History – Iron Ink

David Irving; A Noticing Historian

“Judea as an enemy did not yet bulk large above Himmler’s horizon. He had excluded Jews from his elite SS as racially inferior, but he did not yet recognize the Jews as a noisy and virulent opponent of National Socialism.

He should have paid them more attention. Seen from the relative tranquility of the Twenty-First Century, the Jews of Europe figure disproportionately on each side of the Twentieth’s balance sheets of cruelty, both as perpetrators and their prey – as torturers and tortured, as murderers and victims. They had been comprehensively expelled for hundreds of years from many countries, including the most civilized. Although comprising barely 4% of Russia’s population, Jews were at the forefront of Moscow’s 1917 revolution. By the end of 1918, Jews filled 457 of the 556 top Bolshevik posts. Speaking to a Jewish audience in 2013, President Vladimir V. Putin himself mischievously underlined that eighty-five percent of the first Soviet government were Jews.

Perhaps they seemed far away. Far beyond Germany’s eastern horizon, the Bolshevik leader, Vladimir Ilych Lenin, himself of concealed Jewish origin, had fashioned this rootless, fanatical racial group into the most ruthless arm of his dictatorship. Jews had taken over leadership of the feared Cheka, the ‘All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counterrevolution and Sabotage,’ ever since Lenin set it up by decree in December 1917. The Cheka and its unlovely successors, GPU and the NKVD, established outposts, largely officered by Jews, throughout the Soviet empire, a practice which would continue long after the coming water. Jews had notoriously provided the murderers who had cruelly ended the Romanov (Czar) dynasty. One Jew signed the warrant, and handed it to another Jew to execute; a Talmud student and Cheka agent carried out the actual killings, with two others. They shot, bayoneted, and bludgeoned to death the former Tsar, his wife, and their five children with their staff in the Urals city of Ekaterinburg (Sverdlovsk) one night in July 1918, then pillaged the bodies and attempted to burn them.

Published statistics showed that in 1934 Jews dominated Stalin’s security apparatus; 38.5% of its senior officers were of Jewish origin. Often they had Germanic names, which they as often concealed – Kamenev was born Rosenfeld, etc. A historian, Sever Plocker, also a Jew, estimated that these Jews were responsible for twenty million deaths. While their fellow-travelers in the West turned a blind eye, Lenin and Stalin preferred to rely on Jewish interrogators, executioners, and judges, as Plocker found. Genrich (Heinrich) Yagoda, the founder of the NKVD, alone had ten million lives on his conscience. He was replaced in 1936 by Nikolai Ivanovich Yezhov, a five-foot-tall Gentile who had taken a Jewish wife, Yevgenia Feigenburg. Yezhov came to an unfortunate end. His accomplice Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich outdid even him, while Leonid Reichman, the NKVD’s chief interrogator, would deservedly enter the annals of Red Terror. All were Jews. ‘Many Jews,’ summarized Plocker angrily, ‘sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution – and have blood on their hands for all eternity.’

Neither Himmler nor Heydrich had yet taken into account of this Jewish element of Bolshevik history. In Heydrich’s papers, now partly housed in Moscow, we find that for five years after the National Socialists came to power, he ranked the Catholics, followed by Protestants and freemasons as Germany’s most dangerous enemies. Judea – das internationale Judentum – come only seventh.”

David Irving
True Himmler – p. 299-300

A Critique Of The Crusaders’ That Continues Yet Today

“Despite the Knights Templars’ explosion in popularity, then as now, there were naysayers and scoffers who criticized the fledgling brotherhood for taking up arms, instead of behaving like ‘true Christians’ — that is, forsaking the world and leading purely contemplative lives praying, fasting, and mediating.

Others were more explicit. Safe in his monastery near Poitiers the Cistercian monk, Isaac of Etoile, could scoff; ‘There has sprung up a new monster, a certain new knighthood [Templars], whose Order… is set up to force unbelievers into the Christian faith by lances and cudgels, and may freely despoil those who are not Christians, and butcher them religiously; but if any of them fall in such ravaging, they are called ‘martyrs of Christ.’

One that wrote under the name ‘Hugh the Sinner,’ answered these false accusations;

‘We have heard that some of you have been alarmed by certain indiscreet persons, as if your profession — in which you dedicate your life to bearing weapons against the enemies of the faith and of the peace and for the defense of Christians — as if that profession was illicit, or harmful, a sin or an obstacle to greater progress.’

Raymond Ibrahim

The Two Swords of Christ – p. 23-24

What is fascinating here is that this battle between the retreatists (James White, N. T. Wright) who will argue that the Crusades were an example of evil Christians holding a misplaced Christian faith as opposed to those of us who think the principles behind the Crusades were something that needs to be restored. We continue to have those in the Church who think it is sin to take the fight to the enemies of the Cross — even if only verbally. The retreatists refuse to countenance the idea that Christians must, sometimes literally, fight back against those who would bury the Christian faith. The retreatists, pietists, and quietists, think it is automatically a noble thing for Christians to be defeated and weakened. They have no room in their theology that it might be a Christ honoring thing to do to kill the enemy before they are able to follow through with their desire to kill Christians and the cause of Christ.

Of course, normatively, this defense of the cause of Christ against those who would seek to roll Christ off His throne would happen under the direction of a Christian prince, just as was the case during the Crusades.

There is something that is terribly wrong with a faith that refuses to defend itself against those who would snuff it out — even if the bearing of arms is necessary. Any faith that has lost its survival instinct is not a faith worth owning. Any faith that will not defend itself and/or others who share a like precious faith is an anti-Christ faith. Under the guise of piety Lucifer seeks to disarm the Christian faith. Christians should not flee from the virtue of manly self-defense and just war, but instead should flee the sin of a Anabaptist like pietism that finds a sense of holiness in being downtrodden by the infidel.

We end by noting a segment in “The Song of Roland,” a famous epic poem that comes to us from the Medieval age (circa 1040);

In “The Song of Roland” while watching Roland ‘slicing’ a Muslim ‘in two,’ an archbishop observed, “You act very well. A knight should have such valor, who bears arms astride a good horse. In battle he should be strong and fierce, or else he is not worth four pence. He ought rather to be a monk in one of those monasteries and pray all day long for our sins.”

The modern “conservative” church is filled with clergy and laymen who are not worth four pence because they cannot fathom that the Christian might ever have to fight… might ever have to literally defend the faith and the honor of the ascended King of Kings.

McAtee Contra Dr. James White On The Crusades

“But the fact is these folks are saying the Crusades did not go “far enough.” Far enough in what? Blaspheming Christ? Disparaging the gospel? Promoting hatred? What would you like to see more of, exactly? What would be “far enough?”

James White

1.) First, we have to distinguish between Crusades. Some of them were noble ventures. Some of them (like the 4th crusade) were Banker inspired and disastrous, finding Christians fighting against Christians. Notice though, that James doesn’t distinguish.

2.) One can only hold that the Crusades blasphemed Christ if one does not believe in Just War Theory, or in defensive war. White seems to not know that the initial Crusades were fought in response to Mooselimb conquering of Christian lands and the abuse of those Christians on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The initial Crusades fall under “Just War Theory,” and were honoring to the Lord Christ as the weak and judicially innocent Christians were being protected by the Knights of Europe.

2.) White complains about “promoting hatred,” seeming not to realize that there is not a thing unbiblical about hatred that is Biblical. All Biblical hatred is, is the response to someone that is attacking and seeking to destroy what the Christian loves. Hatred then of evil, is the necessary and corresponding mindset to loving what is good. As such, there is nothing wrong in the least with promoting hatred if the hatred we are promoting is wrapped up in our love for the good, praiseworthy and beautiful. The simple example is found in our loving God. If we love God we will “hate that which is evil,” as Romans 13 explicitly teaches.

In the Crusades the Mooselimbs were seeking to snuff out the Christian presence in lands that had been for centuries previously Christian. It was good to hate those who intended to destroy Christendom.

3.) Exactly, I would have liked to see more Islamic lands conquered by the sword for Christ. I would have liked to see the Mooselimb threat extinguished.

4.) Far enough would be seeing the nations covered with the Kingdom of Christ as the waters cover the sea.

5.) When the Crusader Knight Godfrey of Bouillon captured Jerusalem in the First Crusade they offered to make him king. He refused and said. “I will not wear a crown of gold in the city where Our Lord Jesus Christ wore a crown of thorns.” James White considers this blasphemous? In the Dr. James White quote above White puts on display is Anabaptist credentials. Either that or Dr. White has been educated and marinated in the soup of Enlightenment humanism and so his worldview is what it is.

James White and I really hold to two vastly different Christianities.

“One Nation Under God, Indivisible…”

In the pledge of Allegiance the phrase “Under God,” was inserted by Congress in 1954. It should have required people asking; “Which God… Whose God.” How wise was it then, or is it now, to Pledge Allegiance using the phrase “Under God,” when nobody knows which God we are under? All of this reminds me of the President Eisenhower quote from 1953 (the year before the Pledge was changed by Congress);

“In other words, our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. Of course, it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion with all men being created equal.”

Given this quote Christian Americans should have never ever said the “Pledge of Allegiance.” Even then Christians should have raised a storm. Pledging Allegiance to a God that straddles that which precludes the possibility of being straddled was a non-Christian pledge. If Jesus was right that we cannot serve two Masters then how is it that the God that allegiance was being pledged to was a God who was both the Jewish God and the Christian God? The fact that little Jewish boys and girls and little Christian boys and girls were together “pledging allegiance to the flag of one nation under God” should have tripped somebody’s wires, given the fact that the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians have absolutely nothing in common with one another. In point of fact, they hate one another with each being committed to the total destruction of the other. Yet, to this day, especially in homeschooling communities Christians will insist on “pledging their allegiance to the flag.”

But that isn’t the only problem, though it is the largest problem. Just before invoking God in the pledge there is the phrase, “One nation.” The whole phrase goes; “One nation, under God.” This is just historically ignorant. These united States were never formed as one nation. That was never the intent of the founders. To the contrary, what the founders envisioned was that America would be nation containing nations. There could be no unity of “one nation” without the attendant diversity of “many nations.” The many nations in one nation was communicated chiefly by the vertical checks and balances. The states were sovereign nations who had delegated very specific enumerated powers to the Federal Government. In all other matters, except for those delegated and enumerated powers the States retained their sovereignty as states (nations). So, when we pledge allegiance to “One nation, under God,” we have not only the problem of not being in agreement as to what God we are under (a major consideration to the end of unity if there ever was a major consideration) but we also have the problem of pledging that we are one nation — something that many of the fathers never intended. None of the Father’s envisioned the unitary pagan Nation State that we currently are expected to “pledge allegiance.” Then when you add the phrase “indivisible” the pledge becomes downright knee slapping humorous. There is nowhere in the US Constitution that states that these united State were ever intended to be indivisible. That whole idea was fobbed on us by the tyrant Lincoln who made the nation “indivisible” at the end of a bayonet.

Americans in the middle of the 20th century were sold a bill of goods regarding these united States. We were even then not “under God,” as the Presidential phrase “Judeo-Christian” revealed. We were even then not one nation as considered in light of our lawful founding document. We were even then not a nation that was indivisible. Yet, the elite used the Pledge to knit together a civic religion that, praise God, is beginning to fall apart given the importation of the third world into America carrying along with them their false gods. It is becoming more and more glaringly obvious that a nation cannot be a nation as it exists under a multitude of different and competing gods. If we can’t rid ourselves of the foreign invasion, then it is my prayer that a secession movement will be successful to the end of eliminating the idolatry of the civic religion that we are all now living under so that perhaps someday we can once again perhaps be one Christian people under God.

American Empire

Tucker Carlson made a point in his monologue preceding his conversation with Meagan Kelly that with the American orchestrated Venezuela coup we are now officially an “Empire.” Tucker complimented Trump for being honest about that given Trump’s statement about seizing the oil.

My only beef here with Carlson is that he’s a little late to the party in announcing that the US is now an Empire. The US has been an Empire since 1865 with Lincoln’s victory over the South. That War changed these united States into THE United States and re-created America as Empire. So, the first turn to Empire in our history was internal. We went from being a Republic to being an Empire. The truth of that was seen in the Empirical Reconstruction brought upon the South and its Institutions. The South were the first people dragged into the Humanist Yankee Empire and forced to conform to the ways of the Empire. What the Constitution created as a “Nation of Nations,” was now transformed, via the work of Lincoln, into a unitarian Nation State.

However, our role as Empire did not stop with the Civil War and Reconstruction. Very shortly thereafter our Empire broke outside the bonds of territorial and continental USA. In 1898 we seized Cuba from the Spaniards. In that settlement we also took the Philippines but they objected and so between 1899-1902 we brought war to those islands before they acquiesced to US Empire.

From there, with the two World Wars the US made was to expand Empire. Now, the kind of Empire that was being built via WW I and WW II was not your typical Empire of land seizure and overt control but we were an Empire every bit as the Brits had been before they lost their Empire in WW II. The Empire we built in the first half of the 20th century was an Economic Empire. This is especially seen for folks who know anything about the Bretton Woods agreement which tied the world’s economy to the US Dollar. Americans like to think of how noble the US was in “freeing Europe,” during those conflicts but lives lost in battle is the cost paid for building Empire and Economically, after part II of the World War finished in 1945 we were the world’s Emperor along with the Soviet Union. And many wonder if the Soviet Union only existed at our behest in order to only give the appearance that we were being challenged so that the citizenry here and abroad in the “Free West,” would be frightened into accepting the US as Empire. There are more than a few who will argue that US and Soviet contretemps was all part of the game to manage the world.

Returning to the theme, Carlson’s observation that we are now explicitly an Empire comes about 160 years too late. Carlson may well argue that the mask has finally come off with Trump’s seizure of Venezuela and with Trump’s intimidating Greenland but for those with eyes to see that the US is Empire is very very old news.

Now, one of the perks of being Empire is that the Empire makes the peace. This is seen in history with the Pax Romana and the Pax Britannica. When both Rome and later Brittain stood astride the world each made the Peace. Sometimes that peace was made by sending troops across their far flung Empire to force peace and sometimes that peace was made by dictating the terms in any regional squabble. Empires become the World’s Sheriff, or as it is said today, “The Global Cop.” And that is what we are seeing with the Trump administration. Trump boasts about how many wars he has settled. That is what Empires do. You can bet the farm that the Empire is giving incentives that only Empires can give in order for these wars to be settled.

Of course Empires always fall. Rome did. Britain did. The Ottoman Empire did. The Austro-Hungarian Empire did. What is interesting is that when Empire’s fall it is often because they become over-extended and can’t meet all their responsibilities. Eventually, some aspiring Patriot who doesn’t want to live under Empire notices the weakness, rallies his people, and attacks the Empire. Before that though is the matter of the weakness that sets in. Often that weakness comes as a crisis of confidence on the part of the Empire. Rome’s unwillingness and inability to repulse a comparative handful of Goths is one example. The USSR’s inability to put down the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan is another. This almost happened to America’s Empire under the Carter administration in the late 1970s as a handful of students in Teheran pushed the US Empire to the brink.

Another thing that happens with the fall of Empires is a complete loss of the faith that built the Empire. Now, plenty of people during the existence of Empire see through the faith charade that keeps the Empire afloat. However, once Empire’s fall, they fall because there are no longer enough true believers in the old gods. We are seeing that happen now in the American Empire. Even as Trump tries to rebuild the American Empire there are plenty of people who see that the faith in the God of Liberalism can’t be sustained by the adopting and tolerating of all the competing faith systems that must be adopted and tolerated if a Liberalism turned multiculturalism is to work in keeping the American Empire stitched together.

Another thing that should be noted in this overview is something that Carlson brought out, and that is Empires die when there is no longer any core people left who built the Empire. Carlson used the example of modern London where one must be diligent in seeking to find a Brit in London. Carlson then pivoted to the next obvious example of the US that has been reduced from 88% white in 1970 to 63% white in 2025. Many of our large cities find the numbers even more drastically skewed. Empires cannot last if those who built the Empire do not last.

So … the mask is off and we are officially Empire. This means more wars, which means more of your sons – and in this egalitarian age; daughters – die in order to keep the Empire being the Empire. It means a increased bureaucratic behemoth. In our age it means an increase of technocratic innovation to keep the Empire functioning as well-oiled as it can. It means a lot of bad things that many of us have been screaming about for a very long time. For Christians, it means an increasing abandonment of our undoubted catholic Christian faith. Empires, are, by definition, polyglot. Polyglot entities require a polyglot faith and Christianity is not a faith that can allow other faiths to co-exist with it. At least Christianity of the purest content can’t.

Benjamin Franklin is reported to have told a woman who asked him, after the Constitutional Convention had done its work in forming a Government, what kind of Government had the Founding Fathers formed and his response to the woman was, “A Republic … if you can keep it.” We lost that Republic long ago and if Tucker is correct we have now moved into the open and unapologetic “Empire phase.”

I’m not going to like it.