Less Curtis Yarvin, More Carroll Quigley Please

The winners of World War I & II believed that the World Wars were causec by nationalism. The Rockefellers, the CFR, etc., the “Atlanticist liberals” were horrified by the World Wars.

So they wanted to create a “universal” system that would blur the harsh divisions between tribes and nations. The idea was some mixing, some blending, soft borders as opposed to strict borders, lots of intermarriage, would make tribes/nations less likely to start massive wars – that ended up with bombs – some of them nukes – destroying whole cities of men, women and children.

I’m not suggesting that they were right, but these were the smartest, most educated, most elite people of the time. They were well traveled, they knew a lot of languages, they had friends and contacts all over the world. They were well educated in the classics, in science, in history, even theology. Many were Catholics.

(((Curtis Yarvin))) is a middle aged math nerd, from California, who blogged for a couple of years.

I wonder how many NRxers have read little but Yarvin, and haven’t cracked Carroll Quigley even once?

Some early critics of Neo-reaction had some interesting things to say:

Nrx has no intellectual content other than the old tropes of liberal individualist scientism, it merely repackages the global consensus in the guise of telling harsh, “politically incorrect” “truths” which Nrx loyalists all seem to convince themselves are profoundly challenging, but which are in fact very familiar and quite banal, and are already accepted cynically by everyone.

This early critique of neo-reaction just pointed out that these “politically incorrect” truths are already well known by the “progressive elites” and the really existing elites just spread some talking points to keep everyone – or at least the lower orders – from being too scandalized. They don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. The fact of the matter is – your mother is ugly. You know it, she knows it, and everyone knows it. But it’s not polite to say. Saying it – especially if you say it over and over again – isn’t going to make her less ugly. It’s just going to hurt her feelings and make you angry.

As for the bizarre fixation that neo-reaction has against Protestants, Puritans, liberals, and “modernity” – here’s some food for thought from “Harold Reply” in 2015, when confronting neo-reactionaries complaing about “anti-semitism.”

“People are always on the look out for more scapegoats”

Yes, the Jewish Moldbug is keen to scapegoat Protestants.

“If one thinks that the Jews/Zionists are secretly engineering the demise of Western civilization (as if it’s a new and radical idea…) one should definitely do something about it.”

Why would a reactionary, neo or otherwise, give less credence to an idea because it was not new and radical? Neoreactionaries seem to believe those dead white men were correct about Africans, about female promiscuity, about almost every belief they had for which they are now reviled. Except Jews. They didn’t love Jews because of some strange insanity.

Another critic of neo-reaction, “an inanimate aluminum tube” said:

Neoreaction has an explanation for historical progressivism prior to the middle 1900s. Ultra-Calvinism. Heh. Fair enough.

But neoreaction does not really provide an explanation for the rapid and dramatic shift in the character of progressivism that occurred in the middle 1900s.

In retrospect historical progressivism prior to the middle 1900s looks to have many problematic and potentially problematic elements. But it doesn’t look to have been fully weaponized against the population until the middle 1900s.

At first progressives were like … let’s end child labor and provide a minimum wage for domestic laborers. It took them a remarkably long time to fully implement that stuff. (late 1930s).

Then a few decades later they were like … let’s exterminate the white working class and replace them with a hereditary underclass of mestizo peasants and retarded Muslims. Maybe one follows from the other, but the progress from one to the other was suspiciously rapid and perhaps somewhat out of character with earlier progressive tendencies.

Some stuff happened in between. Power shifted. Neoreaction is fuzzy on what that stuff was. Probably intentionally fuzzy, because digging into that stuff would expose some bad guys who could not credibly be called ultra-Calvinists.

Americans (Whites) say, “the left is anti-white, we need to stop immigration.” The neo-reactionaries say, “stopping immigration won’t solve all of the world’s problems. What we really need to do is end democracy, “demotism” and go back to the feudalism of the 1300s.”

Americans (Whites) say, “the new Jewish oligarchy is anti-white and are trying to genocide the white race.” The neo-reactionaries say, “you’re a nazi, nazis are the real leftists, it’s actually all the fault of the Puritans. America was always bad, we need to end democracy, stop allowing White proles to vote, and restore a king.”

I always thought “restore the monarchy” was especially comical, considering that the infamous “anti-semitic” book, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, said that Jews wanted to destroy the governments of Europe so they establish a Jewish king – supposedly, the decendants of the Old Testament King David – as the World Monarch, with a capital in Jerusalem.

Then all of a sudden this new movement, started by a Jew, pops up and says, “what we really need is to get rid of democracy and reinstall a King.”

To be clear: I doubt very seriously that Curtis Yarvin even really identifies as a “Jew.” The handful of times Yarvin claimed to be against “anti-semitism” and bragged about how the “nazis” hated him, I don’t think he had Jewish interests in mind at all. I think he was just trying to avoid being called a bad “racist.”

I also don’t think that Yarvin was purposefully trying to obscure the role of Jews in the 20th century anti-white movement. I suspect that Yarvin really did believe that Jews were of marginal importance, and that “progressive Jews” were just copying their liberal, WASP, Puritan/Protestant neighbors. I’m guessing that Yarvin didn’t really care one way or another about Israel.

But it sure turned out that way. Neo-reaction appears at the exact same time as Kevin MacDonald’s work started gaining currency, and it completely distracts from the Jewish role in the “Culture of Critique” – and specifically, the Jewish role in promoting mass non-white immigration into America and Europe. Neo-reaction also points everyone to the distant, romantic past of the middle ages and has virtually nothing to say about the electronic mass media of the 20th century – when these changes first appear, when the rulers of America and Europe decided to “exterminate the white working class and replace them with a hereditary underclass of mestizo peasants and retarded Muslims.”

Neo-reaction has virtually noting to say about those 50 years – between 1930 and 1980 – when Jews became the new ruling class in America, laregly due to their monopoly on the new technologies of cinema, radio, and television, specifically, the half dozen Hollywood studios and the radio/TV networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC – all of these companies sporting a Jewish CEO and massive over-representation of Jews at every level of management.

Instead, Yarvin said it was the “liberals” at Harvard who were just secular versions of radical Puritans that made up the Cathedral.

Ironically, another Jew, Ron Unz, has given a statistically rigorous analysis of the Ivy League schools during 1930-1980 and demonstrated how Jews went from absent – to totally dominant – in those “Cathedral” schools during this exact same period.

Neo-reactionaries reference Curtis Yarvin like he’s an Old Testament prophet. They never cite the rigorous research of Ron Unz, and none of them have even heard of Carroll Quigley.

Bloody Shovel: Fish, Meet Water


Another group of NRx-ers that spill tens of thousands of internet words, and never ONCE mentions “television” “radio” or “cinema.” Not in the article, not in the comments.

Everything they are saying is true to one degree or another. Female hypergamy, economic incentives, state power as “alpha male” over average husbands. They even, to some degree, understand the “status” aspect.

But they just don’t seem to get it, they just don’t seem to get that “status” – thus, social mores – are now created and maintained by the mass electronic media.

I know some of these NRx-ers on the “manosphere” side totally get it when it comes to social media. They understand that “thots” are posting pictures of themselves on Facebook and getting a dopamine fix from “likes.” Good. Facebook – social media – is the natural development of electronic mass media.

Of course, these NRx bloggers just don’t seem to notice that blogging is the equivalent of thots posting bikini pictures on facebook – it’s just that the NRx blogging form of social media whoring appeals to, typically, introverted analytical types – and getting comments is the equivalent of “likes” in your bikini picture.

How is it people are so utterly self-unaware? How is it that all these Big Brained Brads never, ever, ever discuss the electronic mass media and how that affected social status?

We all learn in high school that the new technology of the printing press helped spread the Reformation. We all read that FDR’s radio “fireside chats” helped make him popular. But no one can figure out that the post-WWII “television in every home” had a significant, world-altering effect? F. Roger Devlin did point out that cinema introduced Rudolph Valentino which made everyday women less impressed by their husbands because he was literally the most handsome man they had ever seen – and the fact he’s being projected up on that screen fools the lizard brain into thinking you’re actually seeing a real person.

Plenty of the conservatives bemoan pornography and explain that it “tricks your lizard brain into thinking you’re actually having sex.” The worst dregs of the MGTOW-manosphere even talk about VR sex and sex robots and how that will make them independent of women (eyeroll.)

OK, fine, but no one is going to incorporate the general principle of electronic mass media into their analysis of the ills of the modern world?

Is this some sort of conspiracy? Is it just TOO OBVIOUS to point this out? Electronic mass media is a product of the 20th century. We can NAME NAMES – we can point to SPECIFIC PEOPLE in SPECIFIC COMPANIES that controlled the electronic mass media starting from the very beginning.

There were about 5 Hollywood studios in cinema, and radio and later television were dominated by JUST THREE companies: ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Maybe the answer is just too simple, it’s just too obvious, so the Big Brain Brads try to make it really complicated or subtle because, otherwise, how are they going to signal their high IQ, verbal abilities, and higher morality when the answer is just that obvious?

#NRx In Action


Jim.com is the most active of the remaining (((Curtis Yarvin))) Neo-Reaction blogs. It may be difficult to wade through all the pilpul, but it would be a mistake to think it’s just a Jewish blog. It’s something else. It is “anti-semitic” in the sense it’s against “liberal” Jews, but they take pains to point out that Jews don’t really have any power in America. It’s really the WASPs, the “liberal” Whites, and the progeny of the Protestant Reformation. In fact, the Zionist entity in Palestine is great and a bulwark of Goodness in the Muslim middle east.

The problem with the “Nazis” like TheRightStuff.biz is that they are “too focused on race.” They don’t understand that White women are also a big problem, because they won’t have babies because they are “emancipated.” Also, Jim has this bizarre idea that 9 year old girls are always trying to “seduce” adult men, and it’s pointless to prosecute adult men for having sex with 9 year old girls, instead we should prosecute 9 year old girls for seducing adult men. A commenter, “Jewish Pedophile” agrees.

Jim’s fans say that anyone who is critical of Trump is by definition a leftist. Capitalism and monarchy are the correct ideologies for the goyims. “Nazis” are actually leftists because they aren’t all on board with Trump. Trump is a rightful King in a life-and-death struggle with White Liberal Democrats and we must support Trump taking absolute power.

Jim happily censores 9/11 “Troofers” and often posts against them and has a specific brand of logical fallacy to “prove” that 9/11 “Troofers” by definition can’t be correct. Jim also happily censored “Nazi Anti-Semites” who are also, by definition, wrong because it’s the Protestant Cathedral who rules America, not Jews, Jews being faithful servants of the WASP liberals that run Harvard. There is no evidence that can be marshalled to show Jews are powerful because, by definition, that’s impossible. This is what I’ve called “meta-debunking.” At the simplest level, it goes: “X isn’t true, therefore X cannot be true despite any evidence to the contrary, because X isn’t true.” Jim’s entire argument style is the fallacy of false dilemma.

The factions CAN be understood via an analogy of religion, but of course none of these people are “traditional” Jews, Catholics or Protestants. But there is most certainly some sort of three-way going on here. Let’s try to understand it by swapping the labels.

There are Hebrews, Romans, and Scots.

The Hebrews say they are God’s Chosen People. Truth is not an objective concept and observable reality doesn’t matter. What matters is that if it’s good for the Hebrews, it’s true, if it’s bad for the Hebrews, it’s false. Hebrews matter, no one else matters.

The Romans say, no, Hebrews were God’s Chosen People, but now the Roman Emperor is the True King of the Hebrews and the Roman Senators are God’s Chosen People. Scots are the natural slaves of the Roman Emperor and the Roman Senate. The self-interest of Scots is “demotism” – “demotism” meaning that the rulers are legitimate if they rule in the interest of Scots. Instead, Scots exist for the Roman Emperor and his Senate. The Roman Emperor was appointed by God and the Scots exist to worship the Emperor – but the Emperor is kind and Scots should be thankful they have such a wise and kindly King.

Scots shouldn’t concern themselves with Hebrews and Hebrew power, the true enemy of the Scottish people are Scots who think they should rule instead of Romans. Hebrews have their own country, and they aren’t nearly as kind or sophisticated as Romans anyway. Under the Roman regime, Hebrews are faithful servants of the Roman Emperor – if troublesome at times – and Roman Senators and Hebrews may go into business together, but that is of not concern to Scots, who exist to toil in the fields and factories for the Capitalists.

But Scots are a bunch of liberals and overturned Gnon’s Natural Order. Scots have the temerity to believe THEY are God’s Chosen People, not the Hebrews, and that Scots should rule themselves, not Romans. This is clearly against Gnon’s Designs. Once Scots realize their natural place in Gnon’s order, as faithful servants of the Roman Emperor and his Senate, all will be well again.

If Hebrews end up with all the money and Romans with all the power, it’s not because Romans and Hebrews are working together, it’s because Scots are “leftists” and “liberals” who got uppity and thought they were God’s chosen.

Post-Protestantism 1


Against #NRx, against reaction, and against a return to pre-Enlightenment and pre-Reformation culture. The goal is to steer American post-Protestantism toward pro-Whiteness. 20th century post-Protestantism grew out of the Social Gospel which turned Protestant ethics toward “improving” society and while the goals and tactics of the “improvements” were often questionable, they certainly were informed by the contemporary understanding of science and biology, thus, observable reality. The post-Protestants mostly rejected “social Darwinism” and retained a Christian concern for the poor and powerless.

They attempted to reject religious superstition about sex and biology instead embracing biological reality as they understood the science at the time. Remember, science is always a moving target. Science is a method, not an end-goal nor an ideology. They were not libertines nor had much in common with the later Jewish-led “sexual revolution” of “sexual liberation.” The “free-love” movement at the time, associated with the Trancendentalists, remained quite fringe and the typical post-Protestant Social Gospeller rejected the “free-lovers.”

The typical post-Protestant progressive of the era endorsed sex education and birth control while maintaining the basic Protestant Christian sexual-marriage ethic. Birth control was seen as a way to avoid poverty via over-population – also associated with the “K” in “r/K” reproductive theory – fewer children and more investment into each child. They endorsed a very high social status for women without rejected femininity and motherhood.

The post-Protestants were frankly racialist and typically considered Africans a product of a “lower” level of evolution. Margaret Sanger was a defining figure of the movement. A related movements was conservationism and there’s a least a “right wing” tendency towards Deep Ecology, animal rights and vegetarianism. These trends were expressed in scientific and empirical terms – NOT religious or spiritual terms, although some trends (such as vegetarianism) clearly had predecessors in ancient religions like Hinduism or even the Abrahamic deitary restrictions in Judaism and Islam.

Bottum highlights what J. Gresham Machen and Richard Niebuhr recognized about the social gospel, what ultimately undermined the usefulness of mainline Protestantism, and what put the “post” in the post-Protestant class: Rauschenbusch’s view of sin and salvation left little room for Jesus. Jesus’ teaching may have clarified the nature of evil and the kingdom of righteousness. But, in Bottum’s excellent image, “Christ seems to be only the ladder with which we climbed to a higher ledge. And once there, we no longer need the ladder”).

As mentioned in previous articles – when the Protestants set to systematically lay out their religious beliefs, they created “Confessions of Faith” which were essentially social-religious Constitutions. While based on the Bible, their actual use of the Bible was little more than proof-texting. Recent commenter “John Knox” linked the Westminster Confession of Faith, a Calvinist document from the Church of Scotland, and one might add the London Baptist Confession of Faith. Typical of their times, these “Constitutions” reflected the character of the North-Western Europeans who created them, and while proof-texted from Bible verses, they could have just as easily proof-texted them from Homer or Plato. Other than symbolism and names, there’s very little in these “Constitutions” that retain much semitic character.

The American Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the early 20th century saw this trend peak, although there were already precedents that went back to the Founders themselves, especially those of a Unitarian or Deist bent (Washington, Jefferson) – also clearly influenced by Freemasonic universalism. The Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy saw the modernist rejecting the superstitious and cultist aspects of Christianity: virgin births, miracles, resurrections, etc.

Jesus Christ was reinvented as an ethicist; Christ’s message was less about cultic aspects like blood sacrifice and the modernists instead crafted a secular ethic based on the Sermon on the Mount and various parables, typically stressing social harmony – very much in keeping with what Kevin MacDonald describes as the “egalitarian individualism” of early North-Western collectivist cultures.

In other words, the “modernists” evolved into post-Protestants by a) rejecting the semitic aspects of the Bible and the cultic (often Greco-Roman) aspects and b) rejected supernaturalism in favor of naturalism.

As Mencius Moldbug would point out, they did keep the Universalism of Protestantism, but as MacDonald notes, that universalism is a feature of North-Western European’s evolved cognition – NOT just a religious aspect of Roman Catholicism and Hebrew Biblicism. The modernists, and later post-Protestants, would drop the semitic Hebrewisms of the Old Testament while also dropping the Roman-Catholic cultic aspects that were themselves VERY much influenced by Greco-Roman adoption of the God-King totalitarianism of the East – Zoroastrianism, Persian religions, Egypt, etc.

The Protestant Confessions of Faith relegated the Bible to proof-texts and footnotes – eventually, as Bottum points out in the quote above, they would begin to drop even the God-King semitic “Saviorism” and (more controversally) the “Divine Julius” aspect of the Jesus Christ character.

By the time the early 20th century modernist Protestants evolved into post-Protestantism they were already mostly the way to post-Christianity.

A definitive example is, of course, the Unitarian-Universalists, which no longer even consider themselves a “religion.”

But it’s impossible to know for sure how American modernism and post-Protestantism would have evolved naturally because of two simultaneous developments:

1. The invention of electronic mass media: radio, cinema, and television.

2. The monopoly of the recently-arrived Ashkenazi Jews on the electronic mass media – specifically, all of the major Hollywood studios and the radio/TV networks of ABC, NBC, and CBS. Even before World War II, the STRONGLY Jewishness of mass media programming can be observed on the full spectrum: cinema, radio and later television.

The end-result of Jewish monopoly on the new technology of electronic mass media of course culminated in “Mainline Protestantism [losing] its place as America’s moral center in the turbulence of the 1960s and ’70s.”

Reactionaries are never going to convince White Americans to “go back” to believing the supernaturalism of the Bible, nor Catholic superstitions about the “magesterium.” Hence, reactionaries have nothing but increasingly comical LARPing. Even the fundamentalist Protestantism of the “religious right” in the 1980s destroyed itself when given even limited access to electronic mass media. The fundamentalists discredited themselves with schlocky evangelical movies and, even worse, celebrity televangelists who self-destructed via sexual incontinence and astonishing monetary greed and financial fraud.

So, the goal (my goal) is to simply continue the straight line that goes from the Reformation, to the Enlightenment, to modernity, that took a severe turn “to the left” because of the Jewish monopoloy on the 20th century electronic mass media.

The internet, of course, is the first time Whites have contended with Jews for influence in the electronic mass media. We can already see the original, highly-decentralized nature of the internet being attacked by the centralization of Jewish companies like Google and Facebook (the so-called “walled gardens.”)

George Lincoln Rockwell vs. Gab

Gab is back online. It’s interesting that it’s already flooded with “neo-nazis” or, using the better term, (((Hollywood Nazis))) doing everything they can to discredit the CEO, Andrew Torba, and attack him as “cucking” because he isn’t allowing death threats and incitements to violence.

Hundreds of accounts, all using the iconography of “Nazis” are flooding the site with incitements to violence and posts that push right to the legal edge. I’m not talking about memes, like the famous one of Trump, or some other figure, pushing the “gas” button on another figure in a “gas chamber.”

I mean, cartoons from “American History X” with the protagonist “curb stomping” someone’s face paired with text saying, “you deserve to get your teeth smashed in you fucking kike.” Not at all ironically, they are typically involved in exchanges with Zionist Jews – oftentime, using pictures of people like Thomas Jefferson and American icons like Ronald Reagan – saying “kill yourself nazi shitbag!”

Read the profile of one of these Zionist Jews calling themselves “Thomas Jefferson” and it’s typically nothing more than GOP talking points along with lots of concern for the Zionist entity in Palestine. (I, for one, don’t recall Thomas Jefferson being particularly concerned with Jews.)

So you see Jews adopting pro-American iconography, and these “neo-nazis” adopting anti-American iconography. Jews use Gab to rope Republican Whites into a Zionist-friendly, ostensibly pro-American “Conservatism” while the “neo-nazis” purposefully go out of their way to tie anything overtly pro-White with icons of the enemies of America, especially and always, Hitler, the “Nazis” and what amounts to “pro-Holocaust” imagery.

For this writer, it’s obvious what’s going on. When a Jewish college student goes to the administration – and the media – claiming to find a swastika scrawled on her door and whining about “anti-semite neo-nazis” on campus, 100% of the time she drew the swastika herself. Just recently, an African American posted a sign on his dorm room door reading “Watch Out Niggers Live Here” and posted the picture to social media, then immediately admitted he wrote the sign himself after being questioned by the campus police.

Of cousre. OF COURSE. It couldn’t be more obvious.

The entire “White Nationalist” movement in America was birthed by George Lincoln Rockwell. Rockwell was the Westboro Baptist Church of his day, using rhetoric and imagery designed to offend the very people he was supposedly supporting. Like the Westboro Baptist Church, Rockwell never had any sort of “movement” – he never had more than a handful of followers – yet was given massive media coverage.

Again, for quite obvious reasons. Westboro Baptist Church helped to discredit opposition to homosexuality and Rockwell helped discredit opposition to Jewish power. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Whether or not Fred Phelps “really believed” in his cause is about as useful of a question as whether or not George Lincoln Rockwell “really believed” in his cause.

At a time when Jewish groups like the ADL were engaged in an “anti-hate” campaign, there appeared Rockwell openly promoting “hate” – paired with the imagery of the nation the US has just fought in World War II. Americans – White Americans who supported segregation and were pro-White – did not consider themselves “pro-hate” although Jews did. Jews did – and George Lincoln Rockwell did. Rockwell was literally the enemy that the Jews needed to promote their “anti-hate” campaign and Rockwell got a lot of media coverage for precisely that reason.

Even at the time, many pro-Whites were suspicious of Rockwell and even pointed out that he had come from a family of carnival actors. It makes one remember all the contemporary “conspiracy theories” about “crisis actors.” Since the 1960s, during the development of Holocaust culture, in fact, Jews themselves often dressed up like “Nazis” and paraded around for the media countless times – the two most famous (and obvious) were Frank Colin – real name, Frances Cohen – in the 1970s and in the 1990s “Commander Wolfgang Hawke” – real name, Andrew Greenbaum.

Another fascinating fact about George Lincoln Rockwell was that appeared at the same time that FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was engaged in COINTEL pro, a “black ops” campaign to discredit radical groups on both the right and the left. A huge amount of scholarship has been done about Hoover’s campaign to discredit radical Black groups like the Black Panther and Jewish leftist groups like the SDS.

Although, as in the case of the original House Unamerican Activities Committee, the original plan was to destroy Southern segregation, and specifically, the Ku Klux Klan and the more mainstream segregationist groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens. Virtually no scholarship has been done on COINTELPRO’s attacks on these groups, because the FBI was successful in infiltrating and destroying these pro-White groups, which leftist Black and Jewish groups wound up joining the establishment.

It’s likely impossible to “prove” that George Lincoln Rockwell’s media campaign was part of COINTELPRO, even if one were given access to the declassified records that still exist. But the preponderance of the evidence certainly suggests it.

Pro-White segregation was popular at the time, obviously, cartoonish “neo-nazism” that was “pro-hate” was not. “Pro-hate neo-Nazism” was the most offensive idea one could create for southern segregationists, pro-American patriots, many of whom had served in the war against “Nazis” and many who had grandfathers, fathers, brothers, and sons who had died fighting in World War II.

In 2018, it would be like starting a group called “Pro-Putin Russian Bots for Donald Trump.”

There are pro-White figures, like Jared Taylor, and even pro-White and Judeo-critical figures like Kevin MacDonald, who have never had anything to do with George Lincoln Rockwell and his campaign, nor those who followed in his footsteps like William Pierce and David Duke.

But there are otherwise serious ostensibly pro-White figures, like Greg Johnson and Counter Currents, who are objectively pro-Rockwell and consider themselves in the Rockwell tradition.


Johnson and Counter Currents take Rockwell at face value, and while perhaps offering some criticism of his tactics, nevertheless assume that he was sincere.

I was struck by this quote from a Counter Currents article by Margot Metroland:

Nearly fifty years after his assassination, the image of George Lincoln Rockwell is more iconic than ever. You can drop his amiable face into a Twitter avi or Website header, and feel pretty certain that most of your audience will know who it is.

This, of course, says far more about Metroland’s and CC’s audience than it does about Rockwell or his “iconic” status. This writer first heard about Rockwell from the Bob Dylan song and secondly from a suggestion that the 60s subculture parody character “Bob Dobbs” was based on Rockwell.

In fact, Rockwell isn’t “iconic” at all. He’s almost completely forgotten by everyone – EXCEPT two groups:

1. Activist anti-White Jews like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League.

2. The “White Nationalist” movement, especially the “neo-Nazi” faction – both the Jews like Hawke/Greenbaum and the Goys like Johnson.

If your audience is sure to recognize George Lincoln Rockwell, that means your audience is likely a member of one of those two groups – or both of those groups, as the intersection of those groups is a large set indeed.

In the 50 or so years since Rockwell, the Jewish groups like the SPLC and the ADL have gained massive mainstream power, and the Goy groups like Counter Currents et al have not just remained marginal and ineffective, but are only even kept alive by getting their names on the SPLC’s “Hate Watch” list.

Despite a half-century of complete and utter failure, they continue on, trying to resurrect this 1960s carinval actor who is best known for interrupting respectable pro-White segregation groups with media stunts in a “hate bus” and screaming about “niggers” and “apes” for the Jewish TV networks ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Torba and Gab have tried to create an alternative social media site that allows openly pro-White – and Judeocritical – views and they are attacked using the same – and quite obvious – methods that have been used against Whites since the 1960s:

“Neo-Nazis” using violent, exterminationist rhetoric designed, as if in a lab, to turn off Whites and discredit the pro-White cause, and Jewish “conservative” groups who use these “neo-nazis” to push out any Judeocritical voices from the right.

And most people would be content to ignore these cartoonish “neo-nazis” – except they are constantly given cover by “respectable” “Right-wing” groups like Johnson’s Counter Currents, who takes every opportunity to idolize fringe and failed figures like Rockwell and to tie White interests in 2018 with what was very, very likely to be the FBI’s successful COINTELPRO campaign to destroy pro-White sentiment during the era of segregation.

I can’t “prove” it, but looking at the situation objectively, what seems the most likely?

We do know that Greg Johnson is perfectly aware of this when it comes to his “movement rivals” such as Richard Spencer and Matt Heimbach. But apparently he – supposedly – just can’t figure it out when it comes from Rockwell and his contemporary fans.

The Real Reason Yarvin’s Catholic Neo-Reaction Hates Puritans

I’m likely going to retire this handle/blog and I haven’t posted in character in quite a while, so I’m taking the opportunity to ride my hobby-horses and go out in style.

I wish I still believed in the hard core confessional Presbyterianism of my youth. My brain isn’t in it, but my heart is still there. It’s like still being in love with your deceased wife.


SmokingFlax: Puritan Board Sophomore

I can’t help but feel greatly deceived regarding the subject of the Jewish religion since I have come across a website that contains the “traditions of the elders” of the Jewish religion …a.k.a. The Talmud…

Can anyone here disabuse me of the notion that the REAL heart of anti-Christ is surely found in these despicable and blasphemous writings which are the heart of Judaism(?).

Am I supposed to believe that all of these rabbis that are going about lately (like Daniel Lapin) aren’t aware of the dozens of texts (in their “holy book”) that require them to work towards the destruction of Christianity while they flatter the “religious right” with words of common cause and fellowship?

And for a final kicker: Most churches are teaching that “the Jews” are the chosen race and that supporting Israel is practically our first duty as Christians.

No Longer A Libertine: Puritan Board Senior:

[John Hagee] is one of the madmen who the Israeli government shrewdly use to lobby the “evangelical” support and tie America down in unconditional alliance with the pagan state of Israel.

I was enraged when channel surfing to discover Hagee’s banquet/telethon called “A Night to Honor Isreal” from the rafters of his congregation the Stars and Stripes and Star of David hung side by side as national anthems were sung as though they were hymns. Unadulterated idolatry.

I love my country dearly, that is why I hate to see her misused and manipulated by this power hungry scoundrel and the zionist government that has milked a culture of victimization longer and more effectively than any other people used to further the liberal political agenda, zionism is a nasty brand of social secularism combined with state worshipping far far right facism.

But ask me how I really feel.

Only in the middle east could the criminal history of Israel look ambiguous or less corrupt than her neighbors, she is lucky for such geography.

All the same I do not consider Israel an ally of the United States but a blood sucking parasite, an ungrateful bully that uses our money and military to recklessly domineer, in the name of their own preservation they have murdered many an American service men yet OUR politicians sweep it away because of the two most asinine lobbies in this country are the “Jews” and “Dispensational Evangelicals”.

Blueridge Believer: Puritan Board Professor


KMK: Moderator

I’m sorry to say that I don’t see you lasting too long in Hollywood. 🙂

He’s quoting the late great Carol A. Valentine’s expose of Talmudism, alas, the board owner decided to lock the thread before the obvious conclusions could be drawn.

I’m utterly, absolutely convinced that my ideas on a scientifically valid, biologically natal, and thoroughly European “religion” could work – within one generation. I should declare myself a minister, start marrying young White couples and provide them a place to nurture a healthy family life. In a sense I would not be starting from scratch at all, simply continuing in the traditions of the Reformers and the Enlightenment.

In America, Unitarian Universalists are richer and more educated than Jews (because they are liberal) but reject biological natalism and instead practice politically correct “spirituality.” They are the Christian version of Reform Judaism, without the ethno-nationalism that Reform Jews actually practice (all Reform Jews are Zionist and very cleverly run the faux-pro-Palestinian movement in America, to make sure it never actually succeeds.)

Give me 20 young, smart (i.e., liberal) White couples ready to start families and in 50 years I’d have a movement.

John Knox realized that Scots are clearly God’s True Elect. That’s why he made us so smart and beautiful.