Culture – Iron Ink

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.”

Children In Adult Bodies

The paradox of the 21st century life is that in the following of previous obvious and once reflexive middle-class manners and mores has now become, oddly enough, an act of rugged individualism that is found to be suspicious. This is so true that the extent to which the once previous standard behavior, that was considered obviously adult and mature, is now considered the behavior of the oddball or the maverick. It is now surreal to our current forever adolescent population to behave in way in which our Christian great-grandparents thought to be distressingly obvious.

For example, our great-grandparents would not attend worship services without dressing so as to be in the presence of the King. Our great-grandparents would be shocked with the casualness in which we enter into worship. Today, in many churches, if a young lady were to wear a modest dress into worship with an appropriate hat for a head-covering most folk would see it as an act of “rugged individualism,” or of “being quirky.” Yet, I have boyhood memories of this once standard behavior of all the women in the church.

For example, what passes for worship today in your average church, complete with praise band, 10 – 15 minute self-help talks from the clergy that we are told are “sermons”, coffee baristas serving up hot joe just outside the sanctuary, all point to adolescents being in charge and running the show. Years ago, while on holiday I attended such a church where the young ladies in the praise band were wearing skirts so short that I’m sure young men attended in hopes of seeing the female band members raise their hands high in praise.

For example, some years ago in Farmland, Indiana (population 1300) the Ladies’ Bridge Club bard its 70-90 year old female bods in a pinup calendar in order to save a courthouse that was a wee bit older than they. It’s hard to imagine our great-grandmothers coming up with that idea. It is more likely that anybody who came up with the idea would be shunned by the Ladies’ Bridge Club of Farmland, Indiana.

For example, the phenomenon of middle age crisis (which I’ve seen a great deal of during my years in the ministry) finds middle age and older adult seeking to reach back to be “young again.” The ironic thing here though is that the attempt to remain “forever young,” by adults of all ages has made the idea of “mid-life crisis” passe. I mean, how can an adult reach back to be young again, when they have never grown up to begin with?

For example, can you really imagine your great-grandparents take your grandparents (when your grandparents were children) to Queer-Time story hour at your local community library? Now the rare few who put up a protest are seen as “prudes” and “puritanical.”

For example, a decade or so ago I overheard a couple Mom’s talking about their teenager sons. One of the Mother’s noted, while giggling, that she had discovered a condom in her son’s jeans while doing the laundry. That Mother’s Grandmother’s response to such a incident doubtless would have been to call the girl’s parents her son was dating in order to warn them. This woman was laughing while she was relating the incident to her friend. She thought it humorous. The grown-up was nowhere to be seen.

What we need to keep in mind here is in the attempt to remain forever adolescent we, as a people, have jettisoned the Christian mores and standards that once defined what it meant to be a healthy adult, and, as said earlier, acting in a way that was considered standard Christian behavior by our Christian forebears is now seen as odd, quirky … even surreal.

What we have experienced in our race to the bottom of the drain is the disappearance of the adult, or perhaps better put, the re-definition of what it means to act like an adult. This pursuit has been a long time coming. Perhaps one could trace its beginning to the “burning of your bra” movement. Perhaps one could trace the disappearance of the adult to the presence of the passage of no-fault divorce laws that turned marriage into a matter of children playing grown up. Instead of being the adult, adults played the child and walked away from marriages saying, “well, that was a fun game while it lasted.”

So, we are in the place where we have to put up a note somewhere saying; “Will the last adult leaving please turn out the lights.”

We have come to the point where even Grandpa and Grandma want to be like the adolescent and the adolescent wants to be like whatever manages to become popular among his/her adolescent peers. This has brought us to the place where we have no gravitas as a people. Our literature is of a comic-book quality. Our music hasn’t advanced much beyond “Jailhouse Rock.” Our language to often sounds Orc-like with eloquence having long ago made its way to the grey-havens beyond the sea. Our learned men are too often fools. Our Christian faith reduced to egalitarian platitudes.

The good news is that our Fathers, though being dead, can still speak if only we will take up and read. By accessing the wise and the wisdom of the ages we can once again become adults. We can once again give our children aspirations to once again desire to “grow up and be adults.” We can return to a time when there is a clear line in people’s thinking between being an adolescent and being an adult.

Revolution; Its Downstream Impact On Male & Female Relations

“It was always the women, and above all, the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”

George Orwell
1984

Now consider the implications of this and the implications of the implications.

1.) If party propaganda can market compassion as being synonymous with conformity while also rebranding control with “care” the result is that the State taps into the feminine role as nurturers who champion compassion and care (conformity and control) in order to enforce ideological obedience from the citizenry. People will be forced to be compassionate and caring by the State.

2.) If propaganda combined with State action successfully wins over the young women market on this matter of “care and compassion”, the young men are sure to follow as young men will do almost anything to woo young women, up to and including, feminizing themselves in order to please and attract the pool of women whose nurturing side has been exploited by the State and the zeitgeist. This means that young men will now also be supporters of Statist command and control mechanism and that in order to woo women who support the State because those young women are convinced that the State is being benign when it offers up a care and compassion to the citizenry which is in point of fact a mask for command and control.

3.) All of this in turn creates un-masculine men (effeminate/soft men) who have embraced femininity in order to mate with women whose femininity has been bastardized from what God created it to be. The result of this is women who have embraced a bitchy feminine posture and men who likewise emasculate themselves to be male versions of bitchy women.

4.) This is turn leads to the break down of the family as women finally recoil at the idea of being married to a weak effeminate man. Women flee the marriage and find a State that is cast in their image willing to support their decision to commit hari kari on their family.

5.) The ironic thing here is that though the man is now dealing w/ a broken family, the State comes along side and forces the effeminate ex-husband to provide for the bitchy ex-wife in the creation of a second household. And all of this in the name of a care and compassion that young women, and young men in pursuit of young women, keep voting for.

6.) Rinse and repeat enough times and you get young men who resolve never to marry and so become incels and you get young women who resolve never to marry and you get middle age cat women who, because they have no children to nurture, take up lunatic left social causes to be replacement children upon which they can pour out their nurturing side. This, in part, explains rows upon rows of women in 2016 going to DC to protest Trump’s first inauguration while wearing pink “pussy hats.” Another example is the way single women can infantilize illegal immigrants and minorities, taking them as her proxy children she never had and pouring out on them all her care and compassion that the cat lady might have once poured out on her own.

7.) Incel men then, having never married and never had children, to provide and protect for, tend to become middle aged adolescents who never grow up. The responsibility of raising a family matures a man and without that properly maturing pressure young men are increasingly forever teenagers. They also tend to hate women and so objectify them for sexual pleasure alone or become sodomites or massive porn consumers.

8.) As an aside this may explain why sane women are often attracted to “bad boys.” Some women want men who break societal expectations and who are independent in a very raw way. These relationships can work out depending upon how the “bad boy” can harness his “badness,” to productive ends. However, “bad boys” have a hard time making it through the cultural institutional gauntlet since the cultural institutional gauntlet exists to reinforce the propaganda that care and compassion are synonymous with conformity and control.

Tocqueville’s Prescient Gaze Into The Future

“Pondering what conditions might ever bring despotism to American democracy, Tocqueville imagined an America that would have seemed downright science-fictional in the 19th century – a nation characterized, on the one hand, by an ‘innumerable multitude of men, alike and equal, constantly circling around in pursuit of the petty and banal pleasures with which they glut their souls,’ and, on the other, by the ‘immense, protective power’ of the state. In the 21st century, however, it begins to sound quite familiar;

‘That power is absolute, thoughtful of detail, orderly, provident, and gentle. It would resemble parental authority if, fatherlike, it tried to prepare its charges for a man’s life, but on the contrary, it only tries to keep them in perpetual childhood. It likes to see the citizens enjoy themselves, provided they think of nothing but enjoyment. It gladly works for their happiness but wants to be the sole agent and judge of it. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures manages their principle concerns, direct their industry, makes rules for their testaments, and divides their inheritance. Why should it not entirely relieve them from the trouble and thinking and all the cares of living?’

Diana West
The Death Of The Grown-UP – pg. 88

1.) It is forever the case that if a people will refuse to look to God’s sovereignty and providential care that the result will be that the State will enter into that vacuum to play the god who will be sovereign and providential. This is where we have come to in 2025 and it will only get worse.

2.) The above quote is only an elongated version of Klaus Schwab’s “You’ll own nothing and be happy.” You’ll own nothing because the state will own it all and you’ll be happy because the state will provide “Bread and circuses,” to keep you amused just as Tocqueville observed above.

3.) Clearly, if the above is a proper definition of “despotism” we are currently living under despotism. However, there is nothing that says we can’t go from despotism unto despotism.

4.) This quote from Diana West was driven by the observation that the State becomes this way when the citizenry abandons its role as parents over children. If parents will not parent their children, if parents will not teach their children standards and responsibility, if parents will not teach their children right from wrong then the State, as God walking on the earth, will step in and teach them all this from a Statist/humanist world and life view. Children, may indeed, become more responsible if parents won’t parent, but it will be the kind of responsible child desired by Stalin or Mussolini, or some other despot. If parents will not parent, then the State will and if parents do not parent and the State does … well, God help us all.

5.) Above Tocqueville mentions how the God-State desires the citizenry to have their banal pleasures. This struck me in light of our “Sports-ball” culture. This struck me in light of how we now “do worship,” in our entertainment centers we call “churches.” Clergy amusing people is probably the best we can hope for anymore given how badly the citizenry has been dumbed down in light of the constant preoccupation with banal pleasures.

You really don’t think it is accidental that our culture only allows people banal pleasures do you? Long ago decisions were made that ensured that there would be no time for contemplation or thinking beyond what was being fed to the populace by the appointed propaganda outlets. Long ago it was decided that both man and wife would be put on a treadmill that would keep them so busy and exhausted all they could possibly long for were an occasional banal pleasure. Long ago, it was decided that the State would preoccupy the children in Government babysitting centers (called “public schools”) inculcating into the children the desire for a life of banal pleasures.

And so, here we are. Getting into this was far easier than even the thought of getting out of this.

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.”