Category: Marxism/Cultural Marxism

Diana West, Lawrence Auster, & McAtee On The Consequences Of WW II

“Having failed to destroy the democracies by making Nazi war, then, Hitler may have unwittingly managed to destroy democracies by effecting a post-Nazi peace in which the act of pledging allegiance to the flag itself, for example, would practically become an act of nationalist supremacism – racism, even; bigotry too. Quite suddenly, it didn’t matter whether the culture in question led to a reign of terror, or to liberty and justice for all. The act of maintaining or defending the culture, or, ultimately, even defining it — whether through unabashed opposition to communist expansionism, purposefully selective immigration practices, or even sticking to the Western canon – became confused with and condemned as an exclusionary and, therefore, evil chauvinism. In this way, having won the great victory, the Allies lost the will to survive. Writer Lawrence Auster has explored this theme.

‘Having defined the ultimate evil of Nazism, not as the ultimate violation of the moral law as traditionally understood, by as the violation of liberal tolerance, postwar liberalism then set about dismantling all the existing ordinary particularisms of our own society (including in the case of the EU, nationhood itself) in the name of preventing a resurgence of Nazi-like evil. This was the birth of political correctness, which sees any failure on our part to be completely open to and accepting of the Other – and thus any normal attachment to our own ways and our own society – as the equivalent of Nazism.'”

Diana West
The Death of the Grownup – pg. 191

1.) What West describes here is a description of the triumph of Communism over the West as a result of WW II. The post-Nazi peace she describes is, in point of fact, a peace driven not by a over-reaction to Hitlerian National-Socialism but a peace driven by Communist triumph. The Western “Democracies” got in bed with Stalin and the result was a Communist peace at the end of the war that resulted in all that West describes above. Consider that it has always been a descriptor of Communism to flatten out all distinctions. This flattening of all distinctions brought on by the Bolshevik Communist victory in WW II is what Lawrence above refers to as “dismantling all the existing ordinary particularisms.” This dismantling that occurred as a result of WW II was not a matter of Hitler “unwittingly managing to destroy democracies by effecting a post-Nazi peace” but rather a matter of the Communists – in Russia and in the Democracies – wittingly setting loose a virus that would destroy those democracies.

In brief, where we are at now, is not a matter of something that accidentally happened as a result of WW II, rather where we are at now is a matter of being purposefully designed and pursued by the Communists in the West in the US government and US universities.

2.) Note above that while Diana West properly notes that exclusionary practices that favor Western traditions in culture are now condemned as bigotry and evil chauvinism what remains just as vibrant as ever are the exclusionary practices. The habit of exclusion has not disappeared in the West with the triumph of Communism and political correctness. We are every bit exclusionary today as we were before WW II. The difference is that our exclusionary vision today now chooses different exclusions. What has been excluded today is a White Christian patriarchal culture and that in the name of an anti-bigotry inclusionary vision. We are not bigoted against particularity of any sort save the particularity that pursues a different particularity then the particularity of the New World Order (Babelism … Alienism … Oikophilia, etc.).

3.) The reason that Christian Nationalists today as so adamantly opposed is due to the fact that they want to pursue a different set of exclusionary practices than the anti-Christ One Worlders desire, but have no doubt, both the anti-Christ One Worlders and the Christian Nationalists are every bit as exclusionary in their vision of a desired culture. The reason that so many people find Christian Nationalism to be such a threat is that the Communist anti-Christ one world vision has been fed to us, as a people, morning, noon, and night, for every generation since the Communist victory in WW II.

4.) IF, having a normal attachment to our own ways and our own society  is now seen as “Nazism,” as Auster writes above, then we should just own the fact that we are Nazis. If that is the way that the Communist are going to define Nazism then we need to get over being called “Nazis,” because that is what they are going to call us all day long. It is clear that to a Communist any proper love for a particular people, particular place, and a muscular Christian faith, is now routinely called “Nazism.” We should laugh at the pejorative the way Nick Fuentes laughed at Piers Morgan.

5.) We need to understand that our Communist enemies today desire to do to us what they did to the Germans when they triumphed over them in WW II. This is not a polite disagreement. This is a fight for life and death. Those people intend to destroy us. They are beginning with seeking to ruin people economically and professionally but if they get their way eventually they will move beyond “ruin” to “dead.”

Toby Sumpter’s Insistence That If Luther Were Alive Today He Would Repent

 “This sentiment (that Martin Luther would be excommunicated if he were alive today, which I’ve seen elsewhere) seems to suggest that we should not expect greater maturity over time and history. Many of the great heroes of the faith were immature in theology or morals because the Holy Spirit has been sanctifying the church over history. If a grown man continues to act like an 8 year old boy, that is a problem, don’t you think? But thank God for growth in holiness. I think it’s likely that Luther would not be excommunicated today because if he lived today he would have the benefit of the sanctification of the last 500 years. Cheers!”

Toby  Sumpter
Doug Wilson Lieutenant
Author of Blog — No Legs Still Walking

1.) Toby wants us to believe that the Church today is more mature than the Reformation Church of Martin Luther. That sentiment is to boggle the mind. Keep in mind also that Toby is saying here that not only is the Church today more mature than the Reformation Church of Martin Luther but old Toby is also saying that the Church today is more mature on this subject than the Christian Church has been for 2000 years. Luther’s position on this subject was the same as Chrysostom’s, the same as Augustine’s, the same as Calvin’s, the same as Origin’s, the same as St. Jerome’s, the same as Justin Martyr. If one scans the two books “Who is My Neighbor,” as well as Alexander Storen’s “A Survey of Racialism in Christian Sacred Tradition” one begins to see that Luther’s view on the subject at hand is a view that has been held by the Church in all times and in all places until the post-war consensus. One also has to consider all the Church councils that took place in Church history dealing with the Bagel problem. Old Toby would be wise to try and find a copy of Maurice Pinay’s “The Plot Against The Church,” and give it a read.

2.) Old Toby refuses to consider his other option on this matter. His other option is that Old Toby and his Federal Vision compatriots are the ones who are immature. It is possible that it is the Church today and not the Christian church throughout history that is in error regarding the Bagels.

3.) The idea that Martin Luther would, were he alive today, be a more mature man on the issue of the Bagels leaves one either incredulous or leaves one doubled over in laughter. Keep in mind that Luther only came to his conclusions regarding the Bagels after having great hopes for their conversion. It was only after seeing that they would not come into the Church that Luther wrote the book he wrote.

I would also recommend that Old Toby get a copy of E. Michael Jones’ “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit,” and give it a read.

Addendum;

This is a note left in the comments from Ron that I thought should be added here;

Note to Toby:

“When Luther departed for Worms, his friends warned him that he may lose his life and even the cause of the evangelism will be lost. To this Luther replied, “It is unimportant what happens to Dr. Martin, and I suppose it is possible that I may not be able to save the cause of evangelism, but the point is that the truth be heard.” It is equally inconsequential what happens to each of us personally … but rather that the truth be spoken in our time as well.” pp. 149-50.

Elias Simojoki, ‘The Burning Bush’, trans. Jarno Alander

Hardly sounds to me like a man that needs to grow up to your level of holiness.

Cheers!

Rich Lusk on Luther … McAtee on Rich Lusk

“Martin Luther did not operate with modern racial categories as we know them. Again, his opposition to the Jews stemmed from their theology and resultant practices, not their genetics or physical lineage. He was not a proto-Hitler arguing that Jews were an inferior race. He saw the Jewish religion (Judaism) as a false religion and, because Jews rarely converted in his day, a threat to the Christian society in which he lived.”

Rich Lusk
Heretical Federal Vision Clergy 

1.) Did Luther or did he not loathe the Bagels? If he loathed the Bagels then he was operating with modern racial categories.

2.) Why would Lusk make this kind of hard and fast distinction between a people’s genetic lineage and their theology and resultant practices? Now, to be sure, not all individual Bagels would be or will be Christ haters. Doubtless many individual Bagels love the Christ of the Bible. Praise God for them. But speaking in generalities, it is often the case that when one is speaking of genetic lines that there is overlay between genetic lineage, and theology and resultant practices. This is why, for example, Reformed Theologian Dr. Robert Godfrey could once speak about Dutch Calvinists being suspicious.

3.) Given what Luther says in his book, “The Bagels and Their Lies,” I’m pretty sure Luther, while perhaps not agreeing w/ Hitler about the Bagels being an inferior race would have had little problem with SOME of the actions that Hitler took regarding the Bagels. Luther also would have agreed with Hitler on the necessity of putting an immediate end to Kristallnacht, for example.

4.) And Bagels remain a threat to what is left of the Christian society in which we once lived and they understand that Biblical Christians are a threat to the world they have created.

Someone tell Rich Lusk that he does not understand either Luther or the times in which we are living.

It’s About The “Nation,” Stupid … Amfest & American Christianity At A Cross-Roads

This past week at the Amfest, put together but TPUSA (Charlie Kirk’s organization) it was made clear that there are exists a serious and obvious split in the organization. This same split is being played out Institutionally across our cultural landscape. The scope and depth of this split is not one that is going to be papered over and it’s presence may result in the Republican party getting soundly trounced in the mid-term elections.

We see this split already being manifested in the “conservative, ” institutional “Reformed” “church”. Indeed, it has been present for several years already but it seems to be coming to a head just at the time when we see Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, Steve Deace, and Doug Wilson frothing at the mouth against Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon who likewise have plenty of froth about their lips.

Some would say the debate is about the answer to the question; “What is an American?” We might refine this by saying that the debate deals with the question; “What is a nation?,” or even more precise, “Is reality a complete social construct?” That the debate seen at the TPUSA event has entered into the church has already played out on several stages but there is another Act in this play brewing as the debate coughs up charges being brought up against Rev. Sam Ketcham for being a “wacist.”

Just to be clear here the split that is entering into not only our politics and churches but also our workplaces and families is a split that has been a long time coming. It was guaranteed to eventually enter into our lives by the seeds that were planted with the 1965 Hart-Cellar immigration act. The broad split we are seeing now began as a hairline fracture and has grown and grown over the decades following the Hart-Cellar immigration act.

As this split gets fleshed out it becomes apparent that this split is primarily defined as a contest between those who believe in the post-modern worldview where men can define their own reality however they want it vs. those who believe that reality comes to us ready made. It is a split between the egalitarians and those who believe in social hierarchy … between those who believe that reality is patriarchal vs. those who believe that men and women can be interchangeable cogs … between those who believe that a nation is defined only by the propositions its citizens adhere to vs. those who believe that a nation not only is defined by a shared worldview but also, just as important, by a bond of blood and soil…. between paleo-conservatives of the Sam Francis type vs. the neoconservatives of the Ben Shapiro type … between the New World Order types vs. the “My country right or wrong but still my country” types… between “Kinism is acceptable for Jews vs. Kinism is acceptable for white people,” …  between those who believe a nation is about the Gross Domestic Product vs. those who believe that a nation is defined not by economics but by people-hood … between those who believe that the idea of borders is a quaint custom vs. those who believe that borders are sacred … between those who remember the history of the contest between Jews and Christians vs. those who say including this definer proves I a anti-Semitic … between those who support Trump and those who would more likely support a 1968 George Wallace … between those who worship in a circus/rock concert atmosphere vs. those who believe in the regulative principle for worship … between those who believe in a polytheistic social order where all the gods are invited into the public square vs. those who believe we should be a distinctly Christian nation … between those who believe that salvation coming to all races means that all races can and should marry vs those who believe that salvation coming to all people doesn’t mean God intends for the world to become a coffee colored brown … between those who have a vision of a Christianized New World Babel Order vs. those who insist that any version, including a putatively Christian one, is an abomination before God.

This is a battle that has been fought before … and lost before. In the 1930s there arose a movement called “The America First” movement led by people like Charles Lindbergh, Gen. Robert E. Wood, Newspaper magnate Robert R. McCormick, “Father” Charles Coughlin, Garet Garrett, John T. Flynn and many others. Like the current pro-America wing of the MAGA movement the America First Movement of the 1930s was routinely accused of Fascism and was made up of anti-communists, former military men, and prominent journalists. Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon are to the modern incarnation of the America First movement now what Garret Garrett and John T. Flynn was to the America First committee was in 1939.

The 1930s version of the American First committee lost out with the rise of WW II. Nobody could sell isolationism in the head winds of the successful propaganda that “America experienced a dirty under-handed Jap sneak attack,” and so the America First Committee died as WW II gained life. I am confident in saying if this version of America First does not win out there will be no future replay because defeat in this contest means the end of America as a White Anglo Saxon Christian nation.

Something else that has to be understood here is that the war described above is not the only war that the America Firsters are fighting. The war described above is a internecine war. Illustratively speaking this war is the war between the Colonial Patriots vs. the Colonial Tories. Once winning that war with the Colonial Tories the Colonial Patriots still had to fight the Red Coats and win. We are fighting a two front war. The first front is against the “neoconservatives.” Our reward for winning against the Socialist neocons is the opportunity to fight against the Communist Democrat One worlders.

So, it is a two front war. A two front war where the only difference between the neocons and the Democrats is the difference that existed between the Montagnards and the Jacobins during the French Revolution. One side is kind of hard left while the other side is the “Two Daddys can adopt babies” hard left.

Frankly, the odds are against us defeating the deep pockets of the Ben Shapiros, Mark Levins, and Doug Wilsons of the contest. These people have access to almost inexhaustible wealth given their Israeli connections. Plus, the leadership of the Old Right is suspect. The things that fall out of the mouths of the likes of Tucker Carlson, J. D. Vance, and Steve Bannon at times makes one wonder if they are really controlled opposition themselves.

In my world, the really sad thing about all this is to see how the “conservative” churches are falling on this contest. Almost without exception the “conservative Churches” are either on the side of the neocons or they refuse to support the conservative cause, thus creating a vacuum for the Communist cause to enter. On the issues surrounding this civil war, the Church, generally speaking, is a rotten place to get one’s bearings. The modern church has, exceptions notwithstanding, cast their lot in favor of the “let’s put all the races into a blender just as long as individuals say they’re ‘Christian.'” Race, for the Doug Wilson expression of the Reformed and Evangelical church, is merely a social construct that has no real meaning just as long as “everyone loves them some Jesus.”

So which way America? You are at a fork in the road and you must decide whether or not, not only your nation but also your Christianity will be in line with Old Narnia or whether your nation will be in line with the Coke commercial of the 1970s singing …

“I’d like to buy the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees
And snow white turtle doves.

Chorus:

I’d like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I’d like to buy the world a Coke
And keep it company
That’s the real thing.”

 

 

A Racial Review Of Rob Reiner’s “A Few Good Men”

Out of my deep respect for the memory of Rob Reiner (sarcasm off) I decided to view again “A Few Good Men.” A 1992 film where the white military officers are all evil or inept and the only pure people who exist as the film’s heroes are;

1.) An accused gung-ho black Sgt. in the Marine Corps
2.) A highly principled feminist attorney (Demi Moore)
3.) A black Judge
4.) A White Lt. Col. who shows his purity by killing himself
5.) a Jewish lawyer serving with Cruise on the defense team (character name – Weinberg)

Along the way in the film Tom Cruise is converted by Demi Moore to see the righteousness in not plea bargaining a sentence for the principled black Sgt. and his doofus white underling private who have been arrested for murdering a Hispanic soldier who is portrayed as a saint throughout the film. Throughout the film the white private from Iowa who is a few bricks shy of a full load is contrasted with the wise black Sargeant. The white private is a dunce and is clueless about what is going on, while the black Sargeant is principled.

The villains in the film are all military

1.) The biggest villain is Jack Nicholson’s character
2.) His villainy is shared by his underling, First Lieutenant Jonathan James Kendrick, played by Kiefer Sutherland

Of course both of these chaps are white and they are presented throughout the film as the problem with the Marine Corps and indeed, by extension, the problem with white people in general. White people just want to both kill off brown people, or failing that, they want to see them unjustly imprisoned as scapegoats for their crimes.

Now, being honest, I have little sympathy for US Military types since it is my conviction that the US Military has served for decades as the muscle for the New World Order (see Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler’s “War is a Rackett”). However, it is clear that Aaron Sorokin (Jewish writer of the film) is going after both the US Military and is tying the problem in the US Military with the presence of white people. “A Few Good Men,” is clearly an attack on white people.

The one white person who isn’t an explicit liberal in the film is played by Kevin Bacon. Bacon is the prosecuting attorney and he is depicted as being a guy who is caught in the wheels of the system. He does his job — a job that means he is trying to put away a black man and his dumb white farm boy friend for life for murder, and this despite his sense that he knows that something is amiss in the case he is prosecuting. It is Bacon’s character more than anybody else as the film unfolds how is “just following orders.” Again, a more subtle dig at white people, I would say.

The White people would get away with it all if only Jack Nicholson’s character was just a wee bit sane. But the white man’s sanity is so unstable and his vanity so grand that Col. Nathan Jessep (Nicholson’s character) can’t resist, while on the witness stand, from boldly and proudly confessing to his crime of ordering the black sargeant and the white Iowa farm boy to give a “code red” (illicit punishment) to the poor saintly Hispanic private that resulted in his death. Col. Jessep is immediately arrested and the Jewish liberal worldview is vindicated. The white lawyer played by Cruise is a hero because he has acted consistent with the feminism and Jewish worldview of the characters played by Demi Moore and Kevin Pollack.

Other racial scenes in the film include the point where the black judge is able to put Col. Nathan Jessep in his place by requiring Jessep to refer to him as “Your Honor.” Also Cuba Gooding plays a virtuous soldier who gives righteous testimony during the trial.

There is a bit of class warfare going on in the film as well. Cruise’s character is seen as being a upscale elite Harvard type born to the manor while his opponent (Nicholson) is portrayed as coming from a humble blue collar beginning. This theme is played off a couple times in dialogue between Nicholson and Cruise. Though they are each white they come from different worlds.

One has to like Cruise’s character. Flippant, irreverent, sarcastic, callow, and intelligent. Cruise’s character (Daniel Kaffee) is the perfect anti-establishment foil for spit and polish Col. Nathan Jessep. Because of this the viewer is pulled into supporting Kaffee while abominating Col. Jessep’s character (arrogant, self-righteous, grandiose, dismissive). In such a way worldviews of the viewers are subtly changed over time and with repeated similar messaging.

This film was released in 1992 but even then the worldview of WOKE and Jewish cultural Marxism was working its way into the arts.

Rob Reiner’s Cultural Marxist Jewish worldview is on parade in this film.