once and for all time in Protestant King James’ English.

Paul Greenberg also wrote the best piece on the passing of Eudora Welty I have read. The reason is simple: Greenberg knows that Miss Welty was not a genius, that she was, though highly skilled in characterization, particularly in using dialogue to mark character, merely a writer of interesting, often captivating, works that are great only in comparison to the bilge of virtually all highly praised American writers (and that to me is a different category from Southern, just as German writer is a different category from Austrian and English from Irish) of the past four decades. John Updike and Toni Morrison are a pair of prime examples.

In the middle of his article, Greenberg marks the time when he thinks he first began to doubt Miss Welty, although apparently before that he had never been able to finish more than a couple of stories. In a white heat, she wrote the story "Where is the Voice Coming From?" after Medgar Evers’ murder, and the New Yorker rushed it into print to both profit from the frenzy and to promote The Sacred Cause. It was that story that made Miss Welty a Southerner safe for mild feminists to defend; it is her sole work that leftists can claim as fully Morally Correct. Yet Greenberg admits he only finished that story by skimming: "the way you do when you really don’t want to look hard at something embarrassing."

Greenberg opens his case by noting that Miss Welty’s personal character, the manners that reflected her being truly a wonderful person, are central to the current high reputation. "Indeed," he writes, "all those qualities are evident even to me from her prose, which has the same – and I don’t mean to use the word pejoratively – niceness." Of course, niceness applied to a serious writer is at least a mild pejorative, for it marks a low aim. There is no niceness about Dante; niceness would have rendered his genius into pious saccharinity, leaving his work no better than a Medieval version of The Pilgrim’s Progress, leaving it insignificantly superior to the ‘Christian’ fiction sold voluminously in contemporary Bible bookstores. Edgar Allen Poe was chastised by James Russell Lowell, a mediocre writer from a New England Unitarian family still anthologized to advance the Yankee schoolmarm’s definition of culture, for not being nice to Longfellow, who was, according to the prevailing notions, to be treated nicely by literary critics simply because he was a ‘gentleman’ poet and nice in his person. It is no mistake that Lowell’s family was up to its neck in the various antebellum and postbellum Yankee WASP Reform and Self-Betterment societies whose spiritual descendants are today still haunting us in the forms of Multiculturalism, Environmentalism, growing Government for Do-Gooding, and New Age spirituality.

Greenberg continues by noting that though she won many awards, Miss Welty most cherished the acknowledgement that she received from Faulkner after the publication of her first novel: "A simple note like that from the writer whom Flannery O’Connor called the Dixie Limited is worth a dozen Pulitzers and all the medals of freedom that have been or ever will be awarded." That Miss Welty so esteemed Faulkner’s minimal praise shows her good sense; that Greenberg so understands shows that his is a comprehension and evaluative skill of literature well beyond that of the average contemporary Modern Language Association doyen.

One of my closest friends from graduate school confessed to me upon reading Miss Welty for the first time that he found her tame, perhaps vapid. The professor (a moderate lesbian) and other students in the two-thirds female seminar had suggested, after the requisite charge of sexism had been floated, that he lacked the sophistication to grasp Miss Welty’s subtleties and so found no value. He wanted to know what I thought. I made a case for Miss Welty’s work, but I had to acknowledge that I agreed with his assessment in the main, certainly when I compared her work to that of Faulkner, Robert Penn Warren, and Flannery O’Connor – and even Ellen Glasgow and Caroline Gordon.

‘You fail to grasp the subtleties’ is, I have found, the great and final thrust of those who wish to laud the merits of any writer adored by a precious set, or to reject an argument out of hand, and Miss Welty’s promoters have used it well. Many are mild feminists of the Southern strain: they want to think that whatever women produce must be equal to man’s work in general, and they will alter standards and call names to claim their prize. The non-mild feminists tend to ignore or deride Miss Welty because she apparently never had a lesbian affair and because her work’s focus was not the racist, sexist, homophobic society that had to be remade to usher in the era of tolerance and peace. I submit that this is the chief reason Miss Welty has been so praised the past two decades. As virtually all white Southern men have been removed from anthologies of American literature, many native Southern teachers of Southern literature have made a Final Stand with Miss Welty. We have her left, they say, and we will not give her up. Their fighting for Miss Welty may have helped convince them her merits are greater than they are; it certainly seems to have helped ease the guilt some of them feel for not having fought harder to defend the agrarians, for example.

Paul Greenberg sums up the gist of what my friend and I decided was the problem with Miss Welty’s work: "The Southern words are there – in abundance – and the Southern names and mannerisms, but, dare I say it, not the South. Instead there is the cliché of the South, the South outsiders see and hear and gush over." We live in a superficial age, and it is no mistake that people fall for what seems right, especially when that which seems right makes no great demands on us intellectually or spiritually. Those enamored of superficies will sooner or later start screaming about the boors incapable of sensing the subtleties. Otherwise, they would reevaluate.

It is not that Miss Welty is minimally talented. Far from it, she is a master of what she does. It is that she is a lesser literary artist. In Irish terms, Miss Welty is a file while Faulkner is an ollamh; the former is a poet (more generally, creative writer) while the latter is a master-poet; the former primarily composes shorter works and usually treats lighter subjects while the latter aims at epic and saga to tackle the BIG matters, which inevitably must be terrible if not tragic. As Greenberg says of Miss Welty, "Her South was familiar and safe, and it amused here and there, but it did not stir anything within."

There is nothing safe about Faulkner’s vibrant fictive world, and what it does to us, if we are not dullard readers, is beyond stir. The same is true of Yeats, the only 20th-century writer I consider Faulkner’s full equal as an ollamh. The repeated line in ‘Easter 1916’, "A terrible beauty is born", is one that is applicable in some way to every truly great work of literature. No terrible beauties are born from Miss Welty’s works. They are not the type to drive us mad. They are, for the most part, comfortable and soft, threatening only the craziest of leftists, entertaining and amusing, diverting, but not Teaching and Scarring us.

Again, Paul Greenberg provides the perfect way of seeing Miss Welty’s limitations. He observes that her front-page obituary in the New York Times featured a long list of acclaimed writers who considered her a friend and a worthy. The key for Greenberg is the most prominent name omitted: Flannery O’Connor: "For in Flannery O’Connor’s stories the South is not nice or quaint or charming, but of a piece with its over-arching, Christ-haunted madness, always reeling from redemption to no avail." Miss Flannery was an ollamh, even if she only wrote short stories and two short novels that grew from stories, for her subject is the biggest. Miss Welty tended a garden, flowers decorating the vegetables, and bottle-raised calves for veal; Miss Flannery hunted bear and boar.

Faulkner was asked in the 1950s to rate the writers of his generation, and he listed Thomas Wolfe first, then himself, with Ernest Hemingway and John Dos Passos following. He explained his reason for rating Wolfe, who died prematurely and whose reputation suffers in no small part due to an incompetent posthumous editor, first because Wolfe had attempted to say the most (which can be accepted as true in one way, but on the whole is preposterous – I think Faulkner was being modest while honoring the dead and putting Hemingway in his place). To Faulkner, the greatest thing about literature is the furious striving to get at the truth, and the more the writer desires to tell, the more he is to be honored. Failing while struggling to say the most is preferable to saying considerably less in more artistically refined or pleasing works.

Because Miss Welty rarely attempted to dig feverishly at the eternal verities of the human heart in conflict with itself, she failed rarely and thus is of decidedly lesser merit than Miss Flannery or Caroline Gordon, not to mention than Walker Percy or Cormac McCarthy; by that standard, I rate Madison Jones Miss Welty’s better. Margaret Mitchell, widely dismissed as a mere popular novelist, mined at the human heart in telling us Scarlett O’Hara’s story, showing us eventually a tragic heroine whose self-realization comes too late. None of Miss Welty’s characters is close to being that terribly beautiful; none of her stories is as agonizing as that of Gone With the Wind.

Southern literature today is in terrible shape. Creative Writing programs produce cookie-cutter hacks on the Brave New World model who ape the Yankee, ahistorical, communityless, Correct-the-Wrongs-of-the-Past-At-Any-Cost stance and regurgitate the mild to militant PC tripe that snares remunerative publications and college teaching positions. Compared to them, Miss Welty looks like Cervantes reborn, for their work, at best, is essentially that of either Hemingway’s Harry (sold his soul to be a Success) or his ‘poor Julian’ (too stupid to know that his principal subject and the social fawning driving it necessarily shrivel and consume souls). That, I think, is central to the sadness for Miss Welty’s passing among those of us who love and/or respect the real South and its cultural heritage: perhaps the best, and possibly final, bulwark against the leftmost third of the Democratic Party and those too far gone to be comfortable even there. But we should not confuse Miss Welty with the real thing. Instead, we should honor the Masters and encourage aspiring writers today to strive to emulate them. Much less is a waste of time, for both writers and their readers.
Old February 12th, 2011 #12
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Good Whites, Spoiled Blacks & Political Hacks

Thomas Sowell, William Styron

& the Great American Race Debate

Jimmy Cantrell

I. Good Whites & Bad Whites

Thomas Sowell recently penned a pair of articles addressing the reparations for slavery scam that has become as dear to today’s campus Leftists, and their apologists among the media and the political class, as are pressing for ever-increasing anti-Western Civilization Multiculturalism, legalizing gay marriages, damning the Catholic Church (and indirectly all Christendom) for the Holocaust, and eradicating both Confederate battle flags and Conservative Christian thought.

The most interesting part of the second article is Sowell’s recounting of the Duke University scene in David Horowitz’s Uncivil Wars. A former Marxist and current firebrand aiming at Leftist hypocrisies and refusals to face facts and reason, Horowitz found that many of the black Duke students, no small number of them there by right of Affirmative Action mandated lowered standards for blacks, who were silently protesting his speaking on campus were crying.

I am not surprised at the crying, and not simply because I have heard similar stories about black students and even seasoned professionals crying, some in rage rather than sadness, at stated opposition to preferences for their race in student admissions and scholarships and in hiring and promotions. I also have seen the tears. In addition, I know enough about Southern literature, including 19th- and early 20th-century non-fiction narratives, to know that the weepy, ‘pouty’ black whose feelings are bruised, perhaps mangled, by the failures of whites to protect and then to promote black vanities and assumptions (regardless of irrationality) is nothing new. That is the weakness of many otherwise excellent analyses of Leftist-promoted black beliefs and behavioral tendencies today: the writers seem to assume all this is caused primarily by LBJ’s Great Society and the resulting Welfare State.

Whatever the cultural origin of this tendency, it appeared pre-WW2. And it has been most effective. Whether the form were weeping (approved especially for women) or the downcast eyes that clearly mark a pained sense of betrayal (approved for men and women), it worked beautifully even during the decades featuring numerous lynching of known and suspected black criminals. The whites who responded to soothe the emotionally hurt black became imbued with the aura of Good White. They earned the designation by decreeing for their black charges some combination of the following: more money, more free time, less work required and/or poorer quality work accepted, praise for black abilities, particularly in contrast to those of poor or immigrant whites, and chastisement of the insensitive person who had upset the sensitive black. Those who failed to do any of this got lumped with the handful of truly violent anti-black whites as a Bad White. If you wished to be fully acceptable in the best society, in the South as well as up north, you had to acquire and retain the reputation of Good White. To fail to do so was to be marked as little better than white trash, which was defined primarily not as poor and uneducated, nor even as immoral in any traditional sense, but as being insensitive to the feelings of black people.

II. Stage Acting

One way to understand the behavior discussed by Sowell is in terms of spoiled children. They usually have three behavioral stages that are used to get what they want, when they want. The first stage is to be charming and pleasing, to flatter those they wish to pamper them. Those adults who fail to be swayed by the charm are seen as mean and soon attacked verbally, often with false accusations. Every brat labels any spanking, or other discipline, he receives as abuse.

The second stage is the weeping and pouting; it is played whenever stage one has failed to secure the desired results. Brats know that many parents simply wilt when faced with the child’s crying from ‘hurt feelings.’ In addition, once they have become successful as brats, most consider it demeaning to use flattery, which indicates the begging for boons; the brat at this stage is convinced that his desires are his inalienable rights.

The third stage is the temper tantrum, the violent outburst, the threats and eventually proof of doing harm to property, self, and others if demands are not met speedily. The spoiled brat inevitably blames everyone else for the tantrums. The brat is actually correct, but not as he thinks. If the adults had handled the bratty manipulating of stages one and two correctly with firm discipline, then stage three would not have been seen.

Is not virtually the whole of the recent ‘civil rights’ movement some form of this spoiled brat behavior? First comes the smiling charm, the praises for Good Whites who help uplift blacks and put those Bad Whites down into their rightful places. Then comes the parading of hurt feelings to prove that those who have spoken against preferential treatment for blacks are bad people who must not be allowed to inflict such emotional pain and to deny equality of result. Finally, we get the riots and the blaming of whites for black criminality, including the epidemic black on white violent crime rates, topped with warnings that failure to cough up for continued preferential treatment will mean more justified rioting, more crime caused by societal failure to squash Bad Whites.

Jesse Jackson is the master of stages one and two and is increasingly adept at stage three. Al Shapton and Louis Farrakhan are masters of stages two and three. Kweisi Mfume articulates all three, emphasizing two and three, as do the majority of elected black politicians; Maxine Waters is my favorite. Virtually all Afrocentric professors focus on stage three while using stage two to avoid being exposed as intellectual charlatans and postmodernist professorial versions of ambulance chasing shysters. Nothing better encapsulates the spoiled brat nature that defines ‘civil rights’ than the recent flap with Harvard’s richly paid Afro-American Studies department forcing the new university president to soothe hurt feelings by announcing unqualified support for preferential treatment for blacks.

III. The Race Debate: A Fact-Free Zone

All of that is helpful in seeing the main point in the first of Sowell’s articles on the reparations shakedown. He notes that the claims of ‘civil rights’ leaders that their work brought black successes are false because the black poverty rate was cut in half from 1940 to 1960, before the Great Society, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, before the plagiarized "I Have a Dream" speech, before Affirmative Action. He also notes that during the same time span, the number of years in school of black males doubled. More schooling, in a time of expanding economy and before Affirmative Action lowered educational standards in both academics and discipline, meant nearly unbelievable black successes. Considering that it occurred during what we have been taught to see as the evil racist days when Bad Whites prevented blacks from succeeding at all, even from maintaining a sense of individual worth—an injustice that required massive, intrusive, cost-escalating, anti-white and pro-black Government programs to solve—it is no wonder the professional black victims cannot face it.

The assumption common to many non-Leftists about this is that if only blacks know these facts, then they will shuck over the Leftist leadership they have supported blindly. The beginning of the faulty assessment is that those making it assume that blacks will learn and then redirect their beliefs, allegiances, and actions accordingly, as all white groups would be expected to do. If you believe that, you already are under the sway of Leftist thought that demands that all peoples be seen as exactly alike in abilities and morals (except that whites are inherently racist), which absurd belief is necessary to charges that racism is responsible for black academic and economic failures as well as crime and VD rates.

Then there is the rest of the matter. The fact is that many blacks know, if only in cliché, the kinds of statistics that Sowell emphasizes. I have taught black students who would spout such statistics as proof that blacks are the superior race, for succeeding in the face of the most inhumane racism in world history, they avow, is definitive regarding racial superiority. Then they would declare that racism today is so systemic that blacks would be reduced to virtual peonage without the billions of dollars spent by governments to uplift them and/or prevent Bad Whites from discriminating against them. Blacks today are prone to live with doublethink if for no other reason than that it allows them to have their cake and eat it too, and then force the Good Whites to force us all to foot the bill and assume guilt for a missing cake.

Tied to that is the knowledge many blacks have of the history of Good Whites donating untold millions of dollars to charities focused on aiding blacks. I first heard the argument made by a black Leftist PhD student in refuting a call for blacks to stress black achievements prior to the Great Society and to reject the contemporary Affirmative Action Welfare State. He did not deny the kinds of statistics Sowell notes; rather, he added that without the untold tens of millions of dollars charities had given blacks from Reconstruction through the Great Depression, the successes beginning in the WW2 era would not have been realized. His point was that before the Great Society, the necessary foundation for black successes in large numbers was the century of Good Whites donating fortunes, time, and influence for the express purpose of guaranteeing black successes.

IV. Blackened Irish

At an Irish studies conference a decade ago, I had a discussion with a recently retired professor who informed me of sayings he felt had been common among Irish, as well as Polish and Italian, Catholics in the north, certainly in his younger days.

Here’s one: "Show me 10 abolitionists," says Mick the immigrant from County Meath, "And I’ll show you at least nine Yankees who hate Irish Catholics."

This saying later became, "Show me 10 WASPs desperate to hire or give money to Negroes, and I’ll show you at least nine WASPs who cheer the ‘No Irish Need Apply’ signs and call for the Know-Nothings to return."

The most recent form had become, "Show me five WASPs and five Jews who want to increase African and black Caribbean immigration, and I’ll show you at least nine white people who want to further reduce immigration of Europeans, many of them fixated on the Irish as the height of all immigration problems, legal and illegal."

These two college level teachers had made parts of the same point: widespread black successes, other than in various areas of popular entertainment, appeared to be tied to large numbers of whites working diligently for those successes, whites striving to uplift blacks, whether through government or private agencies. This emphasis on aiding blacks, each man grasped, necessitates discrimination against certain other whites.

As a hill Southerner I know that to be true. I have never met a white American, including natives of the South, who was focused on helping blacks who also did not harbor either contempt or hatred for those Southerners labeled redneck or hillbilly or even conservative Southern. I also have found that white race-liberals from the South turn the anti-white part of their beliefs as much against the descendants of post War of 1812 European immigrants as against rednecks and hillbillies.

Several years ago I was mildly shocked when a Good White native of the South told me flatly that if the country had refused to allow those ‘ethnic whites’, by which he meant Catholics, to enter in large numbers, our racial problems would not be as complicated and difficult to solve. He explained his view by claiming that without large numbers of Irish, Poles, and Italians —all of whom have histories of racism, he insisted— many more blacks would have good jobs and black people would have more political clout, which combined would all but end racism. He closed his case by stressing that without Irish Catholic voting with white Southerners for the Democrats, Republican Radical Reconstruction would not have ended.

Show me 10 white Americans who consider nigger the ugliest word in the language and white racism against blacks nearly the only sin that matters, and I’ll show you at least 9 people who are proud to voice vicious opposition to, even hatred of, rednecks and hillbillies, many of the nine so aligned because those groups are defined much more by Scots-Irish Southern ethnicity than by any alleged activities. As David Horowitz has observed, hating whitey is the heart of Political Correctness, and it has grown inevitably from the nascent pro-black movement funded and directed initially by Good Whites.

All of this raises an essential question: why has black rhetoric to increase white guilt, much of it fanning the flames of hatred of whites generally, gotten worse as blacks have been given more perks by government decrees and stroked by various Leftists who hate Western Civilization? Then, if we have not been trained to back away from pursuing truth unappealing to Leftists, we ask a related question: why have black crime rates, especially rates of violent crimes against whites, risen dramatically, beginning with the increase of black wealth and educational levels noted by Sowell, the destructions of Jim Crow laws, and the federal government’s embrace of Martin Luther King’s movement, culminating in the pro-black racism that is Affirmative Action? The beginning of the answers is to ask a third, two-headed question: do spoiled brats thank those adults who cave in to their demands, or do they get nastier and more demanding?

V. Nat Turner Lives On

As with so much relating to America’s social, political, and moral problems, perhaps the best broad, explanatory answer to such questions is found in a work of Southern literature. A dozen years before Leftist Jewish academics and litterateurs attacked him for ‘stealing’ their painful story as the basis of Sophie’s Choice, William Styron was accused of racism for his novel The Confessions of Nat Turner. What should be noted is that Styron was never a conservative in any sense beyond adherence to truth seeking in literature. Through his marriage, he had joined the northeastern liberal, secularist anti-Christian, increasingly ethnically Jewish directed, social elite. He and his wife publicly opposed capital punishment by the late 1950s, and they were at the 1968 Democrat national convention. One-time Marxist, lifetime anti-white Leftist, rather flamboyantly homosexual James Baldwin lived in the Styrons’ guesthouse for a while. The very thought of Styron publicly defending, or expressly promoting in fiction, devout Christian belief and practice or the Confederate battle flag or traditional family values or conservative political or cultural movements is laughable.

Those weaned on the diet designed by Good Whites will likely stumble in reading Styron’s novel because it strays from the Leftist myths about black slavery in America. Styron does not romanticize chattel slavery; that would be as foolish as romanticizing the typical working conditions in antebellum northern factories or of contemporary black identity groups or the 1960s ‘civil rights’ movement. Rather, he reveals chattel slavery’s inherent injustices, as well as the weaknesses of the system, perhaps foremost of which is that in order to protect their investments, some slave owners used the legal system to prevent their criminal slaves from being punished. Even during slavery, certain whites acted to protect guilty blacks, thereby putting at greater risk of black criminality both blacks and whites.

Thomas Gray, Nat’s interrogator, is presented as one who cannot fathom the slave revolt because he knows basic living conditions of slaves in the area to be good compared to those of the free but uneducated and landless poor whites not merely in most of the states but also in Europe. "If you were maltreated, beaten, ill-fed...," I could understand it, Gray says; "even if you existed under the conditions presently extant in the British Isles or Ireland [the UK was the wealthiest nation in the world at the time]," Gray could relate to the motive if not the horrific means.

Styron is not parodying Gray as the ignorant Southerner believing a fairy tale. In Roll, Jordan, Roll: the World the Slaves Made, Eugene Genovese, perhaps inadvertently, dispels the abolitionist spawned myths that continue to sustain American Leftists in their war on Western Civilization.

"The South," Genovese proclaims, "was the only slave system in the New World in which the slaves reproduced themselves. The less than 400,000 Africans imported [Hugh Thomas believes 450,000] into the North American British colonies and the United States had become a black population ten times greater by 1860…" The simple fact is: a slave population that is being beaten, worked, and starved to death does not reproduce itself at even two-fold; only a well cared for slave population with more than adequate food, clothing, shelter, and health care could reproduce itself ten-fold, a rate higher than that of America’s free white population. Genovese, a Marxist when he wrote this, acknowledges, "the living conditions of a large minority or even a majority of the world’s population during the twentieth century [my emphasis] might not compare in comfort with those of the slaves of Mississippi a century earlier."

In addition, Genovese grasped that defenders of black slavery were correct in asserting that "poor whites who worked on the slave ships suffered a significantly higher death rate that did the enslaved Africans themselves." Thus the Middle Passage, which to many blacks summarizes the worst of New World slavery, actually cost a higher percentage of lives of whites working on the ships than of the blacks chained in the holds. If that Politically Incorrect truth can be stomached, face the next: "In the South and in the Caribbean the treatment meted out to white indentured servants had rivaled and often exceeded in brutality [my emphasis] that meted out to black slaves; brutality to white servants preceded brutality to black slaves"

The first unpardonable sin, according to blacks and their white Leftist enablers, committed by Styron in his "meditation on history" is to write from the first person of Nat Turner. But that is not the extent. Had Styron produced a first person narrative in which Nat is presented as the intellectual and moral superior to virtually all white people, all of whom are racists and thus deserving of horrors at the hands if blacks, he would not have been attacked for stealing a black hero. Styron, perhaps because Southern culture presses even most Southern race-liberals to avoid sentimental, Leftist falsity, revealed too much ugly truth for blacks to address, much less accept; their natural response is to scream racism.

Especially considering Horowitz’s Duke University scene with weeping, vocally silent blacks too hurt to listen to that which refutes their pet notions, Nat’s assessment of his refusal to talk to Gray is indispensable.

"Had I opened up at the outset," Nat says, "it would have been I who had to ask for indulgences, and I might not have gotten them." Gray offers favors, and Nat continues, "There is no doubt about it. White people often undo themselves by such running off at the mouth, and only God knows how many nigger triumphs have been won in total silence."

Those who pooh-pooh the falsifications of Afrocentrism, both the claiming of accomplished Caucasians as black and the theories of at least morally superior dark children of the sun, as harmless boosts to black self-esteem need to address Nat’s use of such myth-making to inspire his band of murderers in training. He focuses on Napoleon Bonaparte, "who now was transformed by me, with the utmost guile, into a seven-foot black prodigy and the scourge of all white creation…. Like Joshua and David (turned also into Negro heroes by my artful tongue) he bestrode the wreckage of the white man’s world like an angel of the apocalypse. I described him as an African risen to sweep up and annihilate the white tribes of the North."

Perhaps the Leftist race dogma that has been swallowed by the most unsuspecting people is that the greater the exposure to and familiarity with the other race, the more white and black peoples will develop full respect for and tolerance of one another. Styron’s Nat declares that of the many conditions that help nurture to murderous fruition black hatred of whites "none of these is as important as that at one time or another the Negro live in some degree of intimacy with the white man", for only from extended close living and working can the black submit "to his [the white man’s] wanton and arrogant kindnesses [my emphasis]", to the help, the special treatment given to blacks that rarely, if ever, is offered to poor or immigrant whites. And those kindnesses, Styron’s Nat is certain, will drive increasing numbers of black men to hate fully and then act upon the emotions.

Nat’s slave revolt, which featured the murders of enfeebled elderly and babies, puzzles Gray primarily not because Nat and his men wantonly killed the helpless but because Nat murdered his owner Joseph Travis, a man Nat acknowledged to have been kind and supportive of his needs and desires. Murdering helpless whites you did not know is bad enough, but murdering a white man you know to have been a good man who did not abuse his position as slave owner is inexplicable to Gray.

A partial answer comes to the reader when Nat narrates his earlier days under another lenient owner, Samuel Turner: "Above all, I had quite a bit of time on my hands. I could fish and trap and do considerable Scripture reading." The free time allows him reflection, and the youthful Nat, idling in a luxury few whites of his day knew, prepares for his mission: "I had for going on several years now considered the necessity of exterminating all the white people in Southampton County and as far beyond as destiny carried me, and there was thus available to me more time than I had ever had before to ponder the Bible and its exhortations, and to think over the complexities of the bloody mission that was set before me" Nat’s blood lust is not restricted to an ending of slavery regardless of the death toll. Rather, it is to feel pleasure: "the contentment a Negro takes in a white man’s misery, existing like a delicious tidbit among bleak and scanty rations, can hardly be overestimated."

Nat provides the complete answer to Gray’s puzzlement in his narration of his pre-revolt meeting with Jeremiah Cobb, who has suffered from family deaths and fire. Cobb addresses Nat as he would any other man he knows to be literate. "I will say this," Nat declares, "without which you cannot understand the central madness of nigger existence: beat a nigger, starve him, leave him wallowing in his own shit, and he will be yours for life. Awe him by some unforeseen hint of philanthropy, tickle him with the idea of hope, and he will want to slice your throat."

The full importance of this is highlighted in a novel by another politically left of center Southerner. Pat Conroy’s Tom Wingo notes that most people upon learning you are from the South are filled with either "sorrow or loathing." Specifically, Tom has registered the hatred that comes to many black men’s eyes once they learn he is a small town Southerner: "… if they could rid the earth of this one sad-eyed cracker they’d be avenging ancestors kidnapped from the veldt centuries ago and brought chained and bleeding into southern ports. Nat Turner lives deep in the eyes of all modern black men."

VI. When Reparations Come Marching Home, Hurrah, Hurrah

The gist of all this is that I am certain that no matter how many facts and impeccably logical analyses Thomas Sowell and all other black conservatives repeat, nor how many blacks through the efforts of various government and private agencies and the power of our dumbed-down, morally decadent popular culture become financially comfortable, black people will alter neither their voting patterns nor their personal morals and values, including common black contempt for or hatred of whites, more than a jot. The spirit of Nat Turner, not that of the dead white men whose ideas intellectually and morally fashioned the world’s best civilization in every sense, animates the black masses.

And the spirit of Nat Turner, expressed by the multitudes of black murderers and rapists of whites and the rappers who praise them, as well as by the Nation of Islam, the New Black Panther Party, the Congressional Black Caucus, Al Sharpton, Kweisi Mfume, Maxine Waters, Mumia Abu Jamal, and countless other ‘civil rights’ groups and leaders, has been set loose and funded, first by multitudes of private philanthropists, and for decades now by all of us through our taxes. Reparations paid to the living for slavery of long dead ancestors whose bondages were legal in the times and places is a logical demand from people whose chief spiritual godfather is the murderously insane ‘civil rights’ hero Nat Turner.

And yes, Martin Luther King, Jr. also shared part of that vision. He smothered the violence (whether merely to gain success from appearing less threatening or due to sincere moral belief is debatable), playing the needy victim of spoiled brat stages one and two, but in the mature thought of his last decade he certainly was an unequivocal proponent of government programs that would discriminate for his race and thus necessarily discriminate against whites.

If you wish to stop it, you must first cure yourself of being the parent or elder sibling spoiling the child with largesse, excuses, double standards, and protection from needed discipline. If you do not, you are contributing to the kind of process that guaranteed today’s Zimbabwe and South Africa in which whites are violently criminalized by blacks at rates so high that ‘mainstream’ Western media (100% Good White) refuse to report them, certain black tribes are routinely pillaged by the dominant black tribes, young men rape children and babies by the thousands in manhood rituals, the nation’s economic viability wanes monthly (once wealthy white-ruled Rhodesia is, even with billions of dollars of foreign aid over the past two decades, now facing mass malnutrition and the total collapse of industry), AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are as common as the cold, and both education systems and government bureaucracies are defined by incompetence, corruption, and promotion based on hating whitey. African child sacrifice, of kidnapped white children as well as black, has been reborn with the end of colonial rule and the rise of postmodernist Multicultural tolerance, and it has recently spread to the parts of Europe with African communities.

Especially with immigration, it all can happen here, and an important step in the process is reparations for slavery.
Old February 12th, 2011 #13
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

V.S. Naipaul, Herman Hoppe & Democracy

Jimmy Cantrell

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. has written a fine review of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy, the God That Failed. I have yet to read Hoppe’s book, but I have read and commented on two Hoppe articles that, combined, make an excellent case from a paleolibertarian perspective for opposing both mass immigration and government decrees regarding, certainly requiring, integration of anything for any reason. Woods’ review guarantees that I will make time to read Hoppe’s study.

Woods emphasizes that in this new book Hoppe challenges the "self-congratulatory consensus" that reigns "even among most self-described conservatives (and certainly among most libertarians) that the historic nineteenth- and twentieth-century shift away from monarchy and toward ever-greater democratization constituted a welcome step forward for civilization." All of us know the clichéd approach because we were indoctrinated with some form of it in what today passes for education: anything in history that is anti-monarchical, or merely opposed to one specific monarch or royal family, must be recognized as a watershed moment in Progress, which is a movement from the moral and social dregs of the undemocratic past to the astral heights of the perfectly just and egalitarian society that will be realized because all history demands its realization. Hopefully you recognize here the same basic teleology that drives Marxism.

That approach requires us to see Oliver Cromwell as a role model, though Cromwell was a bloody tyrant who fostered the modern, tightly centralized, all-powerful State directed according to a ‘modern’ theory. Without Cromwell’s successful example of justifying government-sponsored abominations (executing members of royal and other titled families, confiscating the property of both individuals and churches, passing laws designed to effect loyalty to the new central government by destroying local cultures and allegiances, etc.) in the names of opposing monarchical, clerical, and traditional social values abuses, there could have been no French Revolution, and the French Revolution (in its assaults on Christian morals as well as the Catholic church’s status and power, on all traditional French values, on the wealthy as inherent exploiters, on provincial and local community standards and identities, and with its excusing of, even praising, horrors committed in the name of "the people" and the path toward full equality) paved the way for Marxism.

Understood this way, I praise the American Revolution not because it was a democratic revolution against a monarch (and that is largely incorrect, for Parliament passed the various tax laws and featured a preponderance supporting the Crown’s positions); rather, I praise it because it was an anti-imperial revolution in both major senses: 1) it emphasized national, and local within the nation, identity and allegiance against imperial loyalty and identity; 2) it emphasized the necessity of government de-centralization to prevent tyranny against citizens from government and its officials. Those still bound intellectually by dumbed-down government schooling will not be able to grasp such an unpleasant truth, but there will be less tyranny and more freedom in a de-centralized monarchy than in a tightly centralized democracy, especially one driven by a theory of effecting virtual paradise on earth through reaching the nirvana that the Left, from Cromwell’s allies (focused on hereditary class and church holdings) to today’s welfare staters (focused on race, sex, and sexuality), has seen in equality of goods and political clout.

As Hoppe is an economist, it is expected that his work will focus on economic motives, successes, and failures. In an age in which seemingly all people who identify themselves as ‘conservative’ are focused largely on economics (the free market works and socialism does not, which means that cultural, moral, and social Leftists interested in a working economy are now neoconservatives, ‘New Democrats,’ or Left-libertarians), I would expect that those same people would clamor to study Hoppe’s analyses. The catch is that people rarely question their main god, and we moderns have made democracy the sacrosanct secular religion, if not a god. Anyone interested in a Southern Agrarian fictional presentation of this phenomenon should read my article on Stark Young’s So Red the Rose.

Recently I had a reader write to inform me that I should not promote the reading of Plato because Plato is a forerunner of modern totalitarianism. His proof of that contention is that Plato was hostile to Athenian democracy. To the true believer in modern democracy, to question democracy, to see it as less than near-perfect, especially to chastise and reject it for its inherent promotion of what Jonathan Swift identified as a Dunce Confederacy against individual genius (think of the PC bureaucracies that run ‘education,’ ‘mainstream’ journalism, and book publishing) or its perversion of traditional values in every sense (the theme of all Aristophanes’ plays) is to be an irredeemable heretic. When you grasp that, you will realize that the attacks on the Confederacy, the Old South, and today’s unapologetic Southerners as ‘aristocratic’ and ‘discriminatory,’ and thus not truly democratic, constitute the secular religion’s chief theological justification for both the War of Federal Aggression and the contemporary war against conservative Southern culture.

Woods presents the economic basis of Hoppe’s case thus: "Since those who rule in a democracy are not the owners of the state apparatus but rather are merely temporary caretakers, they have little incentive to be farsighted, to preserve the country’s capital value and to think of its future welfare. To the contrary, their limited time horizon necessarily translates into a tendency toward immediate gratification."

Everyone should be aware of the childish "I want my MTV and I want it now" mores that define not merely the young purchasers of garbage popular culture but also many of their parents. Woods indicates that Hoppe makes a powerful case that democracy guarantees such a moral climate, one that at some point cannot honor the cultural heritage that made the once workable democracy possible. Thus it is to be expected that the multicultural barbarians in our age, wrapping themselves in the mantle of democracy, symbolically defecate on Washington and Jefferson (and even more so Lee) while working to erase them from historical memory except as "racists." When that is understood, we should be more willing to grant that the Marxist claim that they represent the true, or the logical end of, democracy may be frighteningly valid. To rephrase the matter, it appears that a democracy that is not tempered by aristocracy and culturally, morally, and socially conservative values will rush headlong into some form of democratic authoritarianism, that process is inherent in democracy’s emphasis on ‘equality’ and the childish time preference that democracy encourages.

Woods’ most important statement is this one, which follows his discussion of Hoppe’s dismantling of claims that it is good to have government require, or even use its powers to encourage, integration to end discrimination: "The concepts of community and private property are meaningless and empty if they exclude the right to discriminate. Discrimination is a pervasive and indeed absolutely necessary feature of life." Nothing better encapsulates the perversion that is multicultural democracy than the recent denial of and war against this eternal verity.

Those two sentences made me think of Nobel Literature laureate V. S. Naipaul’s travel book A Turn in the South. The first time I heard anyone discussing the 1989 book was in early 1991. It was a sight to frame the absurdity of PC: a German surnamed, blonde-haired, fair-skinned female native of the lily-white upper midwest (she had almost wept from shame when confessing that there had been no black students or teachers at her public high school) declared the black-haired, brown-eyed, dark-skinned Caribbean native Naipaul a racist. The condemnation included the fact that Naipaul (ethnically Indian) had told nasty truths (mere ‘unfounded stereotypes’ according to the Nordic PCette) about blacks in both the Caribbean and Africa, but it was focused on two related issues: 1) he long had voiced the conviction that Western civilization was the apex of Indo-European civilizations, which were preferable to those of any other cultural-racial groups; 2) he not only had failed to damn the South and Southerners; he had found them to be epitomes of the calumniated best traditions of the Western heritage he so admired.

Naipaul’s title is not merely a colorful way to indicate a travel narrative; more importantly, it marks his turn from being ignorant about Southern culture and Southerners beyond the requisite negative stereotypes to knowledge of a culture made more precious by the deaths of most of its correlates in Europe and the rest of North America. In the opening chapter, Naipaul acknowledges "What I had heard as a child about the racial demeanor of the South {and Naipaul capitalizes South; for an explanation of the importance see this article} had been too shocking. It had tainted the United States, and had made me close my mind to the South" (24).

All neoconservative types who believe they will enhance world perception of the U.S. by joining in the leftist hatred of the South and conservative Southern culture must address Naipaul. The ‘civil rights’ era mass media smearing of Southerners and Southern culture had led even a non-Leftist who did not romanticize either black Africans or black Caribbean islanders not merely to assume the South to be awful, but also to perceive the entire United States as tainted. As I have stated elsewhere, if you are not part of the leftist multicultural, anti-Western Civilization enterprise, all attacks on Southern culture and identity are, however indirect and long range, attacks on you with the express purpose of destroying you. That the vast majority of Republican Party operatives, ‘mainstream conservative’ journalists, and the dwindling number of ‘conservative’ professors in the Humanities are far too stupid, or perhaps merely too enthralled in being Good Whites, to comprehend that truth surely thrills equally the ghosts of Karl Marx and Marcus Garvey.

Naipaul began his journey thinking only about race issues, little knowing that seeing the land and talking to Southerners (as opposed to leftist academics labeled ‘Southern experts’ who damn conservative Southern culture and work diligently to ensure that no conservative opposition is allowed to teach differently) would alter his planned work, "that my subject would become that other South—of order and faith, and music and melancholy—which I didn’t know about …" (25). If you know about that ‘other South,’ you are less likely to swallow the leftist assaults on Southern culture; thus, leftists have used the ‘education’ system, journalism, and entertainment to make certain few people know that South and that those who do know it are so fearful of being called racist that they pretend not to know it.

Milan Kundera, quite familiar with Marxist tactics, has observed, "The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was." The reason the Nordic PCette PhD student hated Naipaul was that she knew that Naipaul’s work could be used to try to halt the process of cultural genocide directed at the South.

There is much in Naipaul’s book to consider and to praise, far too much for me to cover in this article. Instead, we need to consider the passage in A Turn in the South that bubbled up when I read Woods’ quote on the necessity of discrimination to freedom. It is in the chapter "Sanctities," which concerns Naipaul’s time in Nashville, which is not merely the home of many largely Southern religious groups but as the home of Country Music is also the spiritual center of popular Southern culture. Naipaul clearly was taken with Will Campbell, known to many as the Pastor to Country Music. Campbell, a veteran of ‘civil rights’ activism, has the kind of mind that allows him to perceive that the 137th Psalm is very much like the old time segregationist, even specifically KKK, songs in emphasis and attitude, in moral vision.

Campbell tells Naipaul about being in a northern Alabama café that had been recently integrated (which likely would have occurred c. 1963-68) and hearing someone play on the jukebox the song ‘Move Them Niggers North:’ "If they don’t like our Southern ways,/ Move them niggers north." Campbell had entered the café with a black friend, "And when we left my friend said—my friend was hurt—‘I guess there’s no law against playing a jukebox.’ And I said, ‘not yet, and I hope there never will be.’"

That little story encapsulates the problems with both multicultural democracy and do-gooding through government mandate. The song, while certainly intending to be insulting, merely states the truth about freedom: if the blacks are ‘they,’ they have the freedom to move north and away from Southern ways and people. If the ‘they’ are race-liberal Yankees, they are free to use their private resources to fill their towns with blacks they have enticed to flee the South. Through the use of freedom to move and to associate with whom you wish (which includes your freedom to reject association with those with whom you wish no association), you foster both liberty and a civil society. To force association is to kill freedom and replace the civil society with one coerced by the might of the State.

As virtually all blacks today would assert that it should be against the law for such a song to be played publicly, I assume that what Campbell’s black friend wanted was for Campbell, a well-educated white man, a proven friend to blacks, to suggest that it should be against the law to play such a song, or perhaps to hold such a view and express it privately. The immature person demands to be accepted and embraced; the adult ultimately does not give a hoot if some business refuses to take his money. I do not go where I am not fully welcome. The fact that ‘you’ do not want me in your business, school, or home, or in your publication, simply proves that you are at best a person with questionable judgment, and I find people with questionable judgment to be troublesome and worse.

And contrary to the clichés spouted by the Left, white males can and do receive discriminatory treatment. I know what it is like to be rejected, to be punished, because of heritage and identity, as well as because of cultural, moral, and political views. I do not suffer the abuses of fools, but neither do I war against freedom by demanding that fools accept me on my terms.

Multicultural democracy is inherently unstable first due to inevitable clashes of culture and then because many groups of people are largely immature and will use the democratic process to destroy freedom in the name of egalitarianism. A democracy in which the cultural, moral, and social views of an immature group gain sway and set standards for the ‘new justice’ is a democracy in decadent decline.

That is the reason Campbell replied that he hopes there never will be a law against playing songs like "Send Them Niggers North." That he said "not yet" is an indicator that the Campbell of the mid 1980s knew that such laws emanating from the anti-Western Civilization totalitarians-at-heart empowered by the ‘civil rights’ movement had been enacted. Whatever offends PC groups must be outlawed and written out of the surviving historical record: songs, flags, statues, road and school names, past leaders and heroes, books, words, culminating eventually in thoughts.

Anyone who confuses such a society with freedom is the serviceable fool required by villains. Recent education seems to have produced millions of them.

Jimmy Cantrell
Old February 12th, 2011 #14
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Subsidizing Socialists: The Modern University in Action

Jimmy Cantrell

David Horowitz has written an article that should be read by anyone who doubts that the Left – not the mildly left of center old-style bleeding heart liberals, but the culture-warring, imperialistic, totalitarian far Left – is in total control of even the private universities in conservative states, which universities are assumed by most people to reflect at least the mildly neoconservative interests of the wealthy who voluntarily enrich such schools. As a Tennessee native with family that graduated from Vanderbilt and purchasing season tickets for Vanderbilt sports teams, I am thrilled that Horowitz chose to highlight what is certainly among the three most prestigious private universities in the South (along with Duke and Emory). It was only a couple of years ago that a person to whom I was explaining the absolute leftist control of Humanities areas in virtually all colleges replied with unbridled assurance, "Cut the hyperbole. You know all those rich people that run Vandy and all those rich kids in school there are not all supporting Bill Clinton, much less Marxism."

Yes and no. First, all the students are not rich kids. Even in the era of Vanderbilt’s greatest accomplishments (when the school was associated with the Fugitives and the Agrarians), many of the students were far from wealthy; in fact, all the students and professors who comprised the Fugitive and Agrarian groups were from small farm or small town, small merchant or small church pastor backgrounds. In addition, affirmative action has guaranteed that even the poorest black student, as long as he scores a slightly above average 23 or 24 on the ACT, can attend Vanderbilt, often with scholarships and financial aid that make it a nearly free ride.

Second, rich kids, and adults as well, are far from immune to the kind of stupidity that fosters self-destruction. In fact, I have found that many of them, sheltered by money and focused on the pleasures that money has brought them, are remarkably ignorant.

Third, few of the rich who donate millions of dollars to Vanderbilt voted for Clinton (though there are many left-leaning multi-millionaires), but I have no doubt that the vast majority of Humanities professors and students at Vanderbilt voted for either Clinton or Nader, with many of them moaning about having only ‘conservative’ candidates from which to choose. Philanthropists, the more ‘conservative’ ones of whom are largely ignorant of moral philosophy and most political philosophy and the workings of committed Leftists, donate millions of dollars, and tenured campus radicals use the bulk of the money to eliminate any potential opposition from faculty or graduate students.

Thus Vanderbilt, long widely derided by various Leftists and professional South-haters as the home of the ‘reactionary’ Agrarians, is so dominated by the Left that what is surely nothing more than a bland, establishment, pro-Martin Luther King, and perhaps anti-Southern, neoconservative group had great difficulty finding a single faculty member who would serve as sponsor. Universities grant monies to all the approved student groups, some to spend at will and some to spend according to strictures. Wake Up America, the group which sponsored Horowitz, was formed specifically to secure some—any—money to bring non-leftist speakers to campus.

Those of you who know American universities know that the typical pattern for speakers brought to further enlighten students goes like this:

A black man who says all whites are beneficiaries of racism, if not necessarily racist themselves. Thus, he will eventually declare, all blacks should receive reparations for slavery, and all students, in order to be inoculated from racism, should be required to take a course in African American culture.

A Feminist who says all men are sexists and specifically calls for the Federal Government to fight sexism by taking away the tax-exempt status of any church refusing to allow women pastors/presbyters/priests.

A Jew who says the heritage of Christianity, so deeply filled with anti-Semitism —witness the Hitler’s Pope phenomenon—is responsible for the Holocaust and thus we must work to remove all vestiges of Christianity from public life.

A Mohammedan who says the Orientalist form of racism leads to a growing hatred of Arabs and other Moslems, and thus American schools must teach favorably about Islam and its believers.

A Wiccan witch who says Christianity is responsible for a holocaust against pagans and today’s sins against the environment.

A Gay Rights activist who says homophobic Christians are enacting a holocaust against gays and lesbians and that gays should be allowed to adopt without restrictions and to be married legally.

A Marxist environmentalist who says that Eurocentrism and capitalism are destroying the world.

A fundraiser from the Southern Poverty Law Center who says Confederate Battle Flag is a sign of racist evil and virtually all ‘Southern heritage’ groups, as well as the pre-Civil Rights era Southern studies developed by reactionary Southerners, are covers for racism.

Finally, to balance those ‘more liberal’ speakers, a ‘conservative,’ a Republican Party operative who favors keeping affirmative action, preserving a woman’s "Right to Choose", maintaining massive immigration, sacralizing the socialist Socinian Martin Luther King, and making homosexuals feel included and needed in the Big Tent that is the Republican Party.

As realized by ancient Christians combating the various gnostic groups and sundry other heretics (such as the many denying or perverting the Trinity), a multitude of conflicting errors will always be united against Truth. Anyone who believes that speaker #9 is significantly less likely to harm Western Civilization over the long haul than are speakers #1-#8 is stupid enough to be among the 5-10 percent ‘conservative’ quota allotted by the average contemporary English or History department.

As there still appear to be millions of naïve, gullible Americans who could not imagine why a student group formed to bring ‘conservative’ speakers to campus would have difficulty finding a single faculty member to serve as sponsor, I need to emphasize that the PC Left that wields absolute hegemony over formal American education is nothing more than cultural Marxism. It allows dissent, it fosters tolerance for exchange of ideas, exactly as Marxist political organizations allowed dissent: Leninoids, Stalinists, Trotskyites, Maoists (slurred as Dungers by the intolerant, racist Right), Titophiles, W.E.B. DuBoisers, Gramsciphiles, Hos, Marcusers, Castroites, Angela Davishills, and Mugabetrons are all embraced. The fact that so many nationalities and races are included proves beyond any doubt the tolerance of diversity that characterizes the Left.

Such is the extent of both the tolerance of diverse ideas and intellectual depth in today’s purely leftist political education world. Any untenured professor who agreed to sponsor the Vanderbilt Wake Up America group would never have received tenure, and any tenured professor who signed on would have found himself facing ostracism and punishment in the form of denied classes and research funds, which would all but kill a career. Thus, the only Vanderbilt professor who would sponsor Wake Up America is a Business School teacher who only comes to campus two days per week because he also remains active in business. In other words, because he has another career he could afford to be targeted and punished by the leftist apparatchiks.

Horowitz’s summation of how money is spent at Vanderbilt for speakers brought to campus applies to the vast majority of colleges in the country: "At Vanderbilt, the university annually provides roughly $130,000 for left-wing agitations, including the visits of left-wing speakers. This is balanced by $0 for conservative groups and speakers."

That assessment is worsened considerably by the fact that the spending for cultural studies leftist faculty and graduate students, including funding for research and publication, will percentage-wise nearly duplicate those figures for extra-campus speakers. Write a book advocating man-boy sex, damning Christianity or the free market, demanding even more billions of dollars per year spent on programs to ‘uplift’ blacks, smearing Western Civilization as the apex of injustice, or encouraging cultural genocide directed at the South, and you will find easy money to secure university press publication, as well as an established academic career, likely one that includes those huge speaking fees paid by universities to leftist guest speakers. Write a book refuting any of that, and you will find endless closed doors at university presses, as well the probability of being seen as unfit for tenure at even the vast majority of church-related colleges, most of which are so horrified at being labeled ‘racist, sexist, homophobe’ that, as fast as they can get the old-timers to retire, they are filling their Humanities departments, including Religion/Bible departments, with ‘Christian’ leftists, preferably those who meet at least one affirmative action quota.

Just as the Soviet Union fell only because it caved in economically, as long as we fund the universities, and the public schools, the Left will remain with absolutist, and in many cases, totalitarian, control over higher education. And it sees its chief mission as eradicating all vestiges of traditional, conservative Western Christian Civilization, which cannot be accomplished if even a small minority of professors in the Humanities are allowed to teach and publish from the true Right. Keep that in mind when you feel compelled to send a donation to your alma mater or when you buy tickets to attend a sporting event featuring your favorite college team. You might as well send that check straight to the Communist Party of the USA.
Old February 12th, 2011 #15
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

African Agonists: An Open Letter to John Perazzo

Jimmy Cantrell

Dear Mr. Perazzo,

I am writing this open letter to you with the hope that you will come to see the evil that you have fostered. Like far too many other Americans, but many millions fewer than even three decades ago, you apparently believe that freedom of speech justifies your insulting peoples who have been discriminated against. Just as hate is not a family value, free speech does not include inciting racist hatred or furthering negative stereotypes of peoples long victimized by Eurocentric racism.

By every dictum that reigns supreme and unquestionable in today's worlds of journalism, publishing, and education, as well as in postmodern democratic politics, your article ‘The Radical Left’s Double Standard for Africa’ is the apex of racism. It is time for racists to end this hatred of black people and face their own racism. You will say, "But prove me wrong about a single thing I assert." Such an appeal to Eurocentric logic, reason, and factual standardization is itself the very heart of the worst racism. Things can be true and just even if they are not logical or reasonable or factual as defined by Eurocentric racists. In fact, our universities today are filled with professors in various departments who recognize that as all language is socially constructed and represents the interests of powerful classes, races, and religions (which use language to add to their power over others), there can be no definite meanings and thus no absolute values or morals. Therefore, to apply Eurocentric conceits of logic, reason, and factualism to other peoples is itself the most obvious sign of racist hatred engaged in an attempt to re-enslave the world.

But I am not avoiding your ‘facts.’ Though obvious racists such as yourself always distort and exaggerate, I know that many awful things have happened in Mother Africa (yes, it is the Mother of us all, the real Garden of Eden, just as the real Eve was black, which means that we owe everything to Africa and must give everything to her that she needs, and that means giving everything needed by her truest children, blacks) since the end of the colonialist form of racism, but the issue is why these things have happened. As you have already demonstrated your racist predilection to blame the victim, I must spell it out to you: the legacy of racism instilled into Mother Africa by Eurocentric colonialist racists was not removed when the racists returned home. In addition to raping the entire continent of all its vast wealth and advanced technology and learning (see various Afrocentric scholarly writings, which are too numerous for me to cite here, that prove that when the racist white Europeans were all illiterate barbarians, black African peoples had developed the highest and most peaceful and crime-free civilization), the racist Europeans left the bad example of misrule. As Africa is the Garden of Eden, its peoples obviously are the most moral and just; because they had not been expelled from the Garden of Eden, they necessarily were good and wise and godly. The white Eurocentric racists brought not merely death and disease and theft to the Garden of Eden; they also brought the sin of bad government. From their racist slave owners, some Africans learned to act white: which is to say, to be mean and selfish and violent, to rob and rape and murder, to enslave others. It is not the fault of Africans that Eurocentric racist colonialism introduced sin into the Garden of Eden that is Mother Africa. And it is merely a slight redirection of white racism to harp incessantly on the relatively minor problems of African political leaders. Stop blaming the victims of Eurocentric racism, Mr. Perazzo, and start asking what you can do to fight racism.

A good way for you to begin the lengthy and costly process of eradicating racism from your life is to observe the mainstream media. They do not call Civil Rights leaders hypocrites. They do not talk about black African and Caribbean leaders as thieves and butchers. They do not talk about black American crime rates. Instead, they focus on white crimes. They know the same ‘facts’ you do. The difference is that they know it is far more important to fight racism than to be correct factually or logically. Thus, though they know that black Americans per capita commit seven to ten times more violent crimes against white Americans than white Americans commit against black Americans, they keep stressing the terribly few horrible crimes committed by whites against blacks. That is necessary to keep whites from allowing their racist tendencies to flourish. As long as whites think they are committing more crimes against blacks than vice verse (which they do because that is what the media leads them to think), they are ashamed, and out of that shame they agree to accept governmental policies that are just beginning to fight racism. If those intrinsically racist and unjust whites learn "facts" such as those you pander to racists, then they will start acting on their Eurocentric tendencies.

As all thinking people acknowledge that white people (meaning those of European heritage; we wouldn’t want to be anti-Semitic) are the cancer of the world, whatever keeps whites from acting and thinking white will make the world a better place. That’s why gangsta rap is so important. You are what you eat, and you become very much what you ingest culturally. That includes the entertainment we still call the news.

It is time to make total and terrible war on the Confederate Battle Flag and all schools and buildings named for Confederates and other racists from the white trash South. We must link the South directly to the handful of Bobby Frank Cherrys, suggesting that without Southern culture and identity there would be no such racists. And we must ignore the "fact" that for every white version of a Bobby Frank Cherry there are seven to ten black versions. If we don’t, more whites might become fully Eurocentric and thereby realize that a huge percentage of black journalists and academics and public school educrats are little more than shills for anti-Western Christian civilization leftism.

If you work at it, you can soon forget it all and then be freed to help end racism. Just start by repeating the name James Byrd until you drown out everything else. I’ve done it so that I no longer recall the name of the white woman from my small town who was murdered four years ago. Three young victims of racism set out to kill a white cow and nabbed this elderly female racist at a Sonic at noon and took her to the woods and had some fun and then blew her racist brains out. Only a racist would call that a hate crime or say it should ever have made the national news or claim it is remotely as awful as what happened to James Byrd. Instead, the anti-racist, even the Good White who is not yet fully anti-racist, will continue jabbering away about the racist Bobby Frank Cherry.

I repeat, to end racism and intolerance, we must wage total war on everything that is culturally Southern and write as if crime statistics are opposite of what they are and all sub-Saharan African nations are paradises except for the legacy of Eurocentric racism. Only then will we have racial harmony and tolerance of diversity, like in the Garden of Eden Mother Africa before the serpentine Eurocentric racists arrived.

Then we must spend some 100 trillion more dollars per year on programs to aid countries ruled by black men. If it weren't for the racist legacy of whites in Zimbabwe and their continued racist hatred of President Mugabe and the racist white world's refusal to give sufficient aid to a black ruled nation, we would not be seeing these few extreme actions of a few Zimbabwean Civil Rights activists, which have been grossly exaggerated by the racist white press. Anyway, as anyone not racist knows, virtually all whites in Zimbabwe are racist and thus are trying to destroy the country to make it look like blacks are to blame. So they are only getting just desserts.

Free Mumia Now!


A Quintessential Postmodern Anti-Racist

P.S. To begin your re-education, follow this syllabus for a course on world history.

Jimmy Cantrell
Old February 12th, 2011 #16
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Shiftless Shepherds: The Failure of America's Catholic Hierarchy

Jimmy Cantrell

I've only now decided to write about the sex scandals plaguing the Catholic Church. My hesitance is not due to believing the matter to be insignificant. It is of ultimate significance. In an article inspired by reading a Joe Sobran piece, I asserted that the Catholic Church in good health and true to its moral teachings defined as immutable doctrines is indispensable to anyone who opposes the Left, particularly the moral cesspool created by leftist assaults on traditional values.

Quite simply, if it weren’t for the size and power of the Catholic Church, with its official doctrines against sexual promiscuity, homosexual practice, and women ordained as priests (and the word ‘priest’ is the Old English form of the Latin presbyter, from the Greek presbuteros, which literally means ‘elder’), leftist special interest groups long since would have sued every church in America that denies women the position of pastor/presbyter/priest and would be planning to sue all those that so discriminate against homosexuals. Such churches are without doubt the most conservative in matters doctrinal and moral. That is the reason they are hated and reviled.

Average Americans may make jokes about United Methodists, but they don’t hate them. Their methodical blandness, their lap-dog-like leaping to lick every boot and lower every standard to maximize inclusiveness, their hordes of nicey-nice female pastors and pop culture pandering youth ministers define them as innocuous to both the Left and the good-intentions-filled simpletons who think they are not of the Left while being necessary to its rise to hegemony.

While the Catholic Church clearly has a serious problem with homosexually inclined priests, a sizeable minority of them sexual predators or at least promiscuous on an Andrew-Sullivan-like level, what makes the Catholic Church the object of leftist hate is its detailed, unequivocal doctrinal opposition to abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior, premarital sex, extra-marital sex, easy divorce, and remarriage after divorce. While various Protestant denominations have long histories of altering key church doctrines on the most basic moral matters, the Catholic Church has remained firm in that regard. That is the crux of the matter in the current kulturkampf because Wilhelm Reich, a former Marxist and atheistic Jew who fled Nazi Germany, recognized that socialism could be saved only by linking it inextricably to a sexual revolution, by having this sexual revolution lead the socialist vanguard. Get the simpleminded masses, who were revolting everywhere to do whatever they wanted at the moment the urge hit them and so making their base desires their dogma; that is, addict them to promiscuity, then convince them that promiscuity is their inalienable right and that any opposition to such is the worst tyranny, and you could guarantee that those masses would support the rise of internationalist socialism, which Reich believed would usher in a reich of peace and harmony.

Wilhelm Reich knew exactly what the Catholic Church knew: a sexual revolution is always a revival of fertility cult paganism, and if it succeeds it will produce a society that is essentially socialist (economy administered by government for the social good of society, which uses religion to bolster and re-affirm the society in all its Big Government decadence) and anti-Yahweh. While Reich tippy-toed around homosexual practice, usually suggesting that a sexual revolution would free people to be more ‘natural’ in their heterosexual practices, all fertility cults feature widespread homosexual practice and ultimately ephebephilia: sexual activity between adults and young teens, preponderantly homosexual, sexual activity that is not about marriage and family (a 24-year-old man can be in love with a 17-year-old girl and desire her for his wife, which does not excuse his pre-marital sexual activity with her), but instead is about endless hedonism commingled with social posturing and climbing. The Catholic priests revealed in this scandal seemingly all fall into that category. They love not sex with children but sex with early adolescent boys and young men of youthful look. They are the North American Man-Boy Love Association type, who rightly observe from world history that all homosexual-friendly societies must become friendly to homosexual relations between adult men and early teenage boys, as well as between women and early teenage girls.

Reich, it must be emphasized, constantly pontificated on what he termed the rights of children to act sexually. According to him, parents have no rights to discipline their children’s sexual explorations, which are ‘natural’ and so must be indulged, even encouraged.

To achieve this wonderful world socialism born of a sexual revolution that presents children as free sexual agents, the teachings of historic Christianity had to go. Many Protestant denominations joined the war on Reich’s side rather quickly, voting to change church teaching on many, or all, matters sexual. That includes voting to end "sexism" by having women pastors/presbyters/priests. Self-styled "Free-thinkers" also joined the barrage, even when they were not so immature as to be largely irresponsible regarding sexual matters; assaulting Christian doctrinal and moral teachings, and particularly hating the Catholic Church, has been a chief hallmark of Western free-thinkers since Voltaire. The Catholic Church was the lone large entity in the West that remained true to the moral heritage of European Christian Civilization, and thus it was reviled, exactly as Reich directed, as the worst anachronism, the main abuser and denier of human freedom and potential and self-realization.

The charge is true if Reich’s overriding premise is true: that doing your own thing sexually with no fear of punishment, including ostracism, defines freedom. Thus Reich was an anti-Marxist only because the Soviets, after the Roaring Twenties during which most anything sexual was approved in the USSR, had turned out to be sexually "repressive." Stalin, the Pope and Hitler become roughly interchangeable in Reich’s mind, because all failed to support his sexual revolution. Each, particularly the latter two, was the utmost in tyranny that was hampering the rise of true socialism.

And Reich loved labeling all opponents as fascists opposed to democracy. Oppose abortion on demand or gay marriage or women clergy today, and supporters will invariably denounce you as a fascist in league with Hitler. They are Reich’s heirs, and their spiritual allies include not merely NOW, NARAL, Log Cabin Republicans, Queer Nation, NAMBLA, and the United Church of Christ (which I believe was the first denomination to sanction practicing homosexuals as pastors), but also the gay Catholic priests who have destroyed so many lives.

If the Catholic Church were remotely the autocratically intolerant and reactionary institution its enemies, including countless Protestants, liberal and conservative, have deemed it to be, it would not now be facing the problems caused by hundreds of priests who prey upon teenage boys and thousands more who are actively homosexual and restrict themselves to adult men. Such a church would have acted quickly and forcefully to stamp out the rabid wolves in sheep’s clothing who were defying the most basic church moral doctrines and thereby seducing multitudes toward damnation. A church that is not intolerant of those who use their authority to seduce and mislead others is a church failing. A church that is not reactionary in the face of a sexual revolution is a church failing.

The heirs of Wilhelm Reich could not alter Catholic doctrines, but with the door opened wide by Vatican II they sought to destroy all conservative Christian morality by perverting the Catholic Church from within. Pervert the young and impressionable in the pews with the homilies and examples and physical seductions of perverted priests (and professors at Catholic colleges and teachers at Catholic schools), and you might just deal a near deathblow.

Catholic liberals are now gleefully expecting just that. If you listen carefully, you will hear many of them asserting that soon now the closed system will be opened to democracy and the masses in the pews will get to vote on doctrines they believe to be relevant to our age, that women priests and tolerance of abortion on demand and homosexual practice are right around the corner. The day that happens is the day when the Catholic Church becomes the Whore of Babylon its most colorful Protestant detractors since Luther’s time have called it.

Before proceeding, I need to acknowledge that I am aware of the scholarship of Philip Jenkins documenting conclusively that sexual scandals among Catholic priests are, per capita, no higher than those among Protestant or Jewish clergy. In addition, Jenkins shows that abuse of minors by clergy is certainly no higher than abuse of minors by non-clerical adults who work with children: teachers, coaches, counselors. More important, Jenkins shows why the media overplays many abuses by Catholic clergy while largely ignoring similar abuse by others: to attack the Catholic Church, to suggest it is too corrupt to pronounce on moral matters, is to aid the heirs of Wilhelm Reich. There is no such benefit from exposing the sexual scandals among Methodist or black Baptist or Pentecostal or Jewish clergy and lay workers. In addition, I know personally about cases of awful abuse of teens and pre-teens by non-Catholic clergy and lay volunteers working with children that rarely rated even front page coverage in local newspapers and was quickly hushed. A double standard exists, and it exists to wreak the greatest possible damage on traditional Christian morals.

Then there is the matter of the simpleminded explanation, which is usually an assault from the anti-intellectual Protestant camp. To be fair, I must admit I have heard it made by an openly gay Episcopalian with a Ph.D. and by Jamie Glazov, the Neoconservative who alternates between identifying himself as a Catholic or a Jew. Glazov accepts the word of Wilhelm Reich’s heirs: "Dr. David Finkelhor, a prominent expert on the study of sexual abuse of children, has conclusively demonstrated that repressive sexual attitudes linked to many religions predispose many individuals to abnormal sexual activities, which include pedophilia."

According to Glazov via his sexpert advice, celibacy is the main cause of this series of abuses by Catholic priests. The basis of the charge is that sexual activity is not merely natural but essentially required and to thwart that natural requirement with a charge of celibacy is to distort and pervert the individual. It sounds good to anyone steeped in anti-Catholicism, but it is little more than the essence of Wilhelm Reich. Yes, even many of the most sincerely, devoutly conservative Protestants serve the philosophy of Wilhelm Reich at least in this one important area. Reich argued that celibacy is unnatural, that a person cannot be fully actualized without sexual activity. Those who make the argument that the celibacy discipline required of Latin rite priests (Eastern rite Catholic priests may marry) contributes to sexual abuse of parishioners are at best naively inconsistent unless they accept the rest of Reich’s philosophy: that it is equally distorting and producing of negative behavior to require celibacy of unmarried teens and adults who are not priests.

To be consistent in that is to endorse the sexual revolution; to be inconsistent is to endorse a good half of the sexual revolution. When you assert that a celibacy discipline is awful and perverting in and of itself, your teenage children, or your unmarried 30-year-old cousins, are going to know you for a hypocrite or simpleton when you require them to be celibate. Perhaps if the most conservative Protestants (I omit Jamie Glazov because his articles indicate he likely is beyond hope) would spend a little less time wildly mouthing Bible verses and diligently learn the basics of philosophy, of logical thought and recognizing inherent ends to positions, from studying Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas, they might grasp that necessary truth, which will aid them in their attempts to rightly divide the word of truth, and stop making a key part of Reich’s pro-sexual revolution argument for him.

That does not mean that I find the discipline of priestly celibacy an unimpeachable wonder of episcopal insight. If that were the case, there would be no married Eastern rite Catholic priests. It is relatively easy to make a case for married presbyters/priests from Scripture and Tradition, as Eastern rite Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants have been able to do intelligently. It seems to me that what must be emphasized repeatedly is that priestly celibacy is a discipline not a doctrine. A doctrine, once defined, is unchangeable; to change the doctrine is to deny the church (thus, most Protestant denominations are self-denied). A discipline is merely an aid, and any discipline can, and should be, changed when it fails to function as envisioned.

The ugly truth is that the discipline of Latin rite priestly celibacy made it easier for sexual revolutionaries of the homosexual front to entrench themselves in the Catholic Church. Ending that discipline will not solve the problem (which is the Sexual Revolution that has many forms and the failures of priests and bishops to adhere to standards), but it can help by ending the environment of only unmarried men at seminaries, which has eased the seductions of young seminarians by older, actively practicing homosexuals who can help the career of the ‘giving’ young priest. I believe that suspending the discipline would reinforce, not weaken, Catholic moral doctrines, including the male-only priesthood, for the re-allowance of married priests would emphasize the distinction between doctrine and discipline. That would be made obvious by outlawing alter girls at the same time.

A problem for conservatives is a tendency to confuse what are in effect disciplines with doctrines. When that happens, the conservatives clinging stubbornly and defiantly to disciplines that no longer work, the Left captures the moment by emphasizing the "blind adherence to tradition" of conservatives. Let’s have change for progress, the leftist change agent shouts to growing applause. To defend what seems most dear to them, many conservatives then trade doctrines, or at least dilute them, in order to maintain at full strength their cherished, comfortable disciplines. The current set of American Catholic archbishops and bishops teems with leftist change agents; it remains to be seen whether the conservatives among them know the difference between doctrine and discipline and are man enough to offend those who require offending and worse.

Jimmy Cantrell
Old February 12th, 2011 #17
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Libs Love TIPS

Jimmy Cantrell

Chipmunks have invaded my yard. The chief result is that Fergus has gone wild trying to catch the varmints and has ripped down three gutters. Thanks to some bleeding-heart suburban ordinance (likely passed by a bunch of silly soccer moms and their city-softened, perhaps unmanned, husbands and sons who consider hunting barbaric), it is illegal for me to kill any wild animal on my property – no matter how much damage to my property those varmints do. Of course, my Dachshund cannot be charged for killing a chipmunk (though I have been told that PETA officials demand laws holding human owners criminally responsible for their pets that "murder" varmints). That means that I turn Fergus loose, and if he doesn’t smell a nearby trashcan, he digs up the yard and tears down the gutters. At least I have been able to gloat over the corpse of one chipmunk.

So I’m out in the back yard, mumbling about the new Tennessee sales tax (it would be racist to cut either Affirmative Action or services to inner city Memphis and Nashville, and the racist legislators refused to adopt the state income tax advocated by blacks and their non-racist allies) and halfway keeping an eye on Fergus. Always sit with your back to the wall to spy the approach of anyone who might be trouble. That’s a great lesson from Westerns, and it applies to my yard.

"One of my college teachers told me Southern racism wasn’t just about Southerners being all bad; he said it was this kind of weather that made people do terrible things to innocent blacks"

I turn. "Well Biff, as even Jesse Jackson has admitted a couple of times, American blacks today in any 10 year period slaughter more of each other than whites—all whites and not just Southerners—have lynched blacks in all of American history."

"That’s what racism does," Biff sighs with sad countenance.


"Makes even innocent blacks become violent against their own people"

"It’s a very good thing," I respond, "that there were no whites in charge and bringing hatred to Rwanda or Burundi or Uganda or Zaire or Somalia or Ethiopia or the Sudan or Sierra Leone or Liberia or Senegal or Guinea or Nigeria or Angola or Zimbabwe or Mozambique or Madagascar or Haiti; otherwise, perfectly innocent blacks would have been forced to exterminate themselves."

"The power of white racism is strong," Biff intones, "floating across borders and touching everything."

"And as omnipresent as voodoo," I add.

"That’s why," Biff explains, "we not only have to increase our foreign aid to Africa; we also have to help many of those blacks come to America so we can give them Affirmative Action."

"And they then will use their democratic rights to vote to remake America in their African image, including eradicating all traces of anything they see as racist in our history and heritage," I observe. "And won’t that leave our descendants something of a dusky, multicultural paradise?"

"It’s what Baby says all the Afrocentric professors and students and anti-racist whites are working for," he acknowledges.

"And," I suggest, "if we add Puerto Rico, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica as our 51st through 54th states, we would in one fell swoop increase our multicultural level by about a third."

"I never thought of that," Biff admits. "And just think how those peoples of color would vote! This country would never again face the horror of a non-liberal President or Congress or Federal judge."

"That’s why both Democrats and Neoconservatives love mass immigration of Third World peoples," I observe. "It guarantees them the big government they love."

"And that proposed Terrorism Information and Prevention System will fit right with all these other moves our government is making from racism to multicultural tolerance of diversity," Biff pipes.

"How so," I ask.

"Well," he begins, "the TIPS program will have at least one million Americans loyal to their government spying on other Americans to make sure there is no terrorism being planned. And that million number is just the first batch," he adds with a smack of the lips. "It could be 20 million within a couple of years."

"Sounds Beria-esque," I state.

Biff scratches his head, his brow furrowed, his Northwestern University and Wharton School of Business trained mind working. "I know about his sayings like the fat lady singing, but I didn’t know he was, like, all patriotic and interested in preventing terrorism."

"Well," I say, quickly controlling myself, "Yogi was a Yankee, and Yankees have a long history of using big government to destroy individual freedoms while strengthening the central government that they believe gives us our freedoms. If George Will is an indicator, nerdy Cub fans are pretty much the same."

"Uh, yeah," Biff says with a nod. "Anyways, this TIPS thing will forever end all racist, sexist, homophobic opposition to liberal progress."

"How’s that," I wonder.

"Simple," Biff declares. "They won’t be able to focus on Arabs."

"Why not?"

"Well, even though most Jews would love to use such a program to eliminate the definite and growing Islamic threat to their place in secularized America," Biff explains, "they won’t be able to."

"Consciences will kick in," I guess.

Biff looks at me as if he is waiting for the punch line. "Because the overwhelming majority of American citizens who convert to Islam are black, and because virtually are Moslems are not white. Well, they’re Caucasian, but not European white; they have dark skins."

"Oh," I say, "so the anti-white European Christian Civilization multiculturalism that Jews, in numbers way beyond their percentage of the population, helped bring into power is now set to turn on Jews because Moslems are darker."

Biff lowers his head slightly. "It’s terribly sad. Baby’s people played a major role in ending the injustices of white Christians, and now they are being turned on by the very people they have helped. But there is hope."

"To reunite Jews and blacks," I ask.

"Absolutely," Biff answers, "and the way to do that is use the TIPS program to go after other terrorist threats. They may not be quite as great a threat as Moslems, but at least you can attack them without being accused of racism."

"Got to avoid being called racist," I state, "no matter the cost. By the way, what groups of terrorists are you talking about?"

"The worst kind," Biff responds: "the homegrown, white kind. I read an editorial about that very need in The New York Times."

"I think I get it now," I say.

"It’s obvious once you think about it," he declares. "With all those Southerners waving their flags—flags that are in direct opposition to the Pledge of Allegiance—and being against Affirmative Action, blacks and other non-whites are terrorized daily. We can use that TIPS program to eliminate those terrorists before they destroy our freedoms of speech and the press."

"A pre-emptive strike against those who must be denied their freedoms to speak and associate as they wish because blacks hate them and their culture," I summarize.

"It’s necessary to keep America on the track of increasing justice for all," Biff avows, "and it can’t stop when we use TIPS to take out the League of the South and the Sons of Confederate Veterans."

"Why not," I ask.

"You’ve been out west," Biff splutters. "There are all kinds of cowboys out there, almost as bad as hillbillies and rednecks, who don’t trust, maybe even hate, their federal government. They think they should be able to do with their land what they want, and they sometimes say bad things about the government. Someday," he says firmly, "they could resist with guns when the federal government is making them do the right thing."

"Surely the northeast, upper Midwest, and Pacific coast are no terrorist threat to our current secularized big central government," I offer.

"Not like the South certainly," Biff agrees, "but there are all kinds of individual right-wingers and libertarians in those regions. Fellow travelers of Southerners. A good TIPS program will sniff them out so the government can neutralize the threat. We can’t have freedom and tolerance while such homegrown white terrorists are free to spread their racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-government hate."

"The party of Lincoln and the spiritual and intellectual heirs of Marx combining to give us a Pledge of Allegiance-friendly Big Brother," I conclude.

"It’s getting so that I almost could wish I had voted for Bush," Biff confesses. "Those neo-cons are some sharp guys."

"In some cases, yes," I say, "but it’s what that sharpness is puncturing which should be the issue."

Jimmy Cantrell
Old February 12th, 2011 #18
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Public Diseducation: John Dewey's Prussic Acid.

Jimmy Cantrell

I just received a letter from Steve Wilkins, Presbyterian pastor and Southern apologist, a rare old school conservative in both hats. The letter announces the growth of Geneva Academy, a Classical Christian secondary school for boys, and asks for donations to continue this pedagogical work. As I am currently involved with Classical Christian home schooling, I am not in a position to donate to this cause, but I do want to advertise it, especially to draw attention to the pressing need to provide proper education in every community in America.

And the less it has to do with government and the more it rejects modern philosophy, the more likely it is to be proper. Modern Government schooling began in early-nineteenth-century Prussia, home of both nation-as-military-ever-raring-to-go-to-war and the ultra-liberal Lutheran Bible scholarship that prepared the ground for the mass acceptance of Hegelianism and that spread quickly to most English-speaking Protestant denominations and by the post World War One era to virtually all churches, eventually to dominate most (Vatican II, which was driven preponderantly by Germans and embraced most whole-heartedly by Germans and Anglophones, was proof it had amassed great power within the Catholic Church at the dawn of the swinging 1960s).

Since its inception, modern government schooling has been linked inextricably to two things: a continuing increase of both centralization of government and secularization of society. Thus, modern government schooling inherently produces moral, social, and religious moves to the Left as well as of the growth, centralization, and secularization of government power.

John Dewey rightly knew that twentieth-century American public schools, even starting as they did with daily Bible readings and school prayers, would slowly but inevitably indoctrinate the masses into welcoming, and then pandering for the extension of, the basic socialist worldview (including necessarily at some point an end to the prayers and Bible readings). And as the public school educated masses tilted, a little more each generation, to the Left politically, socially, and morally, the churches whose pews they filled, whose coffers required their donations, would follow with leftward lurches more powerful than could have been engineered by any coterie of liberal seminary graduates and certainly by any faction of avowed socialists. The end result is terrible: most churches have proven to be not merely incapable of mounting significant opposition to the preponderantly agnostic socialist revolution but actually have helped lead much of it under the banners of Ecumenicism (even with Christ deniers) and Tolerance of Diversity (pedophiles expect that soon they will join homosexuals as a specially protected class). The Devil wins easily by getting you to follow your bleeding heart and your good intentions right into serving his goals, and that process is immeasurably easier when your mind has been dulled and filled with garbage by the process of modern education.

Like me, many of you may have dealt, in church as well as political and educational activities, with sincere, devout church-going folks who believe they are conservative theologically and politically but are nothing more than 1950s or -60s or -70s liberals. Comparing themselves to the contemporary leftist groups that dominate academia, the NEA, and journalism, groups that are overtly and stridently anti-Christian and anti-Western Civilization and anti-white as well as pro-homosexual, they cannot imagine themselves as anything less than conservative. Of course, such a frame of reference is worthless, for it allows a Hillary Clinton (not an overt Afrocentrist or Queer Theorist and a rather respectable contemporary Methodist who loves any free market that allows her to get rich) to cast herself as conservative or at least middle-of-the-road.

Such thinking is an inevitable result of Modern public schooling: leading the intellectually lacking to establish a false criteria for judging Left and Right, as well as wrong and right, bad and good, false and true, superficial and profound, secondary and primary, ephemeral and eternal. Then those Dewey manufactured neo-conservatives, in what should be the obvious tip-off that they are unwitting pawns of the Left, wrongly judge most real conservatives as far right extremists and so denounce them. That process has occurred with increasing frequency since the late 1950s in education, government, journalism, law, publishing, and religion. Its telos is PC totalitarianism.

I once had a surreal conversation with a man who is truly part of the conservative wing of the Southern Baptist Convention (opposes women pastors and abortion-on-demand and believes Jews must convert to Christianity to be saved) who made the case that a woman recently hired to teach English at a Baptist college would help the cause of political conservatism. His case was that, unlike some Ph.D.s in English who are conservative, this woman was not seen as hostile to modern ideas or to racial, ethnic, religious, and regional groups that historically are linked to the rise of Modern Liberalism. He described her as a compassionate conservative. That she intended to use her classroom to teach about the sexism that marred the world, including Christianity, before the advent of Modern Feminism meant little or nothing to this Baptist “conservative.” That she intended to teach Southern Literature, the literature of the heart of the Bible Belt, as a literature that marks Southern culture’s failures to overcome racism and sexism, which “failures” revealed the Christianity of Southerners (the most conservative people in America for the past two centuries) to be tainted and required the Federal Government to enforce racial egalitarianism in order to preserve freedom and democracy, was insufficient proof to the Baptist “conservative” that his pet female “compassionate conservative” academic was doing the work of the Left in somewhat diluted, kinder, gentler form. He simply did not want any right-wing extremists ruining the reputation of his alma mater and his denomination. If we’re not seen as intolerant by the media and the masses, he deduced, more kids will come to the college and more people will be leading lives for Jesus.

We have seen that pattern of thought ruin the National Review as well as most church-related colleges and denominational governing bodies. Desiring initially to prove to the Left’s core groups (blacks, Feminists, Jews, Yankee Social Gospelers, Unitarian-Universalists, homosexuals, mestizo Hispanics, and now Muslims) that they are not violently and mindlessly hate-driven and then attempting to placate such groups into not calling them racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semite, xenophobe, the Dewey-system trained “conservatives” cast aspersions on the very intellectual, moral, and cultural heritage they profess to conserve, eventually coming to reject most of it for almost the same reasons given by leftists. And the only way to stop that drive to accept leftist multicultural, anti-Christian Empire (which has forged a modern leftist Jesus Golden Calf for popular consumption, one that alternates between effeminacy and belligerence to save Israel) is to save a large number of our children from the Government school system as well as from church-related schools that are virtually nothing more than Government schools of the 1950s: John Dewey’s system, his Progressive pedagogy, decorated with prayers and Bible readings that can do no more than slightly slow the process of decay.

As each group requires masses of ignorant Americans who, like the imperial Romans, confuse adoration for a governmentally centralized, multicultural empire with real patriotism (the kind exemplified by Cincinnatus), neither leftists nor neocons can afford many of you rediscovering Classical Christian education.

Jimmy Cantrell
Old February 12th, 2011 #19
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Of Mass Men & Monsters

Jimmy Cantrell

Recently I had this question posed to me (in somewhat different words): Why are so few people in the Western World interested in studying and preserving the heritage of Western Christian Civilization?

Part of the answer is that modern democracy elevated the mass man to preeminence and he is naturally anti-intellectual, as are all averages. The excellent old Southern phrase common as dirt is one attempt at expressing the problems of mass man enthroned by Modern democracy as arbiter of all higher cultural values. Culture that is worth having, however, is always created and refined by a select few from a cultural group’s conservative and tested core of values, and it is promoted by another select few whose societal positions above mass man guarantee that others, in an attempt to be seen as more than mass man, will strive to wrap themselves in the artifacts and beliefs of the higher culture. Such a system works to elevate people culturally.

Rather like an adolescent, mass man now shouts that though he is running things, he ain’t going to be buffaloed into following old fashioned traditions or into reading nothing he don’t want to, because he is a free man and his opinion is as good as anybody’s—in fact, better, because his opinions are much more popular—and he infinitely prefers TV and James Bond and Playboy and Sports Illustrated and stock market reports to those big books written by dead guys whose names he can’t pronounce and whose ideas ain’t democratic anyways and sure ain’t useful in getting a high paying job. Clearly, such a system works relentlessly to stagnate and then lower people culturally.

Add non-white races and non-Christian religions to the mix and you get Hell set loose for a romp in the subdivisions. As that is our current situation, it may be helpful to consider how we got to the point at which not only do most white people care next to nothing about reinvigorating Western Christian Civilization, but many actively work to strengthen and spread cultures other than that of their ancestors, and a significant number of those also work to destroy the heritage of Western Christian Civilization.

Democracy is not the sole reason. In his Life of Solon, Plutarch spends a few lines on Thales of Miletus. That this one of the Seven Sages remained a bachelor in part due to fear that children and wife would die before him, which grief would be difficult to bear (and could interrupt work), is an irritant that Plutarch must address. Plutarch says that the mind, which ancient Greeks like Celts saw as the housing of the soul, naturally and inextricably features a calling to affection, to love. When people do not love that which is rightly theirs, the need will find expression elsewhere. Plutarch describes this as like a house abandoned by inheritors, which means the heirs, if they survive, occupy elsewhere, and others, someone else’s children, occupy the ancestral house. People like Thales denied themselves children and rightful heirs, and then at some point adopted to fill the need. Plutarch is most disturbed that this displacing of love means that illegitimate children -even slaves!- are made heirs.

Translate that image from individuals to Western Civilization. For various reasons, countless numbers of people in the Modern Age have ignored the need to love and honor their culture and its heritage. The innate need to express love for culture then, when the clock began to ring that it was past time to do so, sought other outlets. For the moderns in this position, the illegitimate children and children of slaves they have adopted to inherit the ancestral house range from Americanized blacks and sub-Saharan African cultures to Islam to Buddhism to Marxism to Jewish style secularist agnosticism to ‘Native American spirituality’ to save-the-whales vegetarianism to the Lotus-Eater drug culture.

Of course, Thales of Miletus had no child, which meant that he did not dispossess a natural child in order to make his sister’s son the heir of his house. But the moderns in the Western World who struggle to ensconce the eventually self-destructive alliance (because they are united only in desiring the emasculation or death of the common “oppressor”) of blacks, Jews, Moslems, mestizos, East Asians, Feminists, homosexuals, atheists/agnostics, and socialists in the ancestral house as new Multicultural Autocrat must first participate in killing Western Christian Civilization.

He who murders his child is a monster. He who murders his child precisely to prevent that child from inheriting the ancestral house so that the scions of slaves and foreigners may move in and remake it according to their lights is doubly a monster. He who refuses to denounce the monster partakes of its crimes.

Jimmy Cantrell
Old February 12th, 2011 #20
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,573
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

The Virtue of Xenophobia

by Jimmy Cantrell


[no next now]


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 AM.
Page generated in 0.37062 seconds.