I’ve been reading Thomas Nelson Pages “The Negro Problem,” authored by a very decent, honorable and honest Southern gent around the turn of the 19th century. Most of the points he makes could well have been made by Steve.

I’ve noticed you beating the drum for Puritanism as a judaizing heresy and Cromwell as the original WASP for quite some time now.

While I defer to no one in my disdain and loathing for the lot (mostly from the Stour Valley) that came to “new england,” Puritanism in England was anything but monolithic. A not insignificant portion of the English Puritans — Burroughs, Bunyan, and Tobias Crisp, among others — tended toward a universalism that is similar to the Orthodox Church. Hardly judaiazing, at least as I understand the term (in the sense Paul uses it in Galatians.)

Also worth recalling the Lord Saye, a Puritan noble, sent at least one letter to Winthrop telling him to back off from his claims that New England was the veritable New Israel.

Also, I’m not sure that Cromwell “cut deals” with the Jews. A small body did indeed return to England during the Protectorate, but Cromwell’s role in that is open to question.

And also while the Bostonians among the New England crowd were definitely gnostic assholes (particularly the Mathers), there were also fairly wise and decent ones, eg Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson.

Nevertheless, because I’m something of a historian of the period, I’m very interested in seeing any writing/reseearch you’ve done on this topic. Do you have a blog or anything of the sort? It’s a fascinating subject, to be sure, one that should be researched in more detail.

Respectfully, P. Cleburne.

I’ve noticed you beating the drum for Puritanism as a judaizing heresy and Cromwell as the original WASP for quite some time now.

While I defer to no one in my disdain and loathing for the lot (mostly from the Stour Valley) that came to “new england,” Puritanism in England was anything but monolithic. A not insignificant portion of the English Puritans — Burroughs, Bunyan, and Tobias Crisp, among others — tended toward a universalism that is similar to the Orthodox Church. Hardly judaiazing, at least as I understand the term (in the sense Paul uses it in Galatians, or for that matter similar to the “judaizing” heresy in medieval Russia.)

Also worth recalling the Lord Saye, a Puritan noble, sent at least one letter to Winthrop telling him to back off from his claims that New England was the veritable New Israel.

Also, I’m not sure that Cromwell “cut deals” with the Jews. A small body did indeed return to England during the Protectorate, but Cromwell’s role in that is open to question.

And also while the Bostonians among the New England crowd were definitely gnostic assholes (particularly the Mathers), there were also fairly wise and decent ones, eg Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson.

Nevertheless, because I’m something of a historian of the period, I’m very interested in seeing any writing/reseearch you’ve done on this topic. Do you have a blog or anything of the sort? It’s a fascinating subject, to be sure, one that should be researched in more detail.

Respectfully, P. Cleburne.

Pioni —

Cromwell’s role (or non-role) in the “readmission” of the Jews to England (or was it merely allowing Jews already extant in England freedom of worship?) is, as I indicated, open to further study/interpretation. At any rate, the point of my question to Jake was: 1. was English Puritanism a “judaizing heresy.” I am not confident that it was, in theological terms, but I’m not sure how Jake is using the term. 2. I’m also not confident that the historical record supports the contention that Cromwell engaged in some sort of nefarious plot with Menasseh ben Israel. A conference was convened to discuss his petition to readmit the Jews, and nothing came of it (despite what Simon Schama says). Cromwell was primarily an English nationalist, in the manner of most of the country gentry of his day; I think it’s a bit of a stretch to depict him as a globalist “anglo-zionist” (as the Saker puts it). However, I’m interested in reviewing Jake’s arguments. Or yours, if you have any.

The Federal Reserve, technically, is owned by its member banks. It was established by an act during the Wilson administration. Wilson was a horrible president, but not as bad as Abraham Lincoln.

Respectfully, P. Cleburne

I;d also provide a links (asked for them in another comment chain) to his contention that Oliver Cromwell was the original WASP and English Puritanism a judaizing heresy. Interesting thesis, but I’d like the see the argument.

I live in the “wealthiest” zip code (demographics tend to be white/Asian/Indian) in a large Texas city which among other attractions contains Steve’s alma mater. There is a Starbucks near to me. Last night, when coming from from a Sons of Confederate Veterans meeting (amusingly, we did not display the CSA battle flags or sing Dixie, as is the usual custom, as a POC had someone or another found a picture of this on Yelp and complained to the manager of the restaurant where we’ve met from time immemorial) I noted seven black people chilling on the patio of said Starbucks. Maybe they were showing solidarity with the peoples in Philly. Or maybe they found it a convenient place to chill out, there being chairs and all.

Semi-related…. a good friend of mine who did some time with an NGO in Africa said that a fat wife is a sign of wealth. So I can’t but assume that the victim’s blondness was merely a lust multiplier applied to her hefty white body.

For at least the third time of asking, can you demonstrate or document this interesting thesis? At the very least you have some facts somewhat askew per Cromwell and the Jews. Also define what you mean by Judaising heresy. I’m not sure you understand what it means, or at least are not well read in English puritan theology which besides being very diverse has clear tendencies toward universalism on the part of some (Burroughs, who was Cromwell’s chaplain, Crisp, Bunyan).

Konstantin Pobednostev is one of the more towering figures of late 19th century Russia. If I’m not mistaken he and Dostoevsky were friends. I would refer you to his “reflections of a Russian statesman,” which is available in English. the 1/3 expelled, 1/3 converted, 1/3 died is generally attributed to him (although I don’t think it’s ever been definitively established).

I enjoy your posts. All the best.

Jake:

While I defer to no one in my loathing and contempt for the WASPs of the Northeastern U.S., whose career of mischief began with the brutal war of conquest against my native South, I’d would like to point out what I see as some problems in your assigning to Oliver Cromwell to baleful title of WASP the first.

To wit: “Oliver Cromwell’s deal with Jews, a deal granting Jews special rights and privileges.”

This simply isn’t true. Menasseh ben Israel did indeed present a “Humble Address on Behalf of the Jewish Nation” to the Lord Protector and the Counsel of State in 1655. Readmission was opposed by most of the English people and of the Puritan pastorate. However, there was no Act of Parliament, proclamation by Cromwell or notice from the Council of State allowing readmittance. Some historians have “deduced” that Cromwell have Menasseh “verbal assurance that they’d be allowed it, but those are deductions and speculation and no more. As far as sa subsequent petition for Jews to be allowed to practice Judaism in their homes and have a burial place outside the City of London, Cromwell referred that to the Council of State, which took no action.

Who did grant the Jews religious tolerance and naturalized a number of Jews by an Act of Parliament? Why, Charles II – after the Restoration.

You wrote: “made precisely in order to have the money to wage total war to exterminate non-WASP white Christian cultures and identities.”

I can only assume you are referring to the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, which began in May 1649. I assume you’re aware that Ireland had been engulfed in a bloody and brutal civil war since 1641; indeed, one of the precipitating causes of the English Civil War was the matter of who would control the army raised to suppress the rebellion (Charles I or Parliament). Also as you know, England was swept by fear that Charles meant to bring an Irish army to England to suppress Parliament (and, indeed, there’s probably more evidence that this was the actual case than there is that Cromwell cut a deal with the Jews). At any rate, there is no one single shred of evidence or even contemporary speculation that the Cromwellian conquest was at the behest of the Jews. It should be instead regarded in the context of the 17th century wars of religion, rather than 21st century conspiracy theory. Cromwell ended the civil war and pacified Ireland – in a brutal fashion, of course, but probably less vicious than Wallenstein in Germany.

Or are you referring to the Scots, crushed at Preston, Dunbar and Worcester? Again, the quarrel with the scots was over the matter of church governance, and the English unwillingness to impost the Presbyterian system on England. If Cromwell stood for anything, it was religious tolerance for the various sects that exploded after the Civil War; the sort of forced conformity demanded by the Scots displeased him (see the letters to Major Crawford in 1643).

And while both the New Englanders and English are labeled “Puritan,” may I point out that the Puritan movement was a large one, with considerable variance. Cromwell favored tolerance and theologically tended toward a sort of univeralism (to judge by his pastors, eg Jeremiah Burroughs); I imagine that if he had gone to New England, he’d have been chased out along with Sarah Hutchinson and Roger Williams by the fanatical shits of Boston.

Boston is the “urgrund” of the WASP plague; not Cromwell. And while there’s any number of things to fault him for, creation of the WASP was not one of them. In theological and existential terms, Cromwell and the New Model were probably closer to the Puritan “pioneers” of the Appalachian and Southern frontiers – many of whom were descended of troops planted in Ireland by Cromwell – and who of course made up the rank and file of the Confederate States Army.

You might want to take a look at the history of the Unitarian movement. You’d find everything you need to support your dislike of the WASP plaque there; I certainly have.

“WASP” in the “USA” refers fairly specifically to the Protestants of New England and New York who as a result of the War of Northern Aggression attained complete power over the development of the American empire. Their interests were concentrated in banking, railroads, industry and so on. While descended from the Puritans of New England, most of them had lost any traditional religious fervor by, oh, 1700 or so and gradually moved into loopy, nonsensical ideologies like Transcendentalism, Unitarianism, the Social Gospel, and various other creation-fixing endeavors like temperance, abolitionist, progressivism and so on. To them can be attributed the Gnostic notion of the United States as God’s appointed righter of wrongs around the world, with quite coincidentally matched up with their commercial interests. On the whole about as nasty and horrible group of people that ever walked the earth; however. WASP does not include the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants of Appalachia, the Deep South, Texas and so on. The Bush family are WASPs. Robert E. Lee was not a WASP. Jake is correct to disdain them; he’s wrong in saying Cromwell was the archetype.

Thanks for your eloquent response. A few thoughts:

1. I wouldn’t extend Calhoun’s religion, ot the lack thereof, to the “common soldier” of the Confederacy. You might take a look at Fehrenbach’s “Lone Star” history of Texas; he understands the “puritanism” of the South.

2.

But when Lincoln – that flawed man – saw the original sin of the American republic as the protection of slavery, he was right.

–> sorry, I don’t think “original sin” is attributable to nations. History is a bloodbath, and always will be, and the whole notion that slavery is some sort of “sin” demanding atonement is quite ridiculous. That’s the sort of gnosticism practiced by the Bostonians that played sure a huge part in causing the War of Nort.. er. War for Southern Independence. Far as antebellum slavery itself, might I recommend the work of Genovese and Fogelberg on the character of American slavery? A review of how exactly the victorious Yankees and their Republican bosses provided for the liberated slaves after Appomattox is enlightening.

3.

But no one forced the state of South Carolina to fire at Fort Sumter.

Saint Abe himself admitted he connived South Carolina into opening fire.

4.

I live near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. You may not have heard of its burning, but I have.

So we have that in common!

5.

nd it attests to the truth, which is that if the South had the numbers the North had, then it would have done what you all so hate Sherman and Custer for doing in Georgia and the Shenandoah: burn, burn, burn. Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone types in the South as there were in Boston.

This is speculation on your part, so hardly the truth. Stonewall Jackson, of course, would have been happy to bring fire and sword to the North. Probably Edward Ruffin, too. But at the same time, the South was primarily acting a defensive capacity during the war, not as a force of invasion.

5.a: ”

Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone types in the South as there were in Boston.”

hellfire and brimstone in what sense?

6,

P.S. Judah Benjamin. Apparently those Southern “Anglo-Saxons” (As General Lee described himself) weren’t so uncomfortable with the Jewish folks.

— yes, AND? What’s your point? what’s this to do with anything? When the Confederate memorial in Beaumont, Texas was dedicated around the turn of the last century, the local rabbi gave opening remarks. Different creeds tended to get along somewhat better in Dixie. That’s a well known fact.

7.

You will find few “Northerners” more amenable to the South than me. I live only a few miles north of the Mason-Dixon. I count Confederate soldiers among my kin.

I appreciate that, sincerely.

P.S. Check this out for an opinion you may find controversial – but note the person posting his opinion is relying on primary sources: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-non-celtic-confederacy.120973/

Why would I find that controversial? Are you suggesting I was arguing for a “celtic south”? I always thought the notion ridiculous. I know Grady McWhiney and others push it, but it’s inaccurate to say the least.

Lol. Jake is not too clear on a lot of things, including but not limited to the history of the English Civil War, the Cromwellian protectorate, Puritanism and the meaning of judaizing heresy. That’s one thing the Puritans weren’t, which is obvious to anyone with the slightest grasp of history and theology. He is as shrill and annoying and nasty as Wally, but at least Wally posts all his damn links.

But certainly the Cromwellian invasion of Ireland in 1649, backed by the shekels of the rabbis of Amsterdam, was an early attempt by the proto WASP Lord Protector to eliminate the Kennedys several centuries before their birth(s). Right? Wheels within wheels my man.

I’m increasingly convinced you’re a Hasbara/zionist troll, tasked with casting ordure on the revisionist movement by the arrogance, aggression and general obnoxiousness of your responses. You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar; that your every post inverts this standard principle indicates to me that your intentions are nefarious. It suggests at the least that anyone who braves “codoh.com will encounter not ad hominem-free, level playing field debate, but increasingly unhinged postings from people Who Got It All Figured Out, and so stay away.

Which, when you think of it, is exactly WHAT THEY WANT.

You’re busted, Wally.

it is rightly designated as Anglo-Zionist at least as far back as to archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell.

Only by you, old buddy. You honestly don’t know thing one about the English Civil War period, do you? Though I do appreciate you no longer insinuate Cromwell’s Irish campaign ws financed by the rabbis of Amsterdam.

If you’re gonna have an idea fixe (sic?) then please have at it, but a little grounding in facts or even the possible would be a good thing. You’re starting to get tiresome. At least your golem Wally posts interesting links now and again.

Jake, I’m not sure you know what a Judaizing heresy is. Else you don’t know thing one about the basis of Puritan theology, considered as a whole is more or less the exact opposite of how “judaizing heresy” is understood here in my world, from St Paul down to Tobias Crisp.

If I may invoke the spirit of Kamerad Walthar, please provide sources for the “full inherency” of Anglo-Zionism in the “earliest radical preachers.”

It’s a shame you’re confused on these points, because quite honestly I think you and I would otherwise be in agreement on most things.

Best regards.

Jake, can you just tell me where you came across your interesting ideas? I know David Gelertner made an argument to this effect in that ridiculous “Americanism” book, but he’s a propagandist, not a scholar. “In Search of the City on the Hill” by Richard Gamble does a good shop of showing that the notion of Puritans as exceptionalists was largely the invention of Perry Miller with his series on American puritans that began with “Mission Into the Wilderness.” The American Puritans were a pretty wretched bunch, but it wasn’t until the early to mid 1800s that they appointed themselves correctors of God’s work, to use Dostoevsky’s phrase.

And it is NOT restricted by genetics. People of any actual ethnicity may embrace it. One way to help see that is to note the extreme move of the Southern Baptist Convention over the past 50 years from being anything but focused on white-washing Israel and serving Jewish interests to Christian Zionism. That move went hand in hand with the SBC positioning itself as the main heir of the old Puritans of colonial America. SBC members with any learning in, say, 1900 knew that in both America and England Anglo-Saxon Puritans murderously persecuted ‘baptists,’ and that Yankee Puritans were responsible for the scorched earth policy of Union armies, as well as for reconstruction, as well as for the utter liberal polluting of all Northern Protestantism.

Jake, I’m in agreement with much of what you’ve written there. Again, though — I think you really need to distinguish between the American Puritans and the English. The English Puritans did not “murderously” persecute Baptists and if anything tended toward a sort of universalism. Cromwell’s Eastern Association Horse was known as a hotbed of Puritan pluralism, which deeply offended your pals the Celtic Scots.

The other is the belief in Anglo-Saxon as God’s chosen master race to rule the world, which means that whatever is done to reach that pinnacle is moral, because God’s chosen master race does God’s will.

I don’t mean to be completely dismissive of your arguments — I completely agree that the Yankee has crowned himself as Lord of This World and means to drag the rest of humanity to it, kicking and screaming — but didn’t some version of this appear among the Germans and French as well? And I’m not sure that was the central focus of Cromwell’s foreign policy. Did it become the ideological first mover of the New Englanders after the Civil War, assisted by the social gospel and the progressive movement? Indeed it did, but you should really consider the German/Hegelian roots of that whole mess. You jump from 1630 to 1850 with no account for the intervening years, and read 1630 through the shares of 1850. That’s just wrong, from the point of view of intellectual history.

Far as your point about Luther. I’ll have to run it down, but didn’t Jerome use the Pharisee version of the Old Testament for the Vulgate? I think Margaret Barker discussed this in “Temple Mysticism.” I don’t see how that makes Luther, who famously did not care for Jews, an early Christian Zionist, who are indeed vile people.

Also, “judaizing heresy” (to me, and I think to many real scholars) means the adoption of the Jewish law as a pre-requisite for salvation.

Cromwell ally with Ben Shapiro?

Jake, interested in seeing you “prove” this thesis.

As annoying as Wally can be, he at least provides links. Your monomania is unlinkable because you are mostly wrong. You’ve yet to show any evidence Cromwell was a tool of the rabbis.

Sorry, that’s complete bullshit. It’s sad that the author of these fake letters didn’t even have the intelligence to try faking 17th century rhetoric/diction/spelling.

Sorry, that’s all complete bullshit. It’s sad that the author of these fake letters didn’t even have the intelligence to try faking 17th century rhetoric/diction/spelling.

Jake has a point about US WASPs, which as a Southerner I despise like Satan. However, his (and your) efforts to lay the blme at Cromwell’s stoop damages your argument and credibility, because it’s inaccurate. Cromwell was first and foremost an English nationalist — a typical country gentleman —who objected to the foreign influences at Charles’ court.

Why can’t you and Jake just start with Theodore Parker?

Actually Wally, I was complimenting you for always backing up your arguments, unlike Brother Jake. I always find your links thought provoking. On the personal relations front, however, you’re not someone that would be fun to sit down with over barbecue and a beer. In other words, you have the presentation of a rabid weasel which really only detracts from the revisionist cause. Sure you’re not a hasbara plant?

The Jews presented letters to Cromwell, who handed them to the Council of State, which took no action. Nor did Cromwell.

You have to review the entire Jake corpus. But pretty sure it’s in today’s transmission from the mothership.

Well said sir. Soon as anyone professes a liking for der kleine Benny, I know they’re nit to be taken seriously.

“Gay obsession.” Project much, Wally?

Codoh.com is an interesting and thought provoking site, despite your best efforts to delegitimize it. Mossad needs to give you a new assignment. Slide posts on 4chan maybe.

Yes, and the “somebody” that funded the Parliament were the merchants of London, many of whom tended toward Puritanism and objected to the monopolies promulgated by Charles/laud/Strafford. This is pretty well documented. And not all the wealthy nobility were cavaliers.

I don’t think that’s accurate. John Cook was the prosecutor, John Bradshaw the president of the court. And it’s worth bearing in mind that Cromwell tried negotiating with the King, annoying th New Model radicals, and gave up only after learning that Charle was negotiating back channel with the Scots.

The notion that no Englishman would draw up charges against Charles simply won’t hold water. He wasn’t popular among the Cavaliers, even, many of whom fought out of a sense of duty (eg, Verney), because they liked a brawl (Lunsford) or family relations (Rupert, the German princling.)

Divine right, on the European model, also, was not a part of English law. It was pushed by James I, and one of the many objections to Charles was that he was endeavoring to make that the basis of English political organization.

Calling Cromwell a traitor is like calling Robert E Lee a traitor, in my opinion. He was trying to preserve the established order of England against the European innovations of Charles.

Absolutely. Cromwell was basically a member of th country Gentry with all the prejudices and preconceptions of that class. He didn’t care much for the radical wing of the New Model either.

And, I should probably add, neither Cromwell nor anyone else in England thought much about the Jewish Question at the time because it simply wasn’t an issue.

1. It’s not a judaizing heresy. I don’t think you know what a judaizing heresy is. Are you able to provide a definition?

2. No, and I think the Saker is mostly right. I think though that you are wrong, wrong, wrong to assign the responsibility for that to Cromwell and the Puritans. If you said the New England Unitarians I would be in almost complete agreement.

3. If I am not mistaken, so did Jerome (or whoever translated the Scriptues into Latin). Margaret Barker discusses this at length in her Kingdon Theology books. Are you seriously suggesting Luther was part of the Jewishness consoiracy?

4. I’m interested in seeing your proofs for this. They were printed in the Low Countries and smuggled in.

There is absolutely zero proof, Jake, outside your fevered imagination, that Cromwell invited the Jews back into England.

There is no proof because it simply isn’t true.

Sorry.

Define “judaizing heresy.” That’s all I ask.

I’m never a fan of people making loose comments about who’s in hell, who’s going to go there etc., apart from what scripture tells us.

Very presumptious, seeing as that is for God alone to decide and judge.

And what is it with your absurd fixation regarding all things loosely Protestant?

I used to believe that the church of Rome was a gigantic cult. However, I abandoned such narrowness many years ago, as I believe that in it’s basic fundamentals It is in fact a Christian church – and I know full well that there are many Christians in it. I even attended an Alpha course at one.

However, I also believe that it has many wonky doctrines that I simply cannot and won’t accept.

As for Luther, for all his faults, he was a great man of God.

The church of Rome had an opportunity to reform itself at the time of the Protestant Reformation, if only a little, but decided instead to double down in it’s pride and arrogance.

Your focus is clearly very narrow, which is up to you, but I would say that easily 95% of your comments are essentially just the same thing, endlessly repeated.

The names you need to Google are Charles II, James II and William of Orange, who unlike Cromwell does seem to have been financially supported by Jewish capital. Cromwell was a well-known advocate for toleration and liberty of conscience. I would think that any friendly noises he made toward Jews need to be seen in that context. Charles II has the help and support of any number of Jews while in exile

Tiny Duck just creamed his culottes.

I have read the trustworthy historians and the original documents, not the twaddle you are peddling there, which has the distinct disadvantage of being completely incorrect. and are you really citing some Sephardic website as an irrefutable source? For Gods sake.

As I’ve said to Jake in other threads, there is no evidence for this assertion in contemporary documents or accounts. Cromwell referred the question to the Council of State which did nothing. Cromwell may have been favorably disposed — that’s what “they” claim — but there is no documentary evidence for that, and even if it was the case, but not enough to push it through. The issue of the Jews was just not front of mind to anyone during the commonwealth period. And the notion that Parliament was funded by Jews is just laughable to anyone with a basic knowledge of the period.

But then again, if you see some sort of Jewish conspiracy as the explanation of everything, then that’ll be your explanation for everything. Their impact on the West since 1850 or so is uniformly negative and destructive but to view the 17th century through that lens is ridiculous.

Anyway thanks all for a most enjoyable discussion.

The basic kosher plan is to Balkanize the US, atomize Whites, and elevate Jewish networks, Jewish identity, and Zionist influence. This is a zero-sum game.

Their primary objectives are these: 1) maintain uninterrupted and unconditional US aid to Israel under all circumstances, and 2) to fund and spearhead Zio-Washington’s global ‘War on Terror’ which just happens to target Israel’s regional foes.

Wow, just wow.

“Wow” indeed. Slowly, but surely, historical, Euro-Christian America is waking and wising up to the ancestral enemy of our kindred peoples, whether they are in Europe, the Pacific Ocean, or the Americas. How could this be a bad thing?

Browder is a Zionist Bolshevik of the stripe that murdered some 60 million Russians from 1917 to 1957 and as such is not only an enemy of Russia but an even greater enemy of America and is a typical communist who wrecks and destroys countries.

Read THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION, Browder is a poster boy for these thieves and murderers .

I think this misses a bigger point: it’s hard to see how American democracy survives in anything like its current form if America becomes majority nonwhite (I say “if” because the country’s current demographic mix has been shaped by political decisions and its future demographics can be shaped by different ones: it’s not inevitable.).

The comparisons to Latin America don’t quite fit here, because we have had a lot more recent immigration from benighted places. Assume the status quo continues, and in a couple decades America is 60% nonwhite. That would make the Democratic Party what, 80%-90% nonwhite? There’s no way that wealthy white minority is going to buy off the rest of the party with just free stuff; the Muslims and others are going to want their social values incorporated into policies, and that’s when the white Dems will balk. Something will have to give. The white Dems will want that something to be democracy, to be replaced by a Bloombergist autocracy. That’s the only way to maintain liberal values with an illiberal populace. GOPs will balk at that. Then either the country has to split or a new, new people has to be elected.

Several Save Whites Sites are self-defeating. While Counter Currents is good for “well digging” obscure historical and National Socialism items and occurrences, it is poor at an engineering type assessment of the problem and real world solution.

The Occidental Observer is burdened by a rather stupid, immature, and capricious moderator who believes that only he knows what is best for TOO, disallowing some of the most profound posters who who offend his silly insensibilities. Inconsistency, hypocrisy, and The Peter Principle sadly are diminishing this seminal and almost sacred site.

Amren is indispensable but you CANNOT ever say anything derogatory about Jews, even if modest and true. I grant Mr. Taylor the benefit of the doubt, that such is the necessity for him to remain in business.

Unz.com and Zero Hedge are the most powerful, unrestricted and for real free speech of quality and depth. Other smaller venues are in the same category. But few.

Agree. Those stalwarts fought to preserve the glorious union and free the slaves. Let them provide for them for a hundred fifty years.

… something is not adding up. If Trump is truly as pathetic a pushover, as “weak and spineless,” as you say, why all the hysteria?

And nobody seems to like him
They can tell what he wants to do
And he never shows his feelings

But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning around

That Trump is a wrecking ball is a hypothesis I’ve held since the first GOP debate, when I also realized he would (probably) win not only the election, but may even succeed at the far more difficult challenge of bringing the Empire to a sufficiently soft landing that the nation survives. I’m less convinced of the latter now, largely because I underestimated the centrifugal forces driving the fault lines in the American body politic. The nation, tragically may not survive the Empire’s twilight, but I’ve seen nothing that makes me want to change my hypothesis.

He’s laying waste to the Empire in the most peaceful process possible – in large part by so embarrassing the Empire’s elites, allies and vassals that they withdraw first their active support, and then finally even their consent. Inducing hysteria, both foreign and domestic, is a non-trivial component of the forces giving the wrecking ball an extra push as it heads for the edifice.

As for the summit, I frankly wouldn’t be surprised to learn that much of it was staged for maximum hysteria-inducing effect. Their 2hrs spent alone probably was little more than comparing notes. After all, what can Trump promise that he can also deliver under the circumstances? He can only promise to keep doing what he’s doing.

In any case, they both know the Empire has to go, and they both want the American nation to be a player after it goes. A vibrant America is as critical to the multipolar world as it is to Americans. Maybe more so.

Collusion? Maybe, but the Trump phenomena, IMHO, has all the earmarks of regime change done right. With or without collusion, the hystericals can’t quite put their finger on what happened, which drives further hysteria, which pushes the wrecking ball even faster, which drives…

Could you name one credible case where Jews ritually murdered Christian children, or muslim/pagan/any children? I can’t find any.

At the risk of speaking for Mr Unz, I believe his point was you have to look at the Toaff book, as I did. The book (rather pdf, which I obtained via the usual samizdat channels) is incredibly dry/scholarly/detailed/non-hysterial, examines cases in medieval Germany and Italy and makes the careful case that the “blood libel” is likely not a “libel” at all.

And no, I don’t think you’d find an account of Toaff’s book, much less a summary of the cases he mentions, on the internet or elsewhere.

White evangelical Christians’ support for the Jewish possession of Israel is higher than for any other religious group other than modern orthodox Jews and is nearly twice the level of religious Jewish support for the concept of a God-given promise of a Jewish homeland.

Dispensationalism (for which we can thank Mr Scofield’s footnotes for the most part) is without a doubt the most successful heresy Christendom has ever produced.

And no, I don’t think you’d find an account of Toaff’s book, much less a summary of the cases he mentions, on the internet or elsewhere.

I think Israel Shamir’s review of Toaff might be what you say you are unable to find.

http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Eng11.htm

Jonah Goldberg is a Trotskyite revolutionary Jew who uses America to pursue the age-old Jewish dream of world domination. Part of that desire and plan is to adulterate the white race, because he and other Jews like him see the white race as the biggest obstacle along the road to world domination.

These revolutionary Jews obviously cannot exterminate the white race. So the next best thing is to have them inbreed with less capable nonwhites, which would over time effectively exterminate the white race. Any white person who cannot see this is stupid beyond belief. Who do you think is responsible for these increasing number of television commercials featuring mixed race couples? The answer: people like Jonah Goldberg, George Soros and the rest of their co-religionists who think and behave the way they do. I am not blaming all Jews, obviously. There is certainly at least a minority of decent and honorable Jews who do not engage in these activities.

Finally, let me say this. This catastrophic state of affairs that exists in the Western world, particularly its Anglo-Saxon component, is due to the monumental stupidity, corruption, hubris and degeneracy of the Anglo-Saxon ruling classes who over the last 300 or so years have allowed their Jewish populations to have entirely too much influence and power. The price, assuming nothing is done about it, will be the complete destruction of Anglo-Saxon culture and civilization. Let me quickly add: This is not an indictment of the Anglo-Saxon peoples, who are in the main a fine and good people who brought a great civilization into the world, but an indictment of their ruling elites.

The frog must not be told that his pot is slowly coming to a boil.

But Pepe notices.

‘…But Cabrera said the idea was “a complete false equivalence,” noting that whiteness isn’t a cultural identity the way being black, Japanese American or Jewish is…’

I would rather not have a race war. I really would prefer not to.

But these people are insisting…

I’m reminded of one time a black kid said ‘hit me right here’ — pointing at his chin.

Oh, alright. I kicked the S.O.B.’s ass. Hopefully, we can all do that together.

If they insist. As I say, I’d really rather not go there.

It’s nice to remind people that Lincoln was a Republican. An old blog post of mine provides a clearer explanation:

Jan 2, 2011 – The War to Reclaim Federal Property 1861-1865

I’ve noticed the “Power Elite” have decided to rewrite American history in regards to the American Civil War. This was known as the “War Between the States” or the “War of Secession”, but was officially named the “Civil War” as a Congressional compromise some 40 years later. The Power Elite recently mobilized their media front men to proclaim that war was all about slavery. Anyone who contends it was about states rights is labeled ignorant or a racist. Symbols of the Confederacy have been targeted for destruction, claiming they are racist.

Slavery was a horrible institution, and was the prime source of friction between the states in the 1850s. Some wanted a military crusade to free the slaves, while an equal number demanded a military crusade to crush the evil Mormons in Utah. There was never strong support in Congress to ban slavery since many wealthy New Englanders profited in the textile business that relied upon cheap cotton from the South. In addition, the cherished American Constitution allowed for slavery.

Had Congress made slavery illegal and our military ordered to enforce that law, it would have been a war against slavery, and it would have lasted but a few months. However, that is not how things played out. Southern states feared that Northerners were using the federal government to dominate the nation that was conceived as a federation of states. Slavery was the key issue, but most Southerners didn’t own slaves, and slavery was contentious within Southern states as many citizens opposed it. The Southern states peacefully and democratically seceded and formed the Confederate States of America (CSA), in the same way they joined the Union just two generations prior. The U.S. Congress didn’t declare that illegal, nor did the Supreme Court.

Newly elected President Lincoln decided he would not tolerate the CSA, so he ordered it crushed. He assumed our military could quickly overrun the much weaker Confederate state militias, but it turned into a disastrous war. A key problem is that Lincoln refused to outlaw slavery and use that as a cause for military action, but said the effort was to preserve the union. As a result, Northerners were not enthusiastic about invading the South, while anti-slavery Southerners and the silent majority of non-slave holding Southerners felt compelled to defend their state from invasion. As his effort to “preserve the union” became a debacle, Lincoln finally evoked ending slavery as a cause with his 1863 “Emancipation Proclamation”. Even that did not free the 800,000 slaves in the slave-holding states of Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession.

Some say Lincoln only did this to prevent England from entering the war on the side of the CSA. England was upset by the Union sea blockade that denied its textile mills of cotton. Lincoln implemented his own form of slavery, the military draft, to fill his crusading army. The movie “Gangs of New York” addresses this issue toward the end — the resulting anti-draft riots by New York immigrants. The great movie “Glory” shows white Union troops angry at forced service in Lincoln’s crusade. Most of Lincoln’s free Negro troops were slaughtered in frontal attacks during the war, and only earned half-pay.

In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states, but the Civil War was caused by Lincoln’s blundering. He failed to act decisively because he had no official standing to end slavery, yet when he did act as a dictator, he refused to promote it as an anti-slavery crusade. As a result, most Southerners fought to defend their state from invasion, not to protect slavery. The Northern industrialists made huge profits from this war, so they sainted Lincoln as one of our greatest Presidents, for suspending the U.S. Constitution and causing the most disastrous event in American history.

The Orthodox Church — particularly the Russians, arch-traditionalists that they are — remains steadfast and will never submit to modernity. I can’t speak to the Romanists, but mainline Protestantism and the Southern Baptists are in a state of theological collapse. The wretched Russell Moore is a one-man Vatican II.

, I think the honorable Mr Blizzard has declared himself unable to offer any arguments to refute you.

And you’re right of course. Mr Blizzard might peruse the works of Robert Lewis Dabney, Presbyterian divine and chief of staff to Stonewall Jackson. and that might cause Mr Blizzards peculiar views to be shattered — and honestly it owes a good deal to Jewish slanders or Christianity.

Christian Zionism via the Scofield Bible is heretical, one of the more successful ones.

Not sure I buy this. Trump makes a lot of noise about Russia and does nothing. There are reports of a lot of coordination back channel between the US and Russia. Are we really to believe that Trump, who ran on a peace with Russia platform, now wants to rumble? As for the odious Bolton: trump is keeping his enemies close.

Speaking as a Southerner, Russophile and member of the Orthodox Church, I regard Russia as a friend and ally. I have yet to meet anyone in Texas or the South that regards Russia as an enemy. You overestimate the neocon grip on Trump.

Oil guy here. Great assessment. And while I don’t agree with parts of it, the fact remains that at present the market and industry are grappling with 1. How much crude/gas recoverable and 2. At what cost? I’m a little more bullish, I’ll admit, especially on nat gas supply, but the commodity permanently between 2.50 and 3.50 per mcf in perpetuity makes it tough for operators. At present, most operators are below cash flow break even, and in the mighty Permian (where the differentials have been tough) capex was boosted faster that volume growth. Some of that may be due to the takeaway constraints that has had midland barrels pricing $20 below WTI. At any rate, the point is: there is a lot about shale we have to undersns before it could be considered a weapon. Probably more recoverable in deep water Gulf anyway.

The oilfield story is that when Russia cuts production to support OPEC or whatever, Putin calls the oil ministry. “What’s our natural decline rate next year?” “5%.” And so he offers to cut production by that amount. I think he’s done a great job with a tough hand.

Yep. Beto became the must-have brand for for tween types in West U. Alas for Ted, he is seen as more interested in his career at a level higher than being the senator from Texas. We also suffer from Californian and Yankee invasion.

Well said, sir. The English were well rid of that bunch. Alas, their gain was the South’s loss. Here’s looking forward to the rematch.

Good luck. I’ve been asking brother Jake to attach definitions to his words and clarity to his thought for some time now, all to no avail. Safe to say he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

The Orthodox did, and still do, a decent job.

No matter what Jake might say, the Protestant worship of Israel and Judaism is of a fairly recent vintage — 19tj century, with Scofield’s footnotes. He more or less invented Christian Zionism out of whole cloth. And got away with it, as Protestantism does not, like Orthodoxy, have a Tradition that keeps wild speculation in check.

I have to wonder about the allegiance of Protestant whites to Israel, no matter how much noise the leaders make. A bit more suspicion than one would expect.

You are quite definitely the most boring, witless troll I’ve ever read on the inter webs. I quite honestly feel a little embarrassed for you.

Yeah Tiny. Where y’all gonna gets de gibs when whitey ain’t around to gib it?

There is Southern culture — food, cuisine, literature, music. The Southern people, of course, are the first target in the war of annihilation being waged by (((them))).

(((USA culture))) is porn, conspicuous consumption, stupidity and Desmond the 10-year-old drag queen.

God damn it Jake. I’ve told you this a million times. The religion of the native Southerner at the sub grandee level was New Model Army, non-leveler Puritanism. (It’s been corrupted by Scofield but that’s beside the point.) You simply do not know what you’re talking about. The Puritants weren’t Judaizers either.

Nor have we Southerners been assimilated to Yankee WASP culture.

I’m all for obsessive ideas but jeez, they should at least have one toe in reality

Well said sir, from one Old Southerner to another.

Dennis Prager is on the phone. He wants his billshit back.

LOL, you’re pretty much an idiot. Poor little Chambersburg. You’re bleating about that compared to the destruction Cump visited on Georgia, or Sheridan in the Shenandoah?

Let me ask you something: how’s the “grand republic” working out for you Northern asshats? Desmond is Amazing, the 10-year-old transgender stripper. THat’s what you Yankee scum achieved with your great victory.

There’s really nothing to say to people like you other than go fuck yourself.

Wow. So edgy.

A good source for Russian/Jewish relations is Solzhenitzyn’s Two Hundred Years Together. It’s never been officially translated but there’s a partially translated edition on Amazon.

Couple of point Solzhenitsyn makes — and I think it’s worth underscoring that he aims to be excruciatingly fair and forgiving to all — is that these terrible Russian pogroms we are hearing about didn’t exactly occur as advertised in Tsarist times.

And that the brutal pogroms of the Civil War period came AFTER Russians and Ukrainians began to associated Bolshevism with Jews.

ANd, what I thought most interesting, was that Jews — who’d done rather well under Bolshevism — began to turn on the Red Empire once they began to be nudged out of positions of power post-Stalin. That’s around the time the stories of Jewish oppression under Communism began, and we ended up with the Jackson-Vanick amendment and so do.

A very long way of saying that Julia Ioffe is completely full of shit, as is anyone who spins bloody tales of Cossacks and pogroms. I tend to distrust writings by Jewish historians on Russia or the Soviet period.

Run down, if you can, a copy of Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together. Used to be on Amazon, no more, but there are PDFs. (((They))) don’t want you to know…

Thanks. I would like to think there’s more “Dissidents” than we realize.

You don’t know the first thing about Christianity or the development of Christian thought. I’m not going to bother trying to point you in the proper direction until you bring a note showing you’ve taken your meds.

Jilles, to your point: Judeo Christian is a recent fabrication that probably emerged once Kristol and Podhoretz senior had run the old conservatives – Bradford, buchanan, etc — out of the GOP. It’s a bullshit notion anyway. Greco Christian would be more accurate.

I am starting to think that you are Wally – similarly pedantic, obsessive, and nasty — only Christianity is the hair on your tongue rather than Judaism.

However, once you wipe away the Tabasco and bile, Wally’s posts are very thought provoking. He has done his research and he knows his stuff. Don’t think I’d want to have a barbecue plate and a beer with him, but I respect his learning.

You, alas, are simply uninformed, a sort of militant atheist version of a Jack Chick tract. Id say the Bolsheviks that despoiled Russian churches were much like you: ignorant, angry, and stupid, like a transgender activist on Niwtzche. I would suspect that you are hasbara or JIDF, looking to distract us from the discussion at hand: Zionist influence on US foreign policy, and otherwise acting out traditional Jewish hatred of Christians.

So… fuck off.

Lol — whatcha doing, Rabbi? LARPing as a pagan?

Go back to 4chan, you fucking shill.

Agree with this. And what’s worse, Anonymous, you’re not in the least amusing. You’re a goddam creep. I feel bad for your mom.

At some point though, uS Jews turned on the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn dates it to the time of the Doctors Purges and anti-Jewish attitudes expressed by Khrushchev. Jews began to see they might lose their primacy of place in the Soviet Union. So Israel and the US beckoned. And the US congress agitated for Jewish emigration etc. the likes of max Boot and Julia Ioffe, along with the usual neocon scum, are virulently opposed to Russia, especially with the revival of Orthodoxy and what Berdyaev called the Russian Idea. Putin has read Berdyaev…

Sure thing, Rabbi.

Freedom
Prosperity
Diversity

Pick any two.

I’m not convinced you can actually pick two from your list if one of your choices is ‘diversity’.

I wouldn’t be so sure. Trump may be not our last hope but rather our first step. After all — I doubt even you predicted Trump would win the nomination, much less the Presidency.

So gloat and rub your hands in glee all you will for now. Your schadenfreude may be premature. If not — well, you’re more likely to see a Chinese-run world than black one. And if you think the Chinese are going to treat blacks or Africans as their equals, I believe you are badly mistaken. In fact, you or your progeny very well may look back on the days of white-European dominance as the “good ole days”.

My idea is that quite a few of the commenters here do not understand that no dictator anywhere ever had absolute power.
Not Stalin, not Atatürk, not Hitler.
This is not to suggest Trump is a dictator, but to make clear that a USA president does not have absolute power.
Not even FDR had absolute power, as the diaries of Harold L Ickes make abundantly clear.
In my opinion Kennedy underestimated the forces against him.

Trump, again in my opinion, does not want suicide, not politically, not bodyly.
As long as he can handle fool Bolton, when he was at the UN staff had great difficulty not to laugh about his stupidities, why send the man away, escalate the conflict, and maybe has to accept a far more dangerous opponent ?
FDR’s Bolton in my opinion was Henry L Stimson.
FDR fooled him with regard to the negotiations with Japan.
The saying is ‘keep your enemies close’, this was what all three dictators mentioned above did.
Trump won the elections, but he still has to annihilate Deep State.

Steve uses the term “working class,” the article uses the term “low skilled.”

So does that mean “low skilled” equals “working class”?

Not entirely.

If there is a major collapse of infrastructure caused by natural or political disaster, who do they send in to fix it? Lawyers, market researchers, journalists, intellectuals, consultants, educators, accountants, veterinarians, sales executives, philosophers, and other “high skilled, upper class” nation builders?

Or do they send in the low skilled, working class tradesmen who say the word “fuck” too much?

Perhaps the terminology has been reversed. How about instead of low “skilled/high skilled” we use “essential skilled/inessential skilled.

Houston — despite having the Third Ward, which honestly looks like a nicer part of Lagos, and the dreadful Sheila Jackson Lee and other race baiters, has a good number of working-class white neighborhoods yet as well as ones populated by Texas A&M and LSU petroleum engineers whose daddies were likely roustabouts. Ditto Pasadena and Baytown, which are around the refineries. Any blacks in those neighborhoods tend to pattern themselves after the whites – pickups, hunting/fishing, going to church. Not many of them, though.

Of course, huge parts of Houston are completely central/south American, Vietnamese, Indian and so on. Sugar land is almost all Indian medical or IT professionals; Bellaire is increasingly less Jewish/more Asian and Indian doctors who work at the Texas Medical Center.

Cities are on their last legs. They are not important manufacturing centers anymore [1] thanks to containerization. They depend on political influence and finance for their income [2]. Their income is increasingly seen as parasitic, and they’ve lost legitimacy in the countryside (hence Trump’s election).
Working class people (definition: those with actual blue collar jobs) in the primary industries (manufacturing, transportation, mining) have very little to do with the large cities, which simply don’t have primary production jobs. The service jobs in cities can be done by semi-skilled labor that has been moved to cities to increase political power through number of voters. That’s what keeps wages down.

Note that there isn’t much real necessity to have software in the cities, what with the Internet. It’s more administrative convenience.

Next big political change, good chance that cities are toast. That’s a singularity, no telling what’s on the other side, but it won’t be big cities as they now exist. Think of Rome during Late Antiquity, after the Goths destroyed its aqueducts during the Siege of Rome (AD 537–538).

Counterinsurgency

1] Levinson.
_The Box_.
Search for “London Docks” to see end of city manufacturing. I held one of the last jobs in the US Garment district once, hauling boxes from one small business to another. It really wasn’t a bad job, as jobs go. Better than most I’ve had in engineering, although the pay wasn’t very high.

2] Copley.
_Uncivilization_

Southerner here. Pretty simply, IMO. End the welfare system and cease food and energy deliveries — it being the case that the oil province of the South (eg the Permian, Haynesville, SCOOP/STACK and so on) are in the rural areas and hands of the whites. The blacks with the ability to do so will self-deport to the land of gibs, which is to say New England and New York.

The rural/urban divide (or dare I saw country/Court) is not in the favor of the Globohomo, as the means of production — food, energy — is in the hands of the Redneck. As are the toolboxes and know-how to fix things.