ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Attack, but politely, please

The cucks are trying, so hard, to wrap their heads around how one can fight back successfully against the Left. And yet, they are still failing, because they are intellectual cowards more concerned with means than ends:
We ought to take a page from the playbook of Trump, who has almost singularly provided us with a golden opportunity to redefine the terms of battle, no longer fighting on leftist ground. For Republicans and conservatives has been liberated from the PC thought police. We are free to fight back when vicious charges are leveled at us designed to instill fear and chill dissent.

As former speaker Newt Gingrich has perceptively noted, Trump has been a masterful media manipulator, getting media members to chase so-called “shiny objects” — “Can you believe Trump said X!?” ad nauseam.

Mr. Trump’s version of stray voltage has a number of effects beyond just causing chaos and distracting his opponents. When everything is an outrage, nothing is an outrage. And when everything is an outrage, you expose yourself as a purely partisan actor, turning off large swaths of the American public.

Trump’s lack of fear of touching politically incorrect third rails that millions of Americans felt, but which had not been articulated so bluntly by a national politician, served him well. Incidentally, it also allowed him to shift the Overton Window on critical issues like immigration and Islamic supremacism.

When attacked for taking these positions, unlike those to come before him, Trump did not avoid the fray. Rather, he jumped into it, counterpunching.

Lulled into a false sense of security by Republicans who fought with their hands tied behind their backs, constrained by suicidal rules of political engagement for decades, the Left did not know how to react when hit.

Leftists could not believe that a political opponent had the gall to actually fight tooth and nail.

Trump does not give an inch to his critics, and neither should any other Republican. He defines the rules of engagement, and so should all on the Right.

Watching the confirmation hearings to date, we see many on the Left jabbing as if we are in a pre-Trump world. Their questions all hew to the same old narrative that if you are not a racist, sexist, or bigot, then you are an out-of-touch plutocrat or a shill for some special interest or other.

Like Trump, Republicans should challenge these charges head on. They should take issue with the Left’s premises from the start, showing that it is the Left who is projecting when it tries to discredit those who believe in capitalism, the power of the individual, and the sanctity of the individual’s rights, the rule of law, national sovereignty, federalism, and the Judeo-Christian morality on which the country is based.

When leftists attack an attorney general designate because he is a white male from the South, they should be attacked for judging based on color of skin (rather than content of character) and for trying to bruise an appointee who will not stand for open borders, selective law enforcement, and politicized justice.

When leftists attack a secretary of education designate because her family is wealthy, they should be attacked for their anti-capitalism and hypocrisy, and their real desire to bloody an appointee because she believes that the Left’s own constituents — and indeed all Americans — should have the opportunity to send their kids to superior schools, rather than being doomed to a subpar education because it mollifies a teachers union.

These attacks are designed to put not only the appointees, but also all right-thinking people on the defensive — to fear reflexively a false premise because those premises have prevailed among the progressives who dominated media, academia, and government for decades.

We should no longer live in fear — for the Left thrives when we self-censor and accept its baseless premises.
They ought to take a page from Trump, but they won't, because they STILL accept the baseless premises of the Left. Consider the cucking on display even in this exhortation to be bold and fearless and willing to fight:
  • The Judeo-Christian morality on which the country is based. There is no "Judeo-Christian morality". Nor is the country based on the nonexistent concept. The USA was founded by Christians on the basis of predominantly Protestant values. Judaism, which is considerably more than the Mosaic Law, had, and has, nothing to do with the American nation or the founding of the USA. These appeals to the teachings of Judeo Christ rather than Jesus Christ are the certain sign of the cuck.
  • they should be attacked for judging based on color of skin. Dems are the real racists! Cucks never learn, they only project their fear of being accused of racism on everyone else.
  • they should be attacked for their anti-capitalism and hypocrisy. Call them commies! And hypocrites! Because that has worked so well for the last 50 years, right?
The ironic thing is that Donald Trump NEVER utilizes these feeble forms of limp-wristed hand-waving. He goes after them where it hurts, in a direct and aggressive manner that inevitably make the cucks complain that he is rude and boorish and hurtful.

Forget conservatism. Conservatives don't fight. Their failure to do so, their inevitable failure to conserve anything, is why the Alt-Right exists in the first place.

Labels: ,

137 Comments:

Anonymous Icicle January 21, 2017 8:05 AM  

Any attack, if successful, can always be interpreted as impolite by the losing side.

Blogger The Kurgan January 21, 2017 8:10 AM  

Alt-West all the way. The kind who went walkabouts in 1095. They were polite Christians after all.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) January 21, 2017 8:11 AM  

So, attack the left, but only with feeble attacks that don't work.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 21, 2017 8:14 AM  

Ahem. Some of us will fight. I admit, however, that we're in the minority.

Anonymous Marvin Boggs January 21, 2017 8:21 AM  

My father, a very kind and gentle soul, gave me three rules about fighting:
1. Never start a fight.
2. Always finish the fight.
3. When you get the other guy down, make sure he stays down.

I see Trump following those rules, and I like the results, so far.

Blogger SteelPalm January 21, 2017 8:25 AM  

Haha, when I started reading the article,

"Hey, this isn't so bad! I don't know what Vox objects to so much here!"

Then, I get lower down in the article where the author makes his specific recommendations.

"OHHHH..."

He figured out that Trump did something special, but laughably failed in discerning what it was.

He's a Cargo Cult Cuckservative.

Blogger Freelance Teacher January 21, 2017 8:46 AM  

Amazing. "Attack them for their hypocrisy" - even after watching a case study by DJT as to how that doesn't work. I'm glad I eschewed my conservative ways in 2009.

Blogger John rockwell January 21, 2017 8:52 AM  

Jesus certainly wasnt polite when he overturned moneychanger tables or debating the pharisees. Unlike with cucks encounters with Jesus always ended with wordless submission by his enemies:
http://sociological-eye.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/jesus-in-interaction-micro-sociology-of.html

Blogger Elizabeth January 21, 2017 9:06 AM  

I would say that the US was founded on Protestant values, not generic Christian values. Self-reliance, small government and civic mindedness were a characteristic of northern European Protestant societies, not southern European Catholic in the 18th Century. Northern Europeans were and continue to be more ethical, as well. In the 18th Century, the Catholic Church was no friend of liberty; quite the contrary, it was in cahoots with authoritarian governments on the Continent. Authoritarian religions love authoritarian governments: they don't want people thinking for themselves.

Blogger Cail Corishev January 21, 2017 9:08 AM  

I was just thinking about this this morning, in regards to the violence being whipped up by the left in hopes of getting a response from authorities that will play into their narrative of "Trump the Jack-Booted Fascist."

The cuckservative response, of course, will be to say that we should counter that by being understanding and hands-off with rioters, to prove that we aren't jack-booted. Then they'll see that Trump isn't the "fascist" caricature they've been told about in their bedtime stories for the last year (and that they've been told the Right is for 50 years), and we can all hold hands and sing about peace together.

We can be sure that'll be the cuckservative approach, because it's wrong.

Blogger VD January 21, 2017 9:10 AM  

I would say that the US was founded on Protestant values, not generic Christian values.

Good point. Corrected. That's also why Catholics allied with Jews to tear down those values after they arrived in significant numbers in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Irish and Italians did not, by and large, share those values anymore than the Jews did.

Blogger Joe A. January 21, 2017 9:28 AM  

So how do we fight back over 60 million hispanics that breed like rabbits? 6 million in an oven barely knocks a dent. Seems like secession is the only viable option.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 21, 2017 9:28 AM  

I can't speak to the Italians but, no, the Irish didn't share those values. Or, rather, they didn't share all of them. They came, when they came in numbers, pretty much traumatized by the Famine (always capitalized, yes). How they'd have been, absent that, I can't say. In any case, they came convinced that when things went to crap the government had to step in and help...competently, as well as with the conviction that the world was largely against them and they had to watch out for themselves and each other, often to the exclusion of unallied others. That led to some massive corruption, though, to be fair, some of the corruption was aided and abetted by corrupt WASPs, too.

There is, however, a difference between not sharing all values and sharing some but not all. The Irish Catholics also came with the very same bellicosity the Scots-Irish Protestants had in adbundance, a bellicosity that's been of much use to the country now and in the past. They came with the ability for patriotism, and largely became fanatically patriotic. They came with physical courage in abundance, and we've gotten good service of that, too. They've also, in the last 170 or so years, tended to split between those who adopted largely Protestant American values, while remaining Catholic, and those who turned more or less hard left.

Anonymous VFM #6306 January 21, 2017 9:36 AM  

One of the speakers at the Deploraball said:

"The only reason to reach across the aisle is to grab a Democrat by the throat."

So don't attack them for their hypocrisy, attack them for their still-beating hearts and to get your money back.

Anonymous PinochetsChopperPilot January 21, 2017 9:37 AM  

I've long employed the targeted rhetoric to continually put my (liberal/SJW) opponent on the constant defensive.

Example? If an SJW or some Churchian starts talking about race or campus rape, etc, I ONLY EVER REFER to the Duke situation as "the Duke Rape Hoax" (which is correct)...and "False Accuser and Convicted Child Abuser and Murderer Crystal Mangum..." Even if I use her name or refer to her repeatedly, I will ALWAYS use those honorifics in front of her name. And I will always attach whoever I'm in the conversation to that...

"Terrorist Bill Ayers..."
"Racist Maxine Waters..."
"Jamie Foxx, who refers to underage white girls as "bitches"..."
"At least Trump knows Austrians speak German..."
"I want our Wall to be at least as good as Israel's..."
"I dunno, I just think your kids and mine, are more important than illegals from Central America...but I guess, in some weird way, it's noble (?) that you feel otherwise...I just like to put my kids first..just a weird dad thing I guess...you should send your kids to X school, if the county will allow it, there's more illegals there from what I understand..."
"I'm just not comfortable with sending my 10 year old daughter into a public bathroom if some 50-year old, so-called "Transexual" or whatever, may be in the bathroom...my wife and I just value her too much...you and your wife are WAY more confident than us...admittedly"

Admit, amplify, project, double-blue down, whatever is necessary...


THEY MUST BE COUNTERED AND MUST KNOW WE ARE FEARLESS.

Blogger Matamoros January 21, 2017 9:51 AM  

9 & 11: "I would say that the US was founded on Protestant values, not generic Christian values."

I disagree. It was founded primarily on Anglican values (except for portions of New England by the judeo-Puritans).

What was 16th and 17th Century Anglicanism - quite simply Catholicism without the Pope.

Look at the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and you will see the Catholic Mass sans the Pope with the King as head of the Church of England.

Thus, more correctly, America was indeed founded on Catholic values rather than generic Protestant values.

One should read Rodney Stark's works which detail the so-called Protestant work ethic is actually the medieval Catholic work ethic, and the wonders of Catholic Europe - Christendom.

I particularly recommend these two:

"The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success"

and

"God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades"

Blogger praetorian January 21, 2017 9:58 AM  

These appeals to the teachings of Judeo Christ rather than Jesus Christ are the certain sign of the cuck.

Judeo Christ is an early favorite in the best of memes of 2017.

Completely agree that the us was built on Protestant foundations, although I think you have to look hard at judaized puritan virtue signaling as a major contributor to its downfall in 1865. And then the downfall of the yankee empire in 1965.

Otoh, it ain't the Witherspoon-cellar act...

Anonymous Red Cabbage January 21, 2017 10:13 AM  

Without sarcasm, I am asking: Why is it a bad tactic to call leftists racist when they clearly are?

Blogger praetorian January 21, 2017 10:14 AM  

Matamoros wrote:9 & 11: "I would say that the US was founded on Protestant values, not generic Christian values."

I disagree. It was founded primarily on Anglican values (except for portions of New England by the judeo-Puritans).


Great comment. This is another narrative that is well worth considering (the truth is, of course, messy and murky) but consider who wrote the history books (yankee puritans and post-ww2 jews).

Not worth hashing out the reformation, etc. yet again (identity always wins, facts, in so far as we can ascertain them, don't matter) but it's a defensible narrative.

Blogger Elizabeth January 21, 2017 10:33 AM  

VD wrote:I would say that the US was founded on Protestant values, not generic Christian values.

Good point. Corrected. That's also why Catholics allied with Jews to tear down those values after they arrived in significant numbers in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Irish and Italians did not, by and large, share those values anymore than the Jews did.


That's true. It's a myth that all European immigrants were quick and eager to assimilate. We had a big problem with eastern and southern Europeans. On top of that, the Irish and then Italians took over cities and were known for their corruption.

At one time, the Democratic Party tended to be more socially conservative than the Republican Party, thanks to Catholics and southern whites. This only changed with the Reagan administration.

Blogger praetorian January 21, 2017 10:37 AM  

At one time, the Democratic Party tended to be more socially conservative than the Republican Party, thanks to Catholics and southern whites.

Exactly.

Think this through, in the context of near total Judeo-Puritan control over the history books.

Narratives within narratives...

Anonymous Bobby Farr January 21, 2017 10:52 AM  

The left seems committed to violence and extrapolitical pursuit of their agenda at this point. Conservatives thinking about potentially not being afraid to disagree with the left are a few steps behind. We are potentially months away from the left-right war turning hot and they are still contemplating the etiquette of their potential move from center left to center right. Useless.

Blogger Elizabeth January 21, 2017 11:01 AM  

Tom Kratman wrote:I can't speak to the Italians but, no, the Irish didn't share those values. Or, rather, they didn't share all of them. They came, when they came in numbers, pretty much traumatized by the Famine (always capitalized, yes). How they'd have been, absent that, I can't say. In any case, they came convinced that when things went to crap the government had to step in and help...competently, as well as with the conviction that the world was largely against them and they had to watch out for themselves and each other, often to the exclusion of unallied others. That led to some massive corruption, though, to be fair, some of the corruption was aided and abetted by corrupt WASPs, too.

There is, however, a difference between not sharing all values and sharing some but not all. The Irish Catholics also came with the very same bellicosity the Scots-Irish Protestants had in adbundance, a bellicosity that's been of much use to the country now and in the past. They came with the ability for patriotism, and largely became fanatically patriotic. They came with physical courage in abundance, and we've gotten good service of that, too. They've also, in the last 170 or so years, tended to split between those who adopted largely Protestant American values, while remaining Catholic, and those who turned more or less hard left.


The Irish immigrants didn't plan to return home to Ireland, unlike many immigrants from the Continent who planned to go back after they made their fortune. The Catholic Church in the latter half of the 19th Century encouraged patriotism and clean-living. Irish-American Catholics became known for being straight-laced, except for their fondness for drinking and brawling (one often led to another). Of course, every good Celt loves a good fight.

Thomas Sowell's books pointed out in one of his books that in the past Irish-Americans sought security, so they were drawn to the clergy, civil service (aka "Irish welfare") and owning pubs. On top of that, some still have a grudge against the British and they associate the Republicans with the people who allegedly posted signs saying "No Irish need apply."

Blogger Chris January 21, 2017 11:16 AM  

I see how this article doesn't go far enough, that is, it falls short of adopting the left's kill-or-be-killed attitude. However, it's still an improvement from the John McCain/mitt Romney style of politics. Furthermore, Vox does not offer alternatives to what the article offers. So, Vox, in your bullet list, how should conservatives attack the left? Not a challenge just a question. Thanks

Blogger VD January 21, 2017 11:18 AM  

Without sarcasm, I am asking: Why is it a bad tactic to call leftists racist when they clearly are?

Because it is dialectic. They don't care about being called racist. They firmly believe that they are not, because it is impossible for them to be so.

Blogger VD January 21, 2017 11:20 AM  

Thomas Sowell's books pointed out in one of his books that in the past Irish-Americans sought security

I believe Ben Franklin had something to say on that score.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Blogger Elizabeth January 21, 2017 11:28 AM  

Matamoros wrote:9 & 11: "I would say that the US was founded on Protestant values, not generic Christian values."

I disagree. It was founded primarily on Anglican values (except for portions of New England by the judeo-Puritans).

What was 16th and 17th Century Anglicanism - quite simply Catholicism without the Pope.

Look at the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and you will see the Catholic Mass sans the Pope with the King as head of the Church of England.

Thus, more correctly, America was indeed founded on Catholic values rather than generic Protestant values.

One should read Rodney Stark's works which detail the so-called Protestant work ethic is actually the medieval Catholic work ethic, and the wonders of Catholic Europe - Christendom.

I particularly recommend these two:

"The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success"

and

"God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades"


18th Century Anglicanism included Calvinist elements (read the 39 Articles of Religion) along with the ceremony and terms of Medieval Catholicism. Anglo-Catholicism dates from the 19th Century, thanks to a revival of interest in the Middle Ages.

I also wrote:

Self-reliance, small government and civic mindedness were a characteristic of northern European Protestant societies, not southern European Catholic in the 18th Century. Northern Europeans were and continue to be more ethical, as well. In the 18th Century, the Catholic Church was no friend of liberty; quite the contrary, it was in cahoots with authoritarian governments on the Continent. Authoritarian religions love authoritarian governments: they don't want people thinking for themselves.

Fortunately, the Irish-American-dominated Catholic Church Americanized in the 19th Century and promoted patriotism and didn't seek to install some sort of Catholic tyranny. Eastern and southern Europeans were more resistant to assimilation than the Irish.

Anonymous Red Cabbage January 21, 2017 11:30 AM  

@25 Thank you. What do you do instead?

I know you must cover this elsewhere, so links are welcome. I have been reading for awhile but am slow on the uptake.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents January 21, 2017 11:33 AM  

Keep seeing people demanding that Trump stop tweeting. Some cucks, some in todays Women's March. That tells me it is effective.

Teh wimmenz marching today are so cute, in their pink knit caps with cat ears - pussy hats they call them. To protest Trump telling the truth about how women are attracted to famous men. Or maybe they're just jealous of Melania.

OpenID randkoch January 21, 2017 11:34 AM  

These are the rules:
http://www.theroot.com/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-gets-punched-in-the-f-1791450337

Anyone who has any complaints should take it to the rules committee.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab January 21, 2017 11:36 AM  

We've accepted the enemy's framing, 'We can do this, you cannot'. Way past time to ignore their protests and the cucks' cucking as signs that we are either over the target or otherwise successful.

The cucks are not and never have been on our side. They have openly sided with the left and will increasingly do so when they are not trying to regain the reins on the right.

Up until now, the left has had it all their way with a free hand on their actions and cucks willing to accept crumbs to act as judas goats for the left. That is the best way to think of them is Judas goats. Willingly leading others astray.

Blogger Elizabeth January 21, 2017 11:57 AM  

praetorian wrote:At one time, the Democratic Party tended to be more socially conservative than the Republican Party, thanks to Catholics and southern whites.

Exactly.

Think this through, in the context of near total Judeo-Puritan control over the history books.

Narratives within narratives...


The Democratic Party as a whole was more socially conservative, but economically liberal. The Republicans were the exact opposite. In the 1970s, abortion was widely considered a Catholic concern. Conservative Protestants found it distasteful and nothing to brag about, but tolerable. Dick Nixon was silent after the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade. The Republic shift on abortion was calculated to bring Catholic voters in the fold.

Blogger VD January 21, 2017 12:10 PM  

I know you must cover this elsewhere, so links are welcome. I have been reading for awhile but am slow on the uptake.

Read SJWAL.

Anonymous Red Cabbage January 21, 2017 12:12 PM  

@33 Will read, thanks.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky January 21, 2017 12:15 PM  

Here is Madonna going around with Marilyn Minter, who has called for all white women who voted for Trump to be killed.

All white women who voted for Trump to be killed. In the name of racial and gender justice, of course.

And these two are being feted for it by the Left. So, that by itself ought to teach everybody that it makes no sense at all to play by the Left's rules, or by the rules of polite society. They don't.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/20/madonna-on-the-trump-inauguration-i-do-believe-that-trump-was-elected-for-a-reason.html

Blogger Were-Puppy January 21, 2017 12:27 PM  

A new rock band name:
Judeo Christ and the Rabbits

Anonymous Man of the Atom January 21, 2017 12:29 PM  

This guy gets it. "My name is Dave."
"You're on camera!" "I don't give a fuck!"

Blogger kurt9 January 21, 2017 12:33 PM  

The basic flaw of the cucks, for lack of a better term, is their assumption that the Left argues in good faith. They do not, and never have done so. This is what Trump understands and the cucks do not.

Blogger Were-Puppy January 21, 2017 12:33 PM  

@18 Red Cabbage
Without sarcasm, I am asking: Why is it a bad tactic to call leftists racist when they clearly are?
---

I do that all the time in complete mockery - waaasciiiisssttttt

Anonymous hoots January 21, 2017 12:40 PM  

Accusations of racism can be an effective tactic, mostly to spark fear and pain in the rabbit psychology. But it should be used sparingly and with clearly malicious intent. Any other use reinforces the leftist dogma that having in-group preferences is Hitler.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd January 21, 2017 1:00 PM  

Red Cabbage wrote:Without sarcasm, I am asking: Why is it a bad tactic to call leftists racist when they clearly are?

Vox already answered above. I'll still add my take on it: we don't do it because for decades, it hasn't worked! Never worked, never will, don't waste your breath. SJWAL gives alternatives, and is worth the price.

Blogger Felix Bellator January 21, 2017 1:02 PM  

God was God before there were Jews. Balaam was a priest and prophet of God but was not a Jew. The Alt-West does not hate the Jews, but also does not approve of the actions of some Jews trying to destroy Western Civilization.

Blogger Sheila4g January 21, 2017 1:12 PM  

@16 Matamoros: "What was 16th and 17th Century Anglicanism - quite simply Catholicism without the Pope."

Overly simplistic and, I would argue, dead wrong. Read "Our Anglican Heritage" by John W. Howe for short, clear explication of English Catholicism and its already significant differences with the Roman Church prior to Henry VIII, as well as highly significant theological differences underlying the Anglican Communion versus Roman Catholic mass. I say this as a currently non-practicing but deeply believing confirmed traditional Anglican.

@40 Mark: "Christianity bereft of its antecedent roots is like contemplating an apple but not the tree from whence it came."

While Vox has already written numerous posts better rebutting your baseless assertion, I feel compelled to add that while America's protestant Christian values and roots certainly include the Old Testament, modern Judaism (i.e. not that of Jesus' time) is based only nominally on the Old Testament and heavily on the Talmud. In its rules, beliefs, and practices it is far closer to Mohammedanism than genuine Christianity.

Blogger Felix Bellator January 21, 2017 1:27 PM  

Good points, Sheila4g. We should also consider that all the good things we derive from the Old Testament are from God and not the Jews. Glad the Jews were the chosen people, carried the Word, and such, but He is the God of the Jews and not the Jewish God. There is a difference.

Anonymous Sharrukin January 21, 2017 1:27 PM  

@18 Red Cabbage

Without sarcasm, I am asking: Why is it a bad tactic to call leftists racist when they clearly are?

Because unlike conservatives they don't care. Some black guys jumps ship and they are called Oreo, House Nigger, etc.

Their ideology is a vehicle. A means to power and if racism works they will embrace that. They want power and will use whatever means they can to get it.

It is like some country bumpkin just off the turnip truck accusing a street hustler who took his money of not being an honest man.

Gee, ya think?

Blogger synp January 21, 2017 1:37 PM  

Red Cabbage wrote:Without sarcasm, I am asking: Why is it a bad tactic to call leftists racist when they clearly are?
Because this accepts the premise that racism is a terrible thing, and we only need to figure out who the real racists are. This might be effective to cement the conviction of newly converted rightists. It is not effective against leftists who are convinced that any distinction they are making is only to make up for the terrible things that you have been doing for centuries.

If your narrative is treating people badly because of race is no worse than treating people badly for any other reason, then you don't agree with their premise. So don't argue on the basis of that premise.

Blogger Cail Corishev January 21, 2017 1:38 PM  

why this insistence of disparaging the term Judeo-Christian?

It's a lie, and all lies should be disparaged.

Our culture isn't Judeo-Christian; it's Christian. "Judeo" is prepended for two reasons: so Churchians can feel good about how inclusive they are when they say it, and to keep Christians from feeling proud of a distinctively Christian culture. By claiming it's actually a hybrid with something else, they can't give Christianity credit for it.

That's the nice answer. The less-nice answer is that there are "Judeo" aspects that have come into our culture; but far from being in harmony with Christianity, they tend to work against it. They're opposing forces more than a hyphenated blend.

Blogger rcocean January 21, 2017 1:40 PM  

I'll just reiterate what others have said. Leftists don't care if they're call hypocrites. They know they're hypocrites. And the Right has been calling them on it for 80 years without any real effect.

Call them "racists" and they just laugh. They firmly believe any Leftist CANNOT be a racist. Being Leftist immunizes you against all charges of Racism. Justice Black and Senator Byrd was former KKK, and the left didn't care. Leftists still celebrate Fulbright and Sam Ervin - because even thought they were racists they were useful idiots.

Blogger rcocean January 21, 2017 1:42 PM  

Adding the Judeo to Christian was an old-fashioned attempt to be "nice" and "inclusive".

Blogger Jose January 21, 2017 1:49 PM  

Sharrukin wrote:What about Islamo-Christian values? Is that a thing? Why not?

Don't forget agnosto-Christian values. That's when an agnostic accepts the secular part of Christianity but none of the supernatural substrate. You'll find that there are quite a few people who are like this.

(VD's book "The Irrational Atheist" describes these values in the intro, comparing the reaction agnostics have to atheists vis-a-vis to Christians, but stops short of coining the phrase.)

Blogger tublecane January 21, 2017 1:50 PM  

@29-Yeah, his tweeting is obviously deadly effective. It gave him the bully pulpit before he was the Republican nominee, let alone president. The funniest criticism of Trump, at least for me, is the "he shoots his mouth off at 2 in the morning like a spoiled brat," or however they put it. Not stopping to think: Trump is so in command of the news that he can have a thought at 2 in the morning, and everyone simply must talk about it. They don't have a choice. He owns their brains!

Meanwhile, they talked crap about Bush the Younger for eight years and he never responded. Because he was a gentleman, or something. He just didn't engage. Which naturally left them free to say what they wanted. Now everyone uniformly thinks he was a shit president.

(He *was* a shit president. But had he ever fought back, maybe that fact would be in doubt.)

Anonymous Discard January 21, 2017 2:03 PM  

18. Red Cabbage: Why call people "racist" as if it's a pejorative? Libs are racist, of course, as demonstrated by their choices of where to live and where to school their children. Don't accuse them of racism, tell them they're right to be racist and that they'd be much happier if they'd just admit it.
They will always have a story about how they just happened to buy a house in that neighborhood (For $100K more than a similar house in a diverse part of town) and how they heard such good things about the Special Snowflake Academy they they pay tuition to. Gently disabuse them of the stories they tell themselves, noting that every other privileged White says the same thing.

Note: This is for talking with middle class adults.

Anonymous BBigGayKoranBurner January 21, 2017 2:05 PM  

So how do we fight back over 60 million hispanics that breed like rabbits? 6 million in an oven barely knocks a dent

Its not the oven but taking away the food stamp and welfare fraud that will make them go away.

Judeo Christ is an early favorite in the best of memes of 2017. Shouldn't that be Judo Christ?

These are the rules:http://www.theroot.com/white-nationalist-richard-spencer

LOL Someone asked him if he would marry a black woman, black men wont even do that.

This guy gets it. "My name is Dave." "You're on camera!" "I don't give a fuck!"

I usually give the name Sam Hyde.

OT: Women's march poster:
side1 Feminism leads to 40yo with a boring job, alone, house full of cats
side2 White lives matter WhiteGirlBleedALot.com
A couple bucks for large black/white printout at staples.

Telling the people beyond the ugly feminists that came up to challenge me "If you don't find a man by the time you are 30 this is you, or your choices in dating." priceless.

Blogger VD January 21, 2017 2:16 PM  

Stop trying to post here, Mark. You know you're not supposed to do so.

Not very honest of a supposedly Torah-fearing man.

The reason for not calling a Christian culture "Judeo-Christian" is because the term is Jewish propaganda introduced in the 20th century and to describe the USA that way is a lie.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 21, 2017 2:23 PM  

The entire point of the term Judeo-Christian is that it is a lie for Jews to hide behind. It's another case of (((fellow White people))). By pretending to value the same things Christians do (they don't), they hope to fool you into thinking there's no difference in their behavior (there is) and that you and they are working towards the same goal (you shouldn't be).

Blogger tublecane January 21, 2017 2:29 PM  

Speaking of Protestant values and rhetoric, I visited a museum exhibit on Martin Luther recently. They had the theses posted. I perused them, assuming they were supposed to make sense yet guessing they were more about convincing fellow university types in approved scholar-speak. In any case, Lutheranism never would've been a popular movement had he restrained himself to that Lind of persuasion, obviously.

Later in the exhibit I saw all sorts of ways he got at a literate audience: translating the Bible, pamphleteering, etc. That's not enough to start a religion. You get to the meat and potatoes with his pulpit and songs. Now that's something regular people can follow.

Point is, way back when Lutherans knew they were in a meme war. They didn't spend all day arguing logic in lecture halls or presenting evidence on ecclesiastical courts, or whatever. They went over the heads of the church, and refused to play only on grounds of their choosing. Because they weren't fools, nor seeking excuses to lose.

Blogger tublecane January 21, 2017 2:30 PM  

@56-"Lind" = kind

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl January 21, 2017 2:32 PM  

"they should be attacked for their anti-capitalism and hypocrisy. Call them commies! And hypocrites! Because that has worked so well for the last 50 years, right"

This never works against the Left because anti-capitalism and hypocrisy are weapons in their arsenals. They see nothing morally wrong with these so pointing them out only signals to the minority who may have principles.

Just imagine in a war where, say, the Wehrmacht complaining to the Soviet army that they were using T-34s. Odd analogy, but again, to the Left these things are weapons.

On Judeo Christ: What, didn't Jesus say that only 372 of the commandments were the most important? That the kingdom of Heaven was only open to those who avoided shellfish in their diet? (okay, that was sarcastic...)

Blogger Jose January 21, 2017 2:36 PM  

DemonicProfessorEl wrote:What, didn't Jesus say that only 372 of the commandments were the most important?

I think you're confusing Commandments with Rules Of Acquisition. 😎

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl January 21, 2017 2:40 PM  

@59

Touche! :) Hahaha

Blogger Jed Mask January 21, 2017 2:55 PM  

Get back to the basics and *OBEY* the *WORD OF GOD (KING JAMES VERSION HOLY BIBLE [KJV])*. Amen!

~ Bro. Jed

Anonymous Bobby Farr January 21, 2017 3:31 PM  

A pretty impressive list of recent physical attacks on right wingers is cataloged in Molyneux's recent video - Milo's audience member, Cernovich, Southern, Spencer, McInnes, Stone, O'Keefe. The moral highground is all well and good but I think we are reaching a point where violence needs to be met with violence. No more dialectic or rhetoric.

Blogger michaeloh59 January 21, 2017 3:38 PM  

"Without sarcasm, I am asking: Why is it a bad tactic to call leftists racist when they clearly are?

Because it is dialectic. They don't care about being called racist. They firmly believe that they are not, because it is impossible for them to be so."

True. But they do hate whites, or at least are willing to legally,socially and morally disadvantage whites in order to get ahead. So calling them anti white or europhobic will draw blood and rally Gringoes to our side.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 21, 2017 3:42 PM  

michaeloh59 wrote:So calling them anti white or europhobic will draw blood and rally Gringoes to our side.
Let us know how that works out for you.

Blogger SteelPalm January 21, 2017 3:45 PM  

Out of curiosity, how many people here posting about religion have even read the Talmud?

I recall Vox telling me that he had read parts, but found it too boring to get through.

Still, I wager that's more than, say, @43's nothing.

Blogger SteelPalm January 21, 2017 3:48 PM  

@63

Calling ANYONE, right or left-wing, a "Europhobic" will only succeed in making them laugh at you, idiot.

Incidentally, the funniest name I have ever been called is the related "Germanaphobe".

Blogger VD January 21, 2017 3:52 PM  

Out of curiosity, how many people here posting about religion have even read the Talmud?

Virtually no one to whom I have ever spoken has ever read either the Talmud or the Koran, much less in their entirety. Of course, in both cases, one is informed that even if one has read any of it, it doesn't count unless it is read in the original. Strangely, this standard never applies to Latin or Greek philosophers, much less the Bible.

Blogger SteelPalm January 21, 2017 4:00 PM  

@67

Virtually no one to whom I have ever spoken has ever read either the Talmud

Especially if you talk to a leftist Jew!

Of course, in both cases, one is informed that even if one has read any of it, it doesn't count unless it is read in the original.

I disagree with anyone saying that. There are good translations available.

From personal experience, I think there are a lot more non-Muslims who have read the Koran (I've even read the Hadith) than non-Jews who have read the Talmud.

Anonymous Anonymous January 21, 2017 4:01 PM  

amen amen amen.
Absolutely correct: Judeo-Christian ia Cuck signal.

Blogger Jose January 21, 2017 4:03 PM  

VD wrote:Strangely, this standard never applies to Latin or Greek philosophers, much less the Bible.

... or any of the science people who "love science" are always talking about, or any of the math that people who "love math" (fewer now that Numb3rs is off the air) talk about, or any of the engineering people who extoll the virtues of [insert "green" boondoggle here] criticize.

Who, whom.

(I now self-identity as a AC-130J Ghostrider gunship; my pronouns are Woosh/Boom; correctly address me as "Your Mighty Howitzer.")

Anonymous CloseHauled January 21, 2017 4:14 PM  

They think they've identified the guy that punched Spencer:

https://twitter.com/BakedNorwegian/status/822894113473392641

His love life is how I expect Scalzi to conduct himself since he likes talking about shit so much.

Blogger SteelPalm January 21, 2017 4:27 PM  

Damn it guys, what's the cuck's name? Me and praetorian have a bet riding on this!

Blogger tim January 21, 2017 4:28 PM  

Vile beyond belief.

Blogger Elizabeth January 21, 2017 4:41 PM  

kurt9 wrote:The basic flaw of the cucks, for lack of a better term, is their assumption that the Left argues in good faith. They do not, and never have done so. This is what Trump understands and the cucks do not.

Great point! Conservatives have attributed liberal views to "liberal guilt." Oh, please. It's not liberal guilt; at the very least, it's liberal moral exhibitionism, or, to the use the current term, virtue signalling. There's also plain old self-interest, hatred, envy and/or the desire for revenge.

I noticed as a child that the scummier the person, the more prone to lofty moral exhibitionism. Think of Ted Kennedy, the hero of Chappaquiddick, and the Clintons.

Blogger praetorian January 21, 2017 4:43 PM  

Damn it guys, what's the cuck's name? Me and praetorian have a bet riding on this!

I AIN'T CLICKIN' THAT SHIT NIGGA.

Blogger Elizabeth January 21, 2017 5:03 PM  

Sheila4g wrote:@16 Matamoros: "What was 16th and 17th Century Anglicanism - quite simply Catholicism without the Pope."

Overly simplistic and, I would argue, dead wrong. Read "Our Anglican Heritage" by John W. Howe for short, clear explication of English Catholicism and its already significant differences with the Roman Church prior to Henry VIII, as well as highly significant theological differences underlying the Anglican Communion versus Roman Catholic mass. I say this as a currently non-practicing but deeply believing confirmed traditional Anglican.

@40 Mark: "Christianity bereft of its antecedent roots is like contemplating an apple but not the tree from whence it came."

While Vox has already written numerous posts better rebutting your baseless assertion, I feel compelled to add that while America's protestant Christian values and roots certainly include the Old Testament, modern Judaism (i.e. not that of Jesus' time) is based only nominally on the Old Testament and heavily on the Talmud. In its rules, beliefs, and practices it is far closer to Mohammedanism than genuine Christianity.


The English possessed a sense of "Englishness" before the break with Rome and didn't want some foreigner telling them what to do. Henry VIII was a good Catholic, except that he conveniently thought the Supreme Head of the Church of England should be the King of England. The first Protestant ruler of English was Henry's son Edward VI and the issue was settled under Elizabeth I.

You are also correct that Judaism has more in common with Islam than Christianity - their concept of God, social practices and the many rules and regulations that the faithful most practice. Practice - going through the motions - is more important than belief. Jews are also permitted to pray in mosques, but not in churches because Christianity is idol worship.

Anonymous Galactic Starfleets of Deplorable Spartacus January 21, 2017 5:37 PM  

Was it Commodus that counseled 'whatever you do, keep your soldiers paid and loyal' or something like that. Some Roman Emperor on his deathbed speaking to his successor.

Trumps's very first Executive Order was to make Gen. Mattis the Secretary of Defense. Right after the inauguration.

Anonymous Galactic Starfleets of Deplorable Spartacus January 21, 2017 5:38 PM  

Directed at praetorian come to think of it.

Anonymous Autistic Anti-Hero January 21, 2017 5:52 PM  

If the cultural war is like a battlefield, Conservatives are the guy standing bolt upright in the middle of it. Not wearing a shirt, fists up, sporting a handlebar mustache. "Come on, put' em up!" He says, taking jabs at the air. "I'll take you on man to man, I will! I'll butter your bean and serve it to you cold, I will I will!"

Meanwhile, the Liberal is the guerilla hiding in heavy camouflage, taking shots at the Conservative with a sniper rifle. He can usually manage to pop Conservative heads like a ripe watermelon.

The Alt-Right is the frog man sneaking up behind the Liberal guerilla and slitting his throat with a combat knife. Which causes the Conservative to shout, "Now see here, you rotten scoundrel! That is dirty fighting and we'll have none of it!"

Frog Man doesn't care. He slinks back into the mist, waiting with bared blade for another opportunity. Are you tired of winning yet?

Blogger Nick S January 21, 2017 6:06 PM  

Just watched Sean Spicer's first press conference and the media's initial response to it.

The progressives are having difficulty reconciling Trump's ego with his indifference toward his popularity with them. They can't wrap their heads around the fact that he doesn't care what they think about him. I guess they still believe he needs them. He doesn't!

Blogger Bard January 21, 2017 6:26 PM  

The meme wars will go offline into real life. I don't think these idiots have a clue what they are bringing upon themselves by advocating violence. When the dam breaks (once the first person makes it viral/grants permission) a tidal wave will follow. These are the people least fit mentally and physically for violence apart from a few packs of feral blacks. They cry, pout, scream, draw on themselves, march, and are pathetic. They will easily be shattered and it will be soul crushing.

Blogger michaeloh59 January 21, 2017 8:25 PM  

michaeloh59 wrote:
So calling them anti white or europhobic will draw blood and rally Gringoes to our side.

Let us know how that works out for you."

It works well. Slapping anti white Leftys with the anti white label works as well as shaming establishment cucks as establishment cucks, and for the same reason- there is more than a grain of truth in it. It also has the advantage of being a novel Line of attack for which the left has absolutely no experience defending. They can't laugh off disparate Impact, Quotas, Django Unchained, Affirmative Action they way they can laugh off stupid accusations that " Democrats are the real racists" Cuck drooling. The Left do not face such accusations frm the alleged victims so the accusation has no power. Anti white stings because it's true, it's novel and it puts them on the defensive. It can, initially, be framed as a demand to extend full civil rights protections to ALL Americans, even whitey. Alinsky's rule I believe, "hold your enemies to their rules." I once took on the journalist MAtt Taibbi and his girly men on Twitter using just that attack. It was fun. I recommend it. So that's how it worked out for me.

Blogger michaeloh59 January 21, 2017 8:34 PM  

Calling ANYONE, right or left-wing, a "Europhobic" will only succeed in making them laugh at you, idiot.

Incidentally, the funniest name I have ever been called is the related "Germanaphobe".

So far as I know "europhobe" was coined by Steve Sailer, certainly he is attempting to introduce the concept of hostility to whites into the public discourse. One really good way to do that is to coin a useful word to capture that concept. Just ponder how powerful words like "racist, homophobe" and perhaps soon "transphobic" have become, they are usually kill shots. For further instruction I recommend his blog.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 21, 2017 9:07 PM  

It works well. Slapping anti white Leftys with the anti white label works as well as shaming establishment cucks as establishment cucks, and for the same reason- there is more than a grain of truth in it.
No, it has no effect because the target does not believe the truth in it. Lefties don't belueve that anti-White is raaaaaciss.
They. Don't. Care.
Don't lie to yourself.

It also has the advantage of being a novel Line of attack for which the left has absolutely no experience defending.
Again, telling yourself a lie. Lefties routinely call each other raaaaacis, and any Leftie White has had to undergo conciousness raising, in which he must acknowledge that things like logic and consistency are inherently raaaaaciss and sexyst
It simply has no personal impact.

As Vox routinely says, when they accuse you of raaaaaciss, accuse them of pederasty. Personally, I accuse them of being full of hate, but that's because I'm generally dealing with people who think they are overbrimming with Lurve.

Anonymous Dirk January 21, 2017 9:11 PM  

If American protestant culture is in large part Scots-Irish culture, and Ulster (the historical core of that culture) has a star of David on its flag, does Vox's anathematization of the Judeo-Christian make much sense beyond its rhetorical impact on certain audiences?

I can see there is a problem with Jewish leftism/universalism that one wants to deny is American. But at the end of the day both Christianity and nationalism could not have come into existence without the prior revelations of Israel. That's what the covenanters of the Ulster tradition knew. Furthermore, if your people for centuries have to denounce the "Judeo" as a history to be denied, it only shows that your own identity has a dialectical relationship to it.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 21, 2017 9:12 PM  

Just ponder how powerful words like "racist, homophobe" and perhaps soon "transphobic" have become, they are usually kill shots. For further instruction I recommend his blog.

Steve is smart and perceptive, but he is not the place to go for rhetorical kung fu.
That place would be here.
@DemsRRealRacists is a twitter account you should check out. He demonstrates just how weak and ineffective this tactic is.

And read SJWs Always Lie.
Do it! Do it now, faggot!

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 21, 2017 9:14 PM  

If American protestant culture is in large part Scots-Irish culture, and Ulster (the historical core of that culture) has a star of David on its flag, does Vox's anathematization of the Judeo-Christian make much sense beyond its rhetorical impact on certain audiences?
Furthermore, if your people for centuries have to denounce the "Judeo" as a history to be denied, it only shows that your own identity has a dialectical relationship to it.


Are you retarded, or do you actually believe this to be a real argument?

Blogger VD January 21, 2017 9:25 PM  

So far as I know "europhobe" was coined by Steve Sailer, certainly he is attempting to introduce the concept of hostility to whites into the public discourse.

I love Steve. He's great. And he is utterly incapable of speaking rhetoric. The fact that he coined the term is sufficient to rule it out as effective rhetoric.

You obviously do not know whereof you speak.

If American protestant culture is in large part Scots-Irish culture, and Ulster (the historical core of that culture) has a star of David on its flag, does Vox's anathematization of the Judeo-Christian make much sense beyond its rhetorical impact on certain audiences?

Your point is irrelevant. Yes, it makes sense both dialectically and rhetorically. Reject the propaganda and lies. Stand by the truth. There is nothing - NOTHING - "Judeo-Christian" about the foundation of the United States. And there are no - ZERO - "Judeo-Christian" values.

I don't know how it is possible to state this any more plainly: it is a lie.

Blogger VD January 21, 2017 9:27 PM  

But at the end of the day both Christianity and nationalism could not have come into existence without the prior revelations of Israel.

That is horseshit. Nations existed before Israel. Read the Bible. It's right there.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab January 21, 2017 9:30 PM  

I've read some of the Koran. Let's just say it's not up to par with the Bible. It's not up to par with the Bhagavad Gita which I read when I was a kid. That at least was interesting. For a kid. In the same way the book of mormon was interesting.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab January 21, 2017 9:33 PM  

Steve is wonderful and there is a place for guys like him. Speech writing isn't it. Unless you're doing a thing on golf course architecture.

Blogger M Cephas January 21, 2017 9:37 PM  

I still hear a lot of people use "Judeo-Christian" who are definitely not cucks. They are nationalistts, and Trump supporting. But the word gets used a lot by Christians.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 21, 2017 9:46 PM  

Many many people have never thoght about it, and don't know any religious Jews. They think it's a nice rhetorical bait to get Jews on our side.

Anonymous Dirk January 21, 2017 9:51 PM  

What is a nation? It is not simply a people, an empire, a kingdom. Of course all those existed before Israel of the Bible. A nation is formed in dialectical reaction to empire and takes on a new form of reciprocity between the sacred center of the people and the people that only monotheism makes possible. God is one (our God is everyone's God) and our people have a particular relationship to Him in a way that denies the divinity of the multiculti empire and Pharoah. That's why an American nationalist may want to deny the "Judeo" and emphasize the particular history of his people. But, on a dialectical level, for what it's worth, we cannot understand the particular without reference to a universal history in which the Jews are not just any old Other. Why should we have to expend so much energy denying this small nation has a particular role in world history? Because it does and the more we resent the fact, the more it does. I would like to see Israel normalized as just another nation. But it's foolish not to explore the reasons the world still has a big problem with that. Clearly this isn't just another Kurdistan, or whatever.

Blogger michaeloh59 January 21, 2017 9:59 PM  


"It works well. Slapping anti white Leftys with the anti white label works as well as shaming establishment cucks as establishment cucks, and for the same reason- there is more than a grain of truth in it.
No, it has no effect because the target does not believe the truth in it. Lefties don't belueve that anti-White is raaaaaciss.
They. Don't. Care.
Don't lie to yourself."

Bullshit. The accusation puts the racist on the defensive. If it did not sting they would laugh it off in the same way that they laugh off accusations of racism towards minorities, or the way a typical conservative right winger would simply laugh off the accusation of being unpatriotic or un American. The un Patriotic accusation is effective against the left, but never against the right. Similarly one doesn't waste time accusing the left of racism towards minorities but it is very useful to accuse them of racism towards whites and watch the fun letting them defend Disparate Impact.

"It also has the advantage of being a novel Line of attack for which the left has absolutely no experience defending.
Again, telling yourself a lie. Lefties routinely call each other raaaaacis, and any Leftie White has had to undergo conciousness raising, in which he must acknowledge that things like logic and consistency are inherently raaaaaciss and sexyst
It simply has no personal impact."

You are not getting it. The Left is never, ever charged with racism, towards whitey.

"As Vox routinely says, when they accuse you of raaaaaciss, accuse them of pederasty. Personally, I accuse them of being full of hate, but that's because I'm generally dealing with people who think they are overbrimming with "

There is no one answer because there is no one opponent, nor one ally. It's gonna take a multi level attack to roll back the Social Justice Nazis. White people learning the power of identity politics and demanding legitimacy as a tribe is one of the arrows in the quiver, a very important one. As an example, establishing the legitimacy of white grievance over not being included in civil rights protections means a white Senator gets to stand up in the well and oppose Sonia Sotomayor on the grounds that she is a bigot, and hold her anti white statements up like a bloody flag. Do democrats really want to take a vote that will allow opponents to, once again, accuse Democrats of hating white people? Sound familiar? Rinse and repeat. Keep studying.

Blogger Thucydides January 21, 2017 10:25 PM  

While it is true their idea of attacks are pretty feeble, the idea that Trump and the New American Party are encouraging them to attack *at all* should be taken as a good sign. As well, it considerably increases the battlespace management problem of the Left, since they now will see more "traditional" attacks as well as the Alt Right coming at them from different angles.

And by encouraging them to join the fray, they will see first hand which arguments and ideas work better, which will have the effect of peeling at least some of the least "cucked" from the Conservatives and pull them over to the Alt Light or Alt West as a minimum. Nothing like recruiting and building our forces.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 21, 2017 10:25 PM  

So, retarded then.
Goid to know.

Blogger michaeloh59 January 21, 2017 10:27 PM  

"So far as I know "europhobe" was coined by Steve Sailer, certainly he is attempting to introduce the concept of hostility to whites into the public discourse.

I love Steve. He's great. And he is utterly incapable of speaking rhetoric. The fact that he coined the term is sufficient to rule it out as effective rhetoric.

You obviously do not know whereof you speak."

I won't argue that the term "europhobic" is effective rhetoric since I have used it little. I typically use anti-white and often frame my arguments in terms of the failure of society to include whites under civil rights protections- which should be extended to all Americans. What I am arguing is that the consistent and stubborn use of terms like "anti-white" make many of the Left's best weapons available to us: kill shots like "racist" and "bigot" can then be hung on the Left and the Establishment like shite on a long haired cat. Further, let's face it grievance based Identity Politics work, and a campaign to establish the anti white theme that runs through politics and culture as a thing would red pill a lot of gringos to Identity Politics. If "Europhobia" is the wrong word then so be it. Let's find a better one. Or any successful way of dropping "hatred of whites" into the discourse in the same way that "anti-Semite" or "homophobe" dominate any discussion in which they can be plausibly deployed.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 21, 2017 10:31 PM  

@Dirk
Why should we have to expend so much energy denying this small nation has a particular role in world history? Because it does and the more we resent the fact, the more it does. I would like to see Israel normalized as just another nation. But it's foolish not to explore the reasons the world still has a big problem with that.

Maybe it's because modern American Jews have little to nothing to fo with ancient Jews, who largely became Christians.
Or maybe it's because Jews are assholes who invented this particular dodge to enable better parasitization of White culture.
Or maybe it's because it's a vile lie, embraced by stupud cucks like you despite all evidence to the contrary.
Oe maybe you're just retarded and unable to understand when you're being lied to.

Blogger Cail Corishev January 21, 2017 10:54 PM  

I still hear a lot of people use "Judeo-Christian" who are definitely not cucks.

As said already, many Christians have been trained to say it because they think it sounds nice, inclusive, and historically knowledgeable. It's true that they aren't necessarily cucks; they're just ignorant.

It's like how people started saying "men and women in uniform" every time they talk about soldiers risking their lives overseas, even before they started putting women anywhere near combat. A lot of people saying it weren't trying to make a feminist point; they were just trying to be nice to girls and sound hip to the changing times.

Anonymous Dirk January 21, 2017 10:58 PM  

Snidely, indeed.

Ok, I guess I am retarded because I don't see how a Christian can look at the Bible and not see that it is part Jewish. Even if you think that the Christian part is superior to the Old Testament, why does Christianity need to keep the Old? Even if the Old is just full of types for which the New provides the antitypes, then there is still a dialectical relationship between Old and New and a need to remember the Old. Now you may say, this has nothing to do with why the term "Judeo-Christian" became part of American political discourse in the twentieth century. And even if you can point to particular reasons for the rise of that term, I must admit that I (but i know many people out there are in the same boat) am retarded because I don't know that American political history (I'm Canadian) and I/we just naturally assume that "Judeo-Christian" means Biblical or Western, and I think you will have an impossible time trying to convince people otherwise. But since you are obviously a genius in argument, show me how it's going to be done.

To get back to my Ulster example. I'm sure there are many people there who don't particularly like Jews, especially modern leftist ones. So why do they keep the Star of David on their flag? Because they are religious nationalists, Presyberians mostly, and they know their forefathers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had to discover the model of a covenantal nation in the Old Testament. They brought that model to Canada, perhaps more powerfully than they did to USAmerica, so it is part of my history too. And one that has been traitorously destroyed by multiculti globalists. That Canada is now basically dead. The New Testament does not provide us a model of a nation. The globalists, who are my enemy, are much more in touch with an abstraction of the New than the Old, however many leftist know-nothing about the Bible Jews are with them. And that's why you are so pissed, I assume.

Blogger wreckage January 21, 2017 10:59 PM  

"If American protestant culture is in large part Scots-Irish culture"

It's not. The dominant historical religious drivers in the USA were both English: the Anglican Church and the Puritans. Irish culture particularly is Catholic. Scots culture is split between Catholic and (Methodist, Presbyterian, etc) hardline Protestant; which is perhaps why the Anglos and Scots always got along better than the Anglos and Irish.

Anonymous Dirk January 21, 2017 11:36 PM  

"The dominant historical religious drivers in the USA were both English"

That's what I would tend to assume too, hence my "If". However, it is to some extent a regional question and there are parts of America (Appalachia, most obviously) where the Scots-Irish is dominant and the same is probably true for one important institution, at least for some of its history, if not so today: the military.

But the larger point is that the Puritans and the Anglicans have somehow morphed into the globalist liberals of today. America ruled by the graduates of Harvard. So where does a religious nationalist find succour?

I said in my previous comment that I think the Scots-Irish influence was more powerful in Canada than in the US. But it wasn't so at the start of Anglo-Canadian history (didn't exist yet) but became the dominant strain of Anglo-Canadian culture by the end of the nineteenth century and for some time in the first half of the twentieth. And then it was destroyed. So was it really powerful? Long story short, that is why I think it was destroyed. Because the poltical class that needed to ally with the Catholic forces in Quebec did it in; they went to war, explicitly, with the Loyal Orange Association which was for a time the largest fraternity in Canada and powerful at many job sites (yes, more powerful than even the Freemasons). For those who are not above reading a smart Jew, Moldbug, you can see in this history, if you care to read it alonside Moldbug's analysis, that it is the old story of a high-low alliance against the middle.

What is dead might, possibly, be resurrected. But I don't see how anyone who wants to get back in touch with this important (if not dominant) strain of culture can do so by denying what was so obvious to those who took their model of a covenantal nation from the Old Testament (and it was not just the Scots-Irish who did so). Hell, Trump in his inauguration speech called on America not to impose itself but to be a model for other nations. That's Jew talk, you know.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 21, 2017 11:40 PM  

Dirk wrote:I/we just naturally assume that "Judeo-Christian" means Biblical or Western, and I think you will have an impossible time trying to convince people otherwise. But since you are obviously a genius in argument, show me how it's going to be done.
By mocking and ridiculing farcicale clowns like you, of course.

You're the one positing a split betweent he old and new testaments. No one here is doing so.
What we are positing is a split between Classical Judaism and Talmudic Judaism. Which split is explicit, acknowledged by all Jews everywhere and undeniable. Stop conflating the Jews of the Old Testament with the Jews of the modern world. The great majority of Classical Jews became Christians in the 1st-3rd centuries. Most of the remainder died out. A small remnant abandoned the Torah and wrote the Talmud to take it's place. Modern Talmudic Judaism considers the Torah to be raw material from which the great scholars have created a religion. Not that it's much of a religion, because it does not balk had accepting a postulate and its opposite as equally valid.
Do you know where Hegelian dialectic comes from? It's one of the basic structures of the Talmud. Except that in Talmudic dialectic, synthesis often doesn't occur, because it would necessarily exclude some member of the Tribe.
The one, single, required dogma of Talmudic Judaism? Denial of Christ. You can deny the existence of God. You can sign your soul over to the devil. You can worship the Buddha. You're still a member of the Tribe. But to confess publicly that Jesus son of Mary is the Messiah is to exclude yourself from membership.
So take all your long-winded indirect associations and swallow them whole. Biblical Judaism has nothing whatever to do with modern Jews, and modern Jews hate you with a burning, unquenchable hatred unless you're a member of the Tribe.
I was going to say "because you're a Christian", but you rather obviously are not.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 21, 2017 11:52 PM  

And, the Orangemen had the great advantage that Jews were more or less a theoretical construct to them, there being virtually none in Ulster.

Blogger SteelPalm January 21, 2017 11:56 PM  

@101

The great majority of Classical Jews became Christians in the 1st-3rd centuries. Most of the remainder died out. A small remnant abandoned the Torah and wrote the Talmud to take it's place.

This is ahistorical, bullshit SJW-esque rationalization, meant to make you feel better that Jesus was indeed a Jew. (Shades of Richard Wagner's extreme crisis on the matter)

Most Jews did not become Christians, but stayed Jews.

and modern Jews hate you with a burning, unquenchable hatred unless you're a member of the Tribe.

Like a SJW, you're also fond of projection. I could point to the ridiculously high intermarriage rates of Jews (71% in the US, including all of Trump's kids last I checked), but luckily for you, Jews in Europe (about a million remaining) have now been replaced by Muslim invaders, welcomed by their government and native whites in a warm manner the Jews never were, even after centuries.

One would think an encounter with such genuine "burning, unquenchable hatred"! would wise some folks up, but apparently not.

More importantly, what the fuck is the name of that foul degenerate that assaulted Spencer?

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents January 22, 2017 12:01 AM  

"If American protestant culture is in large part Scots-Irish culture"

INot.

There are more Baptists than Presbyterians. There are a lot of Lutherans. Both result from German immigration in the 19th century. Your premise is wrong, it needs to be discarded and your cuckery abandoned.

Blogger tublecane January 22, 2017 12:11 AM  

@98-The Ulster example is without a doubt the silliest part. What was it Joyce wrote in Ulysses? The Irish were the only Europeans never to persecute the Jews because they never let them in. Jewish influence over the Scotch-Irish extends about as far as them being Christian. Which ain't much.

I don't believe there was ever direct Jewish influence. By the 16th and 17th centuries you had over 1,000 of "Judeo-Christian" influence, all of it Christian. The "Judeo" part comes in only as a legacy.

Yeah, we all know Christianity derived from Judaism. So did Islam, but you don't hear anyone talking about Judeo-Islamic values. This despite being he fact that there's been probably less hostility and more amity between those groups than between Christians and Jews.

You ever wonder why, despite the fact that our (by which I mean U.S.) culture derives from the Greek and Roman (/Jewish, if you like) fountainhead of Western Civilization, we don't refer to it as Greco-Roman-Anglo-American culture? Because that's a mouthful, plus it's just fundamentally wrong. There is a straight line of descent from Roman law to American law, for instance, but our culture is neither Greek nor Roman, really. It's American, and Anglo-American at most.

Also, no, American culture is not in large part Scotch-Irish. It's in small part Scotch-Irish. It's more German than it is Scotch-Irish, actually. Mostly, it's English.

Blogger tublecane January 22, 2017 12:21 AM  

@102-That's true, and I would say the same thing about the Founding Fathers and the Greeks, for instance, and to a lesser extent the Romans. They didn't have the real Greeks in mind when establishing the Republic, but a sort of Model Greece they could use for their own ends. This is less true of ancient Rome, because ancient Rome influenced our culture directly, through law and religion especially. But still, they had more of an imaginary Rome in mind.

There's something to be said for the Founders' understanding of English history as similarly abstract. They made liberal use of Whig history, which was just plain wrong. But they were Englishmen, and therefore could be wrong about English history and still be influenced by the real thing.

Irishmen consciously adopting Israel as a model couldn't help but be play-acting. They didn't have any more connection to the ancient Jews than the Founding Fathers had to ancient Athens, and probably less.

Blogger MycroftJones January 22, 2017 12:42 AM  

The Puritans were English. They covenanted with God to follow his laws. Then the King did a whole bunch of gerrymandering and immivasion so the founding stock of America lost its political power. Thus it became corrupted, and today the Puritans are blamed for Harvard, abolition, immivasion, and other things. This is ahistorical. The Puritans wanted to build a city on a hill; the Satanists of the Enlightenment coopted the movement to their own evil ends. The wheat and the tares will be mixed until the very end. Right now the tares are almost choking the wheat to death.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 22, 2017 1:22 AM  

SteelPalm wrote:This is ahistorical, bullshit SJW-esque rationalization, meant to make you feel better that Jesus was indeed a Jew. (Shades of Richard Wagner's extreme crisis on the matter)
No, it's absolutely true. It is a known historical fact that, even as the Church was growing at unprecedented rates, it was joined mostly by Jews.
And, at the same time that millions of Christians are being created, the historical records show literally millions of Jews simply disappearing. Virtually the entire Jewish populations of Greece and Italy simply vanished between 100 AD and 200 AD.
There is no other reasonable explanation for those two concurrent events.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 22, 2017 1:25 AM  

MycroftJones wrote:This is ahistorical. The Puritans wanted to build a city on a hill; the Satanists of the Enlightenment coopted the movement to their own evil ends.
This is not ahistorical. The Unitarians are the genetic, legal and organizational descendants of the Puritans.
You may not like it. You may want the history of the Puritans to result in a shining city on a hill, but the end result of Puritan theology and discipline is Unitarianism.

Anonymous To Mock a Killingbird January 22, 2017 1:47 AM  

Every once in a while; the columns here induce the posters to show an attachment to romantic fantasies.

@9.

"Northern Europeans were and continue to be more ethical, as well."

Well they make be more ETHICAL, but they aren't more MORAL, and I'm not sure I want to follow their examples; there's a reason hardcore leftists use Sweden as some sort of civic North Star. Where Northern Europeans settled (Minnesota and Wisconsin); their "ethics" have proven to show an attachment leftish fetishes as well.

"That's also why Catholics allied with Jews to tear down those values after they arrived in significant numbers in the 19th and 20th centuries. "
@11


The "tear down" in the the values of framers started with the Progressive movement, which was an outgrowth of Protestant "social Gospel" reformers; multiple writers detailed that the intellectual armory of Progressivism was manned by Richard T Ely, Henry Carter Adams (a minister's son) and not a Catholic in site.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/evangelical-american-economics/460455/

There is no doubt that the United States is the product of mostly Protestants (other than Carroll); but their project was an explicit rejection of other Protestant projects such as England and Sweden. There is no unified Protestant view of governmental architecture; any more than there is a unified view of eschatology, soteriology or ecclesiology.

Anonymous Dirk January 22, 2017 2:14 AM  

Snidely,

Of course there is a split between classical Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism. But to say Jews have abandoned the Torah and only read Talmud is nonsense. A religious Jew reads and studies a Torah portion every week and goes through the whole every year, religiously. A semi-religious Jew is more likely to do that than read Talmud. Anyway, the more interesting historical question is what is the relationship between the historical emergence of Rabbinnic Judaism and Christianity. Historians, I am told (have not studied this, and no doubt we can assume the leftist bias of the academy) see a lot of interaction between the two in the early centuries of both. In any case, to say that Rabbinic Judaism is somehow fundamentally distinct from classical Judaism would require an argument I am sure no one can make in any but a dismissive vein. Similarity/difference just can't be weighed effectively.

Anyway, the idea that Jews are incapable of dialectic because they deny Christ is incredible. Yes, a Jew can be an atheist but not a Christian. This is just a reminder that Jews are fundamentally a nation that has religious structure but is not reducible to the ritualistic. The nation, the polical existence and authority, has anthropological priority (I believe in the ultimate sovereignty of the king, not the priest), which is why modern Israel could be created largely by atheists. And Jews in the diaspora always had community leaders who were generally not the Rabbis who are not priests anyway.

Converting to Christianity is seen as leaving the nation - it is a fundamentally a question of identity, more than it is a question of denying the truth of Christianity. Of course many Jews are anti-Christian, but many intellectually serious Jews think Christianity is true for gentiles. In other words, they take seriously the fact that nations are necessarily particular entities in conversation with a universal truth. A Jew can be a light unto the nations, if he remembers his difference, because truth must be spoken from a particular vantage point, and one important truth is that someone has to go first in recognizing any truth (like monotheism) and remembering, more importantly embodying, the necessity of this firstness (of which Amerians have many examples) which is sure to be resented by those who don't recognize that firstness, and the differences but also opportunities it creates, is essential to humanity. A Jew cannot be a Jew if he becomes a Christian because Jews are a nation with closed walls, with something sacrificial that can't be explained. And that should be a model for all nations, if necessarily on different terms for each. But the necessary closure of all nations is just as much a problem for Christians (or "Churchians", if you insist) as it is for leftist Jews. Of course there are arguments at this blog that this should not be the case, and I welcome them, at least some, but the larger historical point is that these arguments still need to be made within a world historical frame.

As a secular person who takes Biblical religion seriously, and as true, I can assure you that while most atheists are clueless, there are anthropological modes of thought that allow us to see the truth of Biblical religion without being religiously involved, even if this has so far very little sociological or historical effect in the larger world and may well never have. But then again, who knows. I agree with Rene Girard that the meaning of the cross which has some antecedents, if less complete, in the Old Testament is anti-sacrificial. But I also agree with Winston Churchill that a nation has to retain a capacity for sacrificial violence if it is to survive. There are fundamental paradoxes I can't solve.

Anonymous Dirk January 22, 2017 2:16 AM  

My last, with apologies for clogging up the comments.

To those who point out the Scots-Irish influence is not as big in America as suggested, I raised the issue by way of example. Ulster folk are perhaps just the best at remembering a point that all forms of Western nationalism are modeled on the Old Testament. That is the argument of historians like Adrian Hastings (who puts his own English nationalism first in this story of Biblical memory). And whether or not the Ulster folk had actual contact with Jews is irrelevant. Many of the Europeans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who spent their lives reading Talmud and other Jewish texts in order to find ideas about what a Biblical nation is like didn't like Jews, and like many here wanted to forget them even as they were remembering "them", a fundamental ambivalence for those not convinced that classical Judaism and the modern Jew are entirely different beasts. The early modern Europeans couldn't escape the Jewish influence but didn't want to name their nations "jewish" beyond occasional metaphors. But did that free them from being obsessed with the small minority among them, as if the Jews controlled things? No, that is my point. Western people have such an awkward relationship with the Jews. If you are not a Nazi (the effect of whom was only to centralize the Jewish question yet again so that the Holocaust has become sacred to the globalists) then you want to normalize Jews and Israel, presumably. Then perhaps we can overcome, I can only begin to imagine, this awkward relationship, not by denying it. Wouldn't it be best to be able to say, "Judeo-Christian", so what, of course, etc., and not have to get into these rhetorical battles where we try to deny some essence or assert another?

I read this blog because I think Vox's analysis of SJWs and Cuckservatism is quite brilliant. Still, a growing movement needs rhetoric for more than one audience. And some of us are nationalists who only resent some Jews but not Jewishness in general. And that's not going to change, so it's good to be told where the walls are drawn, here, or anywhere, which is the excuse for this long comment. Thank you for your time

Blogger SteelPalm January 22, 2017 3:05 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger SteelPalm January 22, 2017 3:09 AM  

@108

No, it's absolutely true. It is a known historical fact that, even as the Church was growing at unprecedented rates, it was joined mostly by Jews.
And, at the same time that millions of Christians are being created, the historical records show literally millions of Jews simply disappearing. Virtually the entire Jewish populations of Greece and Italy simply vanished between 100 AD and 200 AD.


Impressive use of weasel terms; it's a "known historical fact" and we have "historical records" for a time period historians know extraordinarily little about outside of what Seneca and others were writing about the center of the Roman Empire.

Don't be foolish. The number of Jews in the Middle East and Europe numbered well into the millions based on more reliable accounts as early as the 6th century AD.

How is it possible then that the "almost no Jews left" from 100-200 grew to millions considering the Jewish ban against proselytizing, and strict rules for both lineage (simply having a Jewish father isn't enough) and conversion?

It's not.

That's not even getting into the notoriously stubborn Jewish resistance against conversion, even in the most dire of circumstances, on pain of death.

When Spain offered the Sephardic Jews a choice between conversion and expulsion/execution in the 15th century, at least half chose the latter.

Blogger MycroftJones January 22, 2017 4:28 AM  

@114 don't conflate the Jews of 500 years ago with the Jews of 2000 years ago. Selection pressures have altered them. Saint Chrysostum invented the crime of "Judaizing" and enforced it with leftist style mob attacks around 600AD because Jews were so effective at proseletizing (and marrying) Christian women.

Blogger MycroftJones January 22, 2017 4:29 AM  

Even reading Martin Luther's book about the Jews and their Lies, and comparing it with what Jews practice and believe today, they have evolved and changed significantly. Even comparing the Jews of 200 years ago, there are huge differences. Read what Ezra Stiles had to say about the Jews of his day.

Blogger MycroftJones January 22, 2017 4:31 AM  

As for "almost no Jews" in 200AD growing to 6 million in 600AD (to quote post @114, not saying these numbers are accurate) you only need to look at the story of Jacob in Egypt; Israel went from 70 souls to around 6 million in the same period of time under discussion.

Blogger MycroftJones January 22, 2017 4:33 AM  

@109 Snidely, what part of "the wheat and tares are mingled" don't you understand? The Unitarians started off with the right idea. It is the logical progression of Sola Scriptura. The problem was when they abandoned Bible literalism, due to various types of higher criticism. Many Puritan descendants left the official Unitarian church. We are everywhere, and we are waking up again. And then we find the Catholics are ready and waiting, to whack us into the ground again as soon as they have the power to.

Blogger SteelPalm January 22, 2017 5:10 AM  

MycroftJones-

You are correct that Jews have changed and adapted considerably with the times. In fact, even Jews in slightly different geographic regions develop disparate cultures.

For instance, in the Soviet Union, there was a marked difference between Russian Jews, Odessan Jews, and Ukrainian Jews, all of whom were their own, separate group, and disagreed with the others.

I've mentioned before how horribly I, a Russian Jew, get along with, and have almost nothing in common with the typical American Jew. (By contrast, I like most Israeli Jews I've come in contact with)

However, I do believe that proselytizing was always banned. Do you have a source that claims otherwise?

And yeah, not buying the population explosion theory either. A lot of Jews were killed/dispersed when the Romans destroyed the first iteration of Israel, and some converted to Christianity, but many long-standing Jewish communities were completely untouched.

And quoting the story of Jacob isn't much of an argument with me; while I respect Christianity and Judaism alike, I'm secular and believe there are many inaccuracies in both Old and New Testament alike.

Blogger MycroftJones January 22, 2017 5:16 AM  

Proseletizing always banned? No. Source: rabbi at the local synagogue. She said proseletyzing was banned because of bad blowback from the surrounding Christians. I find this backed up by various anecdotes and details found in the New Testament, and various other things I've come across on the web. (Yes, the Rabbi is a woman)

Blogger SteelPalm January 22, 2017 5:56 AM  

Hmmm...did she gave a specific date? An Internet search returns conflicting accounts.

And also, my utter disgust at a female "rabbi" is difficult to convey. I imagine it's a Reform or Reconstructionist "synagogue", aka a Jewish country club that preaches Social Justice.

Even Conservative synagogues, equally worthless though they are, haven't debauched themselves to having female "rabbis".

The non-Orthodox synagogues are to Judaism what the Churchians are to Christianity. An abomination and insult.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 22, 2017 5:59 AM  

MycroftJones wrote:The Unitarians started off with the right idea. It is the logical progression of Sola Scriptura. The problem was when they abandoned Bible literalism, due to various types of higher criticism. Many Puritan descendants left the official Unitarian church. We are everywhere, and we are waking up again. And then we find the Catholics are ready and waiting, to whack us into the ground again as soon as they have the power to.
I would agree that Unitarianism is a logical conclusion of Sola Scriptura. And a primary example of why Sola Scriptura is such a boneheaded and anti-biblcal dogma.

"Catholic ready and waiting to whack you into the ground again"?
WTF, can't get along without a designated enemy?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 22, 2017 6:12 AM  

So, SteelPalm,
Where did all those early Christians come from? They did not spring fully formed from the pope's forehead. The Acts of the Apostles shows exactly how well Christianity was received by pagans. And how well it was received by Jewish communities outside of those dominated by Pharisees. Virtually every Christian in the New Testament started as a Jew (or other allied groups, e.g. Essene, Samaritan, John's disciples, etc.)

Blogger Gordon January 22, 2017 6:33 AM  

Jose wrote:
(I now self-identity as a AC-130J Ghostrider gunship; my pronouns are Woosh/Boom; correctly address me as "Your Mighty Howitzer.")


I'm identifying as Prince's biological, white son AND daughter. Thus, all his stuff is belong to me, bitches, and anyone who doesn't agree is a raciss sexiss homyphone. You can reach me at Paisley Park.

Blogger SteelPalm January 22, 2017 6:42 AM  

@123

The early Christians did a phenomenal job of converting people, and being tough, intolerant, and uncompromising, even in the face of death.

Here is a good article on the matter; https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#_ftn2.zcunsea0f

You might similarly ask how a few missionaries managed to turn hostile and even utterly alien civilizations (like Japan) towards Christianity.

Blogger VD January 22, 2017 8:13 AM  

And some of us are nationalists who only resent some Jews but not Jewishness in general. And that's not going to change, so it's good to be told where the walls are drawn, here, or anywhere, which is the excuse for this long comment.

Jews are a nation. They have the sovereign rights of a nation. Therefore, Jews do not, and cannot, belong to any other nation.

You cannot simultaneously support Israel's existence as a nation and claim that Jews are also Americans, French, Chinese, or members of any other nation. This is basic logic; the law of the excluded middle, to be precise.

X cannot also be Not-X. The Jew cannot also be the Not-Jew.

That doesn't mean there is any reason to resent them. It means there is a good reason to call them out if they either a) deny logic and the law of the excluded middle, or b) claim to be both a Jew and a Not-Jew.

Blogger Tom Kratman January 22, 2017 8:17 AM  

"The Jew cannot also be the Not-Jew."

Sure he can, by becoming the ex-Jew.

Blogger Student in Blue January 22, 2017 8:45 AM  

Sure he can, by becoming the ex-Jew.

The sentence was not "The Jew cannot become the Not-Jew", but "The Jew cannot also be the Not-Jew".

Blogger Tom Kratman January 22, 2017 8:56 AM  

In context, SiB, that is irrelevant. No, X cannot be a Jew and not Jew, at the same time, clearly. But the inference is that being a Jew is forever. This is false unless one goes further to claim that every aspect of being a Jew is genetic and therefore a Jew can never stop being a Jew. (Did Christ or or the 12 or Paul or any number of converts never stop being Jews? This would be theologically problematic.) To simply assume the calc stops there, to forget that time doesn't stop, that things and people can and sometimes do change, is false. X was a Jew. X converted. X is not a Jew. The statement is no longer relevant for X and no longer applies to X any more than it applied to Paul. or Jesus.

Blogger Mark January 22, 2017 9:56 AM  

Curious that the pilgrims on the Mayflower considered adopting He few as their new native tongue. Bradford thought that after he died, he would rise to heaven and converse in the most ancient of tongues. Many pilgrim gravestones with Hebrew inscriptions.

Blogger DonReynolds January 22, 2017 5:39 PM  

The arguments are over. Why are they over? Because they are on an endless loop of the same tired phrases, the same thrust and parry, without effect. We have already heard all the arguments and continuing to repeat them is not a solution.
We are at the physical stage of our conflict. That awkward time between the end of the pushing and shoving.....and the beginning of the kicks and punches. The Last Resort of Kings.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents January 22, 2017 6:59 PM  

@122 Snidely
I would agree that Unitarianism is a logical conclusion of Sola Scriptura.

Cool. Got evidence to support that, or just making stuff up in your head?

And a primary example of why Sola Scriptura is such a boneheaded and anti-biblcal dogma.

So obeying the Bible is like, totally anti-Biblical?
Are you a blonde, by any chance?

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents January 22, 2017 7:03 PM  

@109 Snidely
The Unitarians are the genetic, legal and organizational descendants of SOME of the Puritans.

FIFY.
I know black Unitarians who emigrated from Africa in the last 30 years. Pretty sure they didn't come over on the Mayflower. I know white Unitarians who were raised as Catholics. I know white Unitarians whose parents were hippies of some sort.

Yeah, the Congregationalist churches of the 18th centuries tended to devolve to the Universalist - Unitarian groups of the 19th, I'll give you that. But others left New England entirely, and your sweeping generalization does not hold up.

You may not like it. You may want the history of the Puritans to result in a shining city on a hill, but the end result of Puritan theology and discipline is Unitarianism.

Except when it isn't. Facts are not on your side, dude.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents January 22, 2017 7:09 PM  

Dirk
To those who point out the Scots-Irish influence is not as big in America as suggested, I raised the issue by way of example. Ulster folk are perhaps just the best at remembering a point that all forms of Western nationalism are modeled on the Old Testament. That is the argument of historians like Adrian Hastings (who puts his own English nationalism first in this story of Biblical memory).

No idea who that man is, but it is beyond absurd to claim that all forms of Western nationalism are modeled on the Old Testament. Just for a start, explain how Icelandic nationalism was based on the Old Testament . Then explain how Swiss nationalism is likewise based on the OT. Then explain Frence nationalism in the same wise. You can't do it.

Your theory doesn't even come close to reality, so it is a fail. Stop trying to cram human history onto your Procrustean bed.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts